Talk:James Clerk Maxwell/Archive 1

featured article candidate
Some things holding back this article from featured article status: I do not ask that all of these be changed, but the level of subjectivity now present must definitely be reduced. -- Emsworth 01:48, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)''
 * 1. It would appear from the title "Later years and afterwards" that the section would relate not only to the last years of Mr Maxwell's life, but also to his lasting legacy and events occurring after his death. Nevertheless, a mere sentence relating to his literary works concerning him appears. Thus, the "Later years and afterwards" section warrants expansion.
 * 2. In the "Early Years" section, the following sentence appears: "The family name Maxwell was adopted by the terms of a legal requirement made upon his father to inherit an estate." The sentence's structure is awkward; furthermore, it does not mention whose estate is to be inherited (an individual from Clerk's maternal family, perhaps?). I would suggest something such as: "When Clerk inherited the estate of name (his relation), he adopted the latter's surname, as was required by the will," or words to the same effect.
 * 3. The article uses single quotation marks instead of double quotation marks.
 * 4. The article contains many unexplained names and terms, such as "elastic solids," "oscillating electric charge," "the progressive condensation of a purely gaseous nebula," "temporary double refraction produced in viscous liquids by shearing stress," and so on. Such phrases are unintelligible to those not well-educated in science. At a minimum, links to articles on such topics should be placed, if not a minor explanation.
 * 5. Unlinked names, including "Herapth, Joule, and particularly Clausius," "Faraday," and several others, appear. Not only should links be provided, but also should one use full names for first references.
 * 6. Several passages appear opinionated (possibly being from the 1911 Britannica): for instance, "valuable papers," "original and powerful essay," "a man whose knowledge was co-extensive with his ingenuity," "most profound admiration and attention," "the ideas of that master," "great treatise," "admirable generalized co-ordinate system," "munificent founder," "distinguished alumni," "excellent elementary treatise" and "great contributions."

(Contested -- Jul 4) James Clerk Maxwell
Good article with a good deal of information on his life and discoveries.--Alsocal 20:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote, but the image needs source/licensing information (probably PD as he died before 1923). anthony (see warning)
 * It's a photo. No way it's not PD - David Gerard 21:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I've marked the photo PD (can't not be) and have added several more - David Gerard 22:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * There are many ways this could not be PD, but whatever. anthony (see warning)
 * Can I second this having worked on it? If so, second. - David Gerard 21:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I oppose this nomination: 1. It would appear from the title "Later years and afterwards" that the section would relate not only to the last years of Mr Maxwell's life, but also to his lasting legacy and events occurring after his death. Nevertheless, a mere sentence relating to his literary works concerning him appears. Thus, the "Later years and afterwards" section warrants expansion. 2. In the "Early Years" section, the following sentence appears: "The family name Maxwell was adopted by the terms of a legal requirement made upon his father to inherit an estate." The sentence's structure is awkward; furthermore, it does not mention whose estate is to be inherited (an individual from Clerk's maternal family, perhaps?). I would suggest something such as: "When Clerk inherited the estate of name (his relation), he adopted the latter's surname, as was required by the will," or words to the same effect. 3. The article uses single quotation marks instead of double quotation marks. 4. The article contains many unexplained names and terms, such as "elastic solids," "oscillating electric charge," "the progressive condensation of a purely gaseous nebula," "temporary double refraction produced in viscous liquids by shearing stress," and so on. Such phrases are unintelligible to those not well-educated in science. At a minimum, links to articles on such topics should be placed, if not a minor explanation. 5. Unlinked names, including "Herapth, Joule, and particularly Clausius," "Faraday," and several others, appear. Not only should links be provided, but also should one use full names for first references. 6. Several passages appear opinionated (possibly being from the 1911 Britannica): for instance, "valuable papers," "original and powerful essay," "a man whose knowledge was co-extensive with his ingenuity," "most profound admiration and attention," "the ideas of that master," "great treatise," "admirable generalized co-ordinate system," "munificent founder," "distinguished alumni," "excellent elementary treatise" and "great contributions." I do not ask that all of these be changed, but the level of subjectivity now present must definitely be reduced. -- Emsworth 01:48, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of James Clerk Maxwell
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  15:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured article status
Hey Folks,

Having just finished this round of university exams, I have decided to take this article under my wing so to speak, and attempt to bring it to FA status. It is my hope that others will help in this pursuit. It is also not my intention to step on anyones toes with my sweeping changes (see WP:BOLD), so let me know if I am and we can collaborate together on a sandbox.

All the best! - 02:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Great! I'm glad to hear it.  I'll try to help more at a later time, but for now, one quick suggestion: In the intro, it speaks of Maxwell being the first to describe electricity and magnetism in a unified and concise fashion.  This is only half true.  Maxwell's own equations were not particularly concise; the modern, greatly simplified form came later with the work of Josiah Willard Gibbs and Oliver Heaviside.  We use Gibbs' notation today, although Heaviside achieved more or less the same result independently.  See Bruce Hunt's The Maxwellians (among other sources), if you haven't already.--ragesoss 03:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll try and rewrite it a bit to make it correct. Best! -- 04:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversy about what Maxwell actually did/discovered in electromagnetism
''The great problem was that Maxwell produced his equations, then Hertz claimed to have confirmed Maxwell's prediction. When Planck and Bohr later showed that Maxwell's equations were definitely faulty, it was too late to re-examine the theory as the physics has already been dumped (Maxwell had a false aetherial gear cog and idler wheel 'displacement current' mechanism). So Maxwell's equations were labelled classical physics instead of being corrected.'' from Nigel cooks website. Why is this not discussed on the page? --Light current 06:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no controversy; the “spinning cell” (atom) / “idle wheels” (electrons) model was a conceptual mechanical-like model of how the electrical field lines, magnetic field lines, and currents could operated the way they do in terms of spins, centripetal force, pressures, and tensions. The model is quite ingenious, I must say.  Read the following book:




 * Adios:--Sadi Carnot 16:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's quite amazing the number of people who criticize Maxwell's cogwheel/idle wheel model, yet when cross questioned to elaborate, they expose the fact that they know absolutely nothing whatsoever about it. Often they will quote the famous Pierre Duhem error. But it was actually Pierre Duhem himself who made the error when he alleged that Maxwell cheated. Pierre Duhem alleged that at equation 132 in Maxwell's 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force' ( http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf ) that Maxwell should have introduced a factor of 1/2 inside the square root sign on the right hand side. Duhem alleged that this factor of 1/2 is needed to account for the dispersion of light. However, we know today that a ray of light is extremely coherent. It was Duhem himself that was in error, and not Maxwell.

If the Pierre Duhem error is the best criticism that can be mustered against Maxwell's 1861 paper after all these years, then there can't be much wrong with it. It is actually quite an ingenious piece of work and much neglected in modern physics. David Tombe 4th February 2007 (124.217.42.163 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

Repeated image
The main image is repeated further down the page. Would it be sensible to remove the second one or replace it?--MichaelMaggs 07:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now removed it.--MichaelMaggs 12:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Biographical queries
Hello everyone. I've just looked at this article for the first time and done some style-tweaking. Having looked over the text I'm wondering if anyone could resolve the following queries.


 * (a) Are Perception of Colour and Colour-Blindness titles of monographs or areas of study? It's not clear from the way the article is written.
 * (b) How might studying at Edinburgh rather than Cambridge have improved JCM's prospects?
 * (c) Does 'in his eighteenth year' mean when JCM was seventeen or when he was eighteen? I only ask because this formulation is misused all the time.

That's it. Regards to all. Notreallydavid 04:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

quaternion equations
I looked at James Clerk Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" 1873 First Edition. I could not find the "linked set of twenty differential equations in quaternions". Where are these quaternions?

Please respond to:

dcliffordlee@hotmail.com

James Clerk Maxwell ... a set of twenty differential equations in quaternions. ... Oliver Heaviside enormously reduced the complexity of Maxwell's forty quaternion equations ...

20 or 40 ? Need to go back to the book. It was 8.

--DavidCary 13:35, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are eight original Maxwell's equations in his 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field'. They are numbered A to H and they are discussed in this article http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf which includes web links to both Maxwell's 1861 paper and his 1864 paper. When people talk about twenty equations it is only because they are multiplying six of them by three in order to have a separate equation for each of the X, Y, and Z directions. David Tombe 4th February 2007 (124.217.42.163 10:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

Yes, there were eight equations. You can make it twenty if you like simply by splitting six of them into their three cartesian coordinates. But it's a bit like saying that Newton had nine laws of motion, ie. three laws in the X-direction, three laws in the Y-direction, and three laws in the Z-direction. (222.126.43.98 19:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

older entries
Upon arriving at Cambridge University, he was told there would be a compulsory 6am church service (now discontinued, fortunately!) He stroked his beard thoughtfully, and slowly pronounced, in a thick Scots Brogue?, "Aye, I suppose I could stay up that late""
 * I wish all the biographies could be as humanizing as this one!

I think it should be mentioned at least in the introductory paragraph that James c.Maxwell took the first permanent colour photo. Honestly i think that is at least worth a mention. It'd also be fantastic to actually have a replication of it on here, but hey.. [2007]

Citation needed?
I don't think you need a citation for this line:

"His contributions to physics are considered by many to be of the same magnitude as those of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein."

This is common knowledge, and the next line goes like this:

"...Einstein described Maxwell's work as the "most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton."" [2007]

Cambridge?
The sentence in the introduction "The majority of Maxwell's illustrious career took place at the University of Cambridge..." doesn't seem to be bourne out by the rest of the article. The history of Maxwell's life seems to be that he took his degree at Cambridge and didn't return to it again until he took up the Cavendish professorship eight years prior to his death, by which time virtually all of his major contributions had been made. Certainly his most famous discoveries, Maxwell's Equations and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution were published while he was at Kings College, London.

It looks to me like this sentence is inaccurate and should be removed.--Robminchin 08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As nobody spoke up in a week, I have now done this --Robminchin 02:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

regarding 'formulated'
I changed 'formulated' to 'aggregated', as this is more accurate. While there may have been no mathematical equations for Faraday's work at the time, Gauss of course developed mathematical equations. --ElectronicsEnthusiast 09:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement under Later Years that Maxwell was the first to make explicit use of dimensional analysis is incorrect. Please see Joseph Fourier's Analytical Theory of Heat published in 1822. In the English translation the relevant part is in Chap 2, section 9 in the Alexander Freeman translation published by GE Stechert.[A. David Wunsch] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.107.179 (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Knighthood
Apparently Mr. Maxwell wasn't knighted. Is this true, and if so, why? LorenzoB 01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Text Damage
In he section on Kinetic Energy, the section ends rather abruptly with the phrase: In the kinetic theory, temperatures and heat invol

I don't know of a way to search back versions based on specific text, so it's not easy to tell how long ago this truncation occurred, but I presume it must have made sense at one time. I mention it here and leave it in more capable hands. Jeepien (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting this. It had been vandalised back on 31 January. I've restored it now. &mdash; BillC talk 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

FA collaboration
There seemed interest in driving this article forward to FA status. It certainly would be to Wikipedia's benefit: Maxwell is one of the most important scientists ever, and the state this article has been in does not credit the project.

As far as sources, I have access to (i.e. own copies of) Mahon's The Man Who Changed Everything, Tolstoy's James Clerk Maxwell, Glazebrook's James Clerk Maxwell and Modern Physics (1896, so clearly out of date, but useful for contemporary references) and Campbell's The Life of James Clerk Maxwell (excellent work, though Campbell was a lifetime friend of Maxwell, so its partiality should be treated with a little caution at times). I also have Britannia's 4000-word entry, the Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Harman's thoroughly detailed entry in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and an interesting 20-page piece on Maxwell's character that appeared in Mathematics Today in 2002. I also have more than a few electromagnetic textbooks around that can support that side of Maxwell's work, though I currently have very little on his mathematics, physical chemistry or control theory work. &mdash; BillC talk 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The structure I've been working to was: a fairly lengthy biography section, dealing with Maxwell's major places of education or employment, followed by a major contributions section, dealing with his work on electromagnetism, physical chemistry, control theory, and statistical physics. A legacy/impact section would roll up the article. &mdash; BillC talk 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

regarding correlations between religious beliefs and scientific discovery
Hasn't Faraday's Glasite heritage been connected to his initial discoveries of magnetism in the form of circular fields? After all, the Glasite's considered circles as inherently sacred and spiritual. I believe the material can be found in Five Equations that Changed the World by Michael Guilen. If such a thing holds true, then it may be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.166.248 (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Such a view seems to be that of a very small minority. I can find no reference to that on the web, in Google Books, or Google Scholar, nor can I find a mention in the biographical Michael Faraday and the Electrical Century. But more importantly, this is an article about Maxwell, not Faraday. &mdash; BillC talk 23:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Propose to merge the Great papers of james clerk maxwell into this article. Beagel (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support – It looks like an odd and orphaned article. I did fix its capitalization problem though. Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support – I frankly had never noticed the Great Papers article before today. It is too short to merit independent existence, and will be much more useful if merged with the Contributions section of this article. Dirac66 (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I agree with the above, and think it would be particularly good to have the Maxwell equations in the main article (cf. Newton's Laws of motion, for example). A.C. Norman (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly support bringing that material in here: but it does have problems. The four Maxwell's Laws, for example are written in the vector differential form. While this is the form in which they are familiar and are taught today, this is not the manner they were set out in Maxwell's papers, but were rather recast by Heaviside and Gibbs some years after Maxwell's death. &mdash; BillC talk 22:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the problem of historically anachronistic notation is a flaw in the Great Papers article, which could be rewritten to mention both the historical notation and the modern form, or perhaps refer the latter to the article on Maxwell's equations. This could be done whether or not that article is merged into this one. Note also that the problem is not unique to Maxwell's article; the article on Isaac Newton expresses Newton's laws in vector form, which Newton certainly did not use in the 17th century. Dirac66 (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A late vote for support, but what to do with all of the text in "On Physical Lines of Force - 1861"? It would seem out of place in the article about Maxwell the person, and the Maxwell's equations article already seems comprehensive.  (It also seems out of place in a section about Maxwell's 1861 paper, as noted above!)  Maybe remove it entirely?  Djr32 (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment (I've already !voted above) - Right, there seems to be good consensus here, and this has been open for 3 months (!) - let's do it. A.C. Norman (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge from article
Sir James Clerk, 7th Bt seems to be an article about this person, which includes several references, that may be of help in information regarding religion. Can somebody knowledgeable take any relevant materials from that article and then propose it for deletion? Rigadoun (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a textdump from here, and I've deleted it. If anyone wants to use that material to improve this article, do feel free, but it looks potentially quite polemic - I'd recommend confirming it against the quoted sources! Shimgray | talk | 23:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Marriage and children, etc.
He was a very important person to physics and the article lacks a great deal of his personal life. What kind of man was he? 71.86.152.127 (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

According to an article in Physics World biography of Maxwell-I had to sign in with a free account to view it PhysicsWorld, his wife was very important to his work. She did most of the experimental work on viscosity. He died of pancreatic cancer and his wife had become and invalid. Einstein quoted when someone remarked, "You have done great things but you stand on Newton's shoulders." His reply was, "No, I stand on Maxwell's shoulders. Some sources claimed his religious beliefs had him opposing Darwin (I didn't trace the sources) and this would be a context to put the Christianity section into.  There are sources out there that have bias and unsupported conclusion but a good reliable source would be quotations from Maxwell's notes/diary.  Sorry this is as much time that I can spend on this.  71.86.152.127 (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

opening section
"Einstein kept a photograph of Maxwell on his study wall, alongside pictures of Michael Faraday and Newton." Why would that be in the opening section? Seems more like triva to me, his influence has been mentioned. Same goes for Faraday's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.78.248 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
What is the correct pronunciation of Mr. Maxwell's middle name? LorenzoB 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I did a Google search and didn't find too much; I did, however, get this, though it's probably not at all related to your question. I've been told that Maxwell's middle name is pronounced as if it were 'Clark'. Qwerty (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's definitely pronounced "Clark". That's because the word "clerk" in British English is routinely pronounced to rhyme with "dark", whereas in America it is pronounced to rhyme with "jerk".  Jeepien (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was looking to see if this had been discussed, because I think maybe a pronuciation guide should be added, as this is not intuitive to Americans.
 * Of course you could argue that Americans ought to pronounce it the same way they pronounce the common noun clerk. You wouldn't expect them to affect a British accent just because they're talking about a British person.  I'm not saying that's how I'd personally argue, just that it's a borderline case. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've heard any literate Americans mispronounce it so, though I don't doubt it must happen sometimes. Some (less literate) ones have been known to misspell it as "Clark", however. Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm an American and consider myself to be literate. I'm also reasonably knowledgeable with regard to physics (I wouldn't be considered more than a layman, however).  Indeed, I've pronounced it such that it rhymes with "jerk" my entire life.  It was only by hearing a reference to Maxwell during an episode of (the consistently accurate) television show: "The Big Bang Theory" that I had any indication that I was mispronouncing it.  I wrote to the show's technical director to ask what I was missing and he kindly explained my pronunciation mistake to me.  In my case, a correct pronunciation on this page would have helped. Super_C (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Color photography challenged
Apparently Maxwell's claim to color photography was rather more questionable than he realised, according to a recent blog post by Ctein on Michael Johnston's "The Online Photographer" blog. 

Ctein is a well-known expert on color printing and probably knows what he's talking about. Fundamentally, the position advanced in the post is that since Maxwell's photographic emulsion was not panchromatic and did not have sensitivity at all in the yellow and red ranges, it's impossible for it to have sensed anything in those ranges no matter what filters were used. Instead, Ctein argues, the red filter also passed near-ultraviolet, which the emulsion was also sensitive to, and as a fortunate coincidence the red dye used on the ribbon was also very reflective in the near-UV range.

In other words, Maxwell got the result he was expecting and thus did not question it. His emulsion's complete blindness to red light was unknown to him.

I've written to Ctein asking for his sources, since I'd rather work from the originals if I can get them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just so as not to leave this dangling and sewing doubts among those who may come across it: Ctein, by his own admission, had not read the 1961 Scientific American article he was echoing at second or third hand. The contemporary published transcript of Maxwell's lecture makes it plain that he was well-aware of the shortcomings of the demonstration, although probably not of just how insensitive to red the collodion iodide wet plates used by Thomas Sutton (who did the actual photography) really were. The 1961 study itself involves at least one very debatable assumption and its findings are almost inevitably misreported in overly definitive terms, e.g., the ribbon was not available for analysis, so it was impossible to make the sort of definite statement about it which is found above. Blogs are not a reliable source for anything except the blogger's own perceptions and opinions, although they sometimes provide very valuable links or directions to more solid source material. AVarchaeologist (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about Thomas Sutton reference
I have a question about the reference to Thomas Sutton having made the photographs for Maxwell's 3-color photography demonstration. It has been several years since I read a transcript of Maxwell's report of the experiment, but I don't recall a mention of Sutton making the plates. I'm not challenging the accuracy of this; I just didn't recall it or didn't know it, and I would like to know the source of the Sutton information. It's actually of some consequence, because of questions about the color sensitivity of the plates (see my discussion at http://www.greatreality.com/ColorDidMKnow.htm).

Because this article's history is so long, and I've done very little editing on Wikipedia, I wasn't readily able to learn who submitted the Sutton reference. I would appreciate knowing the source of that information, if that's possible. Please contact me via muser@ecentral.com. (At some time, I do intend to add a few lines about the color sensitivity issue to this article.) Thanks, J. C. Adamson


 * http://notesonphotographs.org/index.php?title=%22The_Theory_of_the_Primary_Colours.%22_The_British_Journal_of_Photography,_August_9,_1861 includes an account of the lecture and of Sutton's role as the photographer. Substantial treatments of the matter in photographic histories, e.g., E. J. Wall's classic History of Three-Color Photography (1925, reprinted by Focal Press in 1970), usually make at least passing mention of the fact that Sutton did the photography, but less scholarly reports tend to be sloppy and say that Maxwell "took" the "first color photograph". Photography was a messy, hands-on business in 1861. One didn't leave exposed plates -- flexible film had yet to be invented -- at the corner drug store ("the chemist's" to readers of the British persuasion) for developing and printing, and I have yet to encounter any evidence that Maxwell himself ever took a photograph of any kind.


 * It is not even certain that including this demonstration among the projected presentations at the lecture was Maxwell's idea. It is possible that Sutton had become enthused by learning of the thought-experiment Maxwell had included in his 1855 paper and was the one most interested in making a practical trial of it. The 1861 volume of Sutton's own publication Photographic Notes, which might shed light on that and other matters, is nearly inaccessible except in the form of the enlightening quotation from it included in the British Journal of Photography article (the mystifying mention of "the Notes" in that article is a reference to Sutton's periodical). AVarchaeologist (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Statue -- a pic would be nice
A picture of the prominent new statue of Clerk Maxwell on Edinburgh's George Street would be a nice addition, perhaps illustrating the "legacy" section, if any Wikipedian in or near Edinburgh is reading this. The angle of this photograph on Flickr is nice, though it's "all rights reserved", so as things stand we couldn't use it. Jheald (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Katherine
Katherine did experimental work on viscosity. How much more did she take on in his lab? 97.85.163.245 (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * She doesn't have her own page yet she played an huge part in this very important physicists life including nursing him back from near death of small pox. A little more detail about her would be appropriate. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits by User talk:92.20.237.7
User talk:92.20.237.7 recently made a change to the article that 1) was unusual (Scottish->British), and he didn't seem to care that this is not usually done in Wikipedia without better reasons than the ones he provided, and 2) actually broke the reference list by not using the template properly and changing the text to a phrase that is incorrect English (incompletely copied from the EB page not on JCM, but on some other page that references him with the more generic "British". Let's discuss it here and have other editor give their opinions, rather than start an WP:edit war. Nczempin (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

His original paper about ovals
His original paper about ovals was called Observations on Circumscribed Figures Having a Plurality of Foci, and Radii of Various Proportions and can be partially read on-line at:

http://books.google.com.br/books?id=zfM8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=Observations+on+Circumscribed+Figures+Having+a+Plurality+of+Foci,+and+Radii+of+Various+Proportions&source=bl&ots=kldlqFc5U6&sig=rfOWmhqX-3JCtECw5yCxEzYzzec&hl=pt-BR#v=onepage&q=Observations%20on%20Circumscribed%20Figures%20Having%20a%20Plurality%20of%20Foci%2C%20and%20Radii%20of%20Various%20Proportions&f=false

The other was the one modified by Forbes. Ariel C.M.K. (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you propose your exact change here so we can discuss it? --John (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I edited the article, but it was reverted. They were discovered independently by Maxwell, and his work also presented simpler constructions. It was original, he didn't copy from others. To say it was not original may mean "not preceding all others in time" or "uncreative, uninventive" (which certainly is not the case here) or that is was a copy of an original work (not the case here too). The word original is used in many languages and in some it's almost always used to mean "creative" or "not a copy" (but I don't know how it is in English). I suggest making it clear that it was not a copy of Descartes' work about the ovals (since Wikipedia is read by people from all over the world — also I think that in English it can have the meaning I told too): to make clear that Maxwell didn't know Descartes' work at that time! Maybe change to that it was not "pioneer" or something like "Maxwell was not the first to discover them".


 * Also, by reading the article one can't know the name of the original article written by Maxwell (not the one with modifications and remarks by Forbes).


 * This is my last post. My English isn't good enough to discuss here. Ariel C.M.K. (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Clan Maxwell
Is he part of the Clan Maxwell family? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Improvement
It looks ghastly with all these tags. I will be able to fill in a few, but somebody with the books in the bibliography could look up some of the references quickly and neatly, and fast track it to GA or FA status. The first half is superb, but the second half needs a lot of work. Jamesx12345 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments on referencing
Also
 * Timoshenko 1983 is not in the Bibliography
 * Arianrhod 2006 is in the Bibliography but isn't cited
 * Publications in the Bibliography are normally listed in alphabetical order by first author
 * The title of Eyges 1972 should be in title case
 * Titles of papers published in scientific journal are normally written in sentence case: see Notes 69, 78, 81, 87, 90 etc. (journal titles are in title case).
 * "retrieved by" is not required for printed publications and adds unnecessary clutter
 * Most FAs only provide links to google books when a Preview Full view is available. ie links are only provided to old books for which the copyright has expired.
 * Note 82 should not be in caps
 * The publisher is missing for Cropper 2004 cited in Note 88.
 * Probably better to express 6.07 km2 as 607 ha Aa77zz (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Christianity section reads a little strangely
The section on Maxwell's belief seems rather odd - as if someone had claimed he was an atheist and the section is refuting it; I'd imagine that most people of mid-nineteenth century Britain were Christian - or am I missing something?! Apepper (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's quite whacky that way. I suggest you read the cited sources and fix it.  Or look at the history to see when the sources were added, by whom, in support of what, and see if someone mangled it since then.  Dicklyon (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll start thinking about how it could be phrased; my first thought is to retitle the section "Religious Belief", essentially say he was brought up as a Christian and maintained his faith throughout his life - assuming the citations bear that out. Apepper (talk)


 * Yes, I would certainly welcome a rewrite. Maxwell was a devout Christian, and this is attested to by his various biographers. It does not seem to have intruded into his work. &mdash; BillC talk 17:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... to say it did "not seem to have intruded into his work" is extremely misleading. His beliefs characterized his work, In his own words:I think Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable of." (Campbell and Garnett, Life of Maxwell, 404–5.) - Logan


 * And on page 96 he is found explaining how Christianity alone seemed to afford the ability to scrutinise reality unhindered by the bounds of superstition. In other words, Christianity affords this since it specifically does not impose restrictions on investigations, rather than influences the directions or methods of investigation. That being said, he did address the concept of the "creation" of atoms as falling outside of the purview of science, though this is probably not a result of his theological beliefs but rather the knowledge of physics at that time.Ninahexan (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Christianity was not something merely incidental in Maxwell. His religious belief thus deserves more attention. The sophism seems to be this: Maxwell was a scientist of the absolutely highest order. Religion is something foreign to the scientific spirit. Therefore his religion is not important to his biography. This represents an intrusion of a prejudice. Another similar figure in this respect is Bernard Riemann. Absolutely important to the development of both science and mathematics in the twentieth and tweny-first centuries and a profoundly devout Christian. In both cases the religious aspect does belong to the biography. The question of whether and how religious faith influences the scientific work remains open.Cklc (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Creationist
Why not mention that James Clerk Maxwell was actually a creationist? http://creation.com/great-creation-scientists-james-clerk-maxwell --41.15.65.42 (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote that's meant to refute biological evolution doesn't. In context ( http://www.victorianweb.org/science/maxwell/molecules.html ) it's clear he's talking about the creation of matter, not of life. Creation.com is not a reliable source, and our article does make it clear he was a Christian, which is all we can actually say. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Images relating to James Clerk Maxwell
I have uploaded the following images (all taken during the Maxwell Year 2006 celebrations on the 175th anniversary of his birth) to Wikimedia Commons:

I will leave it to other editors to determine if the use of any of these is appropriate in this article. FF-UK (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)