Talk:Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac

Charles's Law or Gay-Lussac's Law?
No...

In 1802, Gay-Lussac first formulated the law that a gas expands linearly with a fixed pressure and rising temperature (usually better known as Charles's Law). Maybe "should be better known as Charles's Law" or "In Britain better known as yotta yotta", but I've always heard it called Gay-Lussac's Law. This site is the first time I've heard about it being Charles's law instead. So in that sense I agree with "No."--T. Anthony 04:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * See also http://www.chemheritage.org/classroom/chemach/gases/gay-lussac.html for comparison, a trustworthy source explaining why both names are correct. (I didn't post the wiki article part in question). Interesting point though! I beleive this as a matter of national pride in the 1800's - a British name vs a French name... -- Carboxen 06:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I might've actually been confusing it with Gay-Lussac's law -- T. Anthony 07:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought he formulated Charles' Law in 1802 (Jacques Charles just described, but Gay-Lussac derived the formula P/V=k). This law in 1802 is sometimes called Gay-Lussac's law, or the Law of Charles and Gay-Lussac. This law relates pressure and volume. In 1808 he made a formula relating pressure and temperature (P/T=k), this is Gay-Lussac's law. He did not discover a formula relating pressure and temperature in 1802, to the best of my knowledge. Please correct me if i'm wrong. -- Nandvijay 07:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Illegal Drugs?
Is the part about illegal drugs vandalism? - 03:20, 26 January 2006 (IP 24.185.212.101)


 * That's what I was wondering. While it's the sort of thing a chemist would do, he wasn't a biochemist and it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Ace of Sevens 05:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I traced this back and it was introduced December 4th by an anonymous user who had made no other edits under that IP. I changed it back to the previous version. Ace of Sevens 03:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac? Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac?
According to the interwikis, there are two different spellings for his name, which are Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac and Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac. Which one is correct? --­ (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac - Claimed atheism as stated fact?
Adding individuals to atheism category may be in violation of several WP rules and guidelines

One source by some Ramesh Chopra in his so called Academic Dictionary Of Philosophy book. When reading the book in Google books he states an opinion that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources WP:DIVERSE. Worts of all he does not have any footnotes or sources that directly indicates if he is just mirroring or asserting it himself WP:YESPOV, WP:CRYSTAL. Categories regarding beliefs or sexual or even orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question WP:BLPCAT.

Statements and claims presented as a fact must be backed by balanced, certified and strong unequivocal research and scholarship with the help of multiple sources. Loose claims here and there are just opinions and does not amount to an fair and balanced view. Varying authors can be be used as a source for presenting an opinion for such and such, but it is still not to be deemed authoritative and conclusive.

Multiple sources and scholarly consensus must be the main aim when something is stated as a reasonable fact. Otherwise we are deceiving.


 * PLEASE OBSERVE THE FOLLOWING


 * WP:BLPCAT - Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question


 * WP:CHERRY fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject,  a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to  be bold and trim off excessive biased content


 * WP:EXCEPTIONAL - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources


 * WP:SCICON The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.


 * WP:FRINGE -A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article


 * WP:YESPOV Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.


 * WP:WEIGHT -Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.


 * WP:YESPOV -Avoid stating opinions as facts


 * WP:NOR -Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)


 * PS


 * These may be furthermore of use


 * WP:NOTOPINION -Opinion pieces, although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes".
 * WP:NOTRELIABLE - Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional
 * WP:ASSERT When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution.
 * WP:SYN :Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.


 * Thank you and hope to make Wikipedia a better place!


 * Pgarret (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Gas law reference
I have added an image of the pressure-temperature gas law to illustrate one of his main claims to fame. It has been deleted twice and I fail to see why. There is already an image of a hot air balloon which Ga-Lussac used at one point so to say that refs to his scientific work cannot be used is contradicted by the image. 81.153.242.58 (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see the need for four images in an article so short. It clutters up the page and the image in question is about the law not the person.  I don't think that Materialscientist objected to having images that reference his work entirely, and the balloon does contain the subject.  Regards, Crazynast 21:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

But the law is named after him: surely some significance for the reader? 81.153.242.58 (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)