Talk:Lord Kelvin

Nationality again (April 2023)
The multiple discussions on what to label his nationality in the lede need to be resolved. I suggest saying "British" but adding an explanatory footnote elaborating that he is Irish and Scottish, and will collectively be referred to as British. Thoughts?

Pinging participants of former discussions: @Centuryofconfusion @Donn300 @Gpinkerton @Sandstable @Dirac66 @Interpuncts @DeFacto @Philip Trueman BhamBoi (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly see the need to expand beyond 'British' with immediacy within the lead, and think it would look sloppy if attempted. #Early life and work is the place for this. · | (t - c) 14:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would leave it alone. "... a British mathematician, mathematical physicist and engineer born in Belfast." is true and summarizes the facts.Dirac66 (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No replies for 14 days - it seems that the status quo is settled. · | (t - c) 10:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why leave out Irish only for this one person when so many other Irish contemporaries even on Wikipedia are listed as Irish? JamPowWex (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In order to declare the nationality of British as settled I think it is only correct to remove Scottish from Alexander Graham Bell and all other contemporary scientists of the time. Equally remove English and Welsh as nationality from all scientists on Wikipedia and have only British as a nationality for all three countries (and for Ireland between 1801 and 1922). I make this point as an extreme example because Kelvin is one of extremely few examples I have found of Wikipedia where his nationality is deliberately obscured in this way. It's not logically consistent to engage in such linguistic gymnastics to say he was born in Belfast but is not Irish when the same effort is not made for other scientists and notable figures of the time. JamPowWex (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As evidence I've selected a random contemporary scientist. Look how much more clearly and sensibly his nationality description and his place of birth and death is to read.
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell JamPowWex (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @JamPowWex, how other people's nationality is treated in other articles is outside the scope of this talkpage. All we need to concentrate on here is what we know about Kelvin from the reliably sourced biographies concentrating on him. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. Consistency is vital. All of Kelvin's contemporaries born in Ireland are listed as Irish unless there is a record of the change to another nationality. The onus is on you to prove that he was not Irish. In the absence of good evidence either way he should be treated like any other person. For example Ernest Rutherford, listed as New Zealand when New Zealand was a British colony, moved to Canada after his education there and finished out his career and died in England. Unless you can provide a good argument why Maxwell is Scottish and Rutherford is a New Zealander but Kelvin is not Irish when all three would have been contemporaneous and entitled to British citizenship then it is absurd to pick this one individual and say he be treated differently. JamPowWex (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Sir William Thomson, Baron Kelvin by T. & R. Annan & Sons.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 26, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-06-26. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. (200th anniversary of his birth) If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs. 04:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Succession-Box At Bottom
I thought that there was some "bot" that went through Wikipedia articles and found inconsistencies. It is the USUAL practice in Wikipedia articles about peers/nobles that their peerage/noble title is included in the succession-boxes so that someone can QUICKLY track the route of the title from person to person. I can't do that here, because the succession-box doesn't include "Baron Kelvin" (or, if it's atypical, "Baron OF Kelvin"). Why isn't that title included in the succession-boxes in this case, and why isn't its absence AUTOMATICALLY called to the attention of some person? I'm going to have to search this article itself to find out what happened to the title when this man died.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
 * After reading the article (something I shouldn't have had to do), I find that this man's title "Baron Kelvin" died with him, but the curious statement that it's because he had neither children nor close relations. So, apparently, this title was conferred with an atypical remainder such that absent "legitimate [heirs][male heirs] of the body", it could be inherited by, say, a brother and the brother's descendants or male-line descendants, etc.. That is done of course, (the Dukedom of Wellington was engineered to lower the probability that it would ever become extinct), but if it was done in this case, then say so. Spell it out. Also, the article says he was enobled as much for his opposition to Irish Home Rule as for science. Could that be fleshed out a bit, such as by including the text of the royal action? I've done a word-search on this article for "Irish", "Ireland", and "Home Rule" and I can't find anything about him opposing Irish Home Rule.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson


 * As it says in the infobox, he had no children so he was the first and last. --Cavrdg (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're only telling that if I take the time to look elsewhere in the article then I could find what I SHOULD have been able to find by an instantaneous down-scroll to the end and check of the succession-boxes. You've done nothing to convince me that the absence of the "Baron Kelvin" title is in accordance with some Wikipedia rule. (And I don't think it IS in accordance with the rules, and if there IS some rule for this article to be allowed to be inconsistent with other articles about peers, then what is that rule and how soon can it be repealed?)2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
 * I just read through what I think you mean by "info-box", and all that it says there is that he had no children. Not only is that not as fast as a quick end-scroll to the bottom, but it's not dispositive of the issue. It DOES NOT say (as you allege) that because he had no children he was the end of the line for this title. All it says is that he had no children, which doesn't settle it. If the title had been granted with an atypical succession, such as allows inheritance through other relatives, his having had no children wouldn't cause the title to die with him. And the article contradicts that anyway, because the article says "His title died with him, as he was survived by neither heirs nor close relations", which implies that his title could have been inherited by someone other than a child had such existed. If the grant of the title provided for a succession ONLY to his children, and he had no children, then that would cause the title to go extinct, and the sentence I quoted would have said (assuming a desire for accuracy which I'm probably a fool to assume) "His title died with him, as he was survived by no children".2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

"The first British scientist to be elevated to the House of Lords"
I cannot think of a counter-example, but the citation claiming to support this statement (a Britannia article) does not seem to make this claim. Can we find a reference? Beware of sources that derived their information from this Wikipedia article. Second, I wonder why there is the qualification of "British" here. Was there some foreign scientist who earlier had been elevated to the (British) House of Lords? Or can we remove the "British"? JMCHutchinson (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's in ODNB, quite specifically "the first" (and without any "British" qualification). Done.AntientNestor (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The term scientist was coined by Whewell in 1833. The House of Lords included George Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll, from 1847, and from 1852 he served as Lord Privy Seal. He was also a scientist (or man of science) and became president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1855. He was still prominent and active in 1892 when Kelvin was elevated to the House of Lords, but of course Argyll inherited the title rather than being elevated as a scientist. . .dave souza, talk 06:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)