Talk:William Smith (geologist)

Untitled
I'll be working on Mr. Smith - all are specifically invited to join in.

bob

I reduced the claim about first geological map as Robert Townson produced a map of Hungary in 1779 titled: New Map of Hungary, particularly its Rivers and natural Productions. It used colours to indicate different rock types such as granite, micaceous Schist, schist, limestone, sandstone, calcareous tufaporphyry and tuff. GB 12:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * rather 1797 than 1779 ? I get 1797 from, anyway it change nothing as the first Smith's map was from 1799. - phe 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Tucking Mill House
Note that the house picture is not smith's house...check out book Simon Winchester, The Map That Changed the World: William Smith and the Birth of Modern Geology, (2001), New York: HarperCollins, ISBN 0-14-028039-1

Smith's house is actually another one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.86.14 (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that look like the right house, Tucking Mill Cottages as said by Winchester is not the right house, a bit at east there is another house which is the one on this image, see showing Tucking Mill Cottages and at east the right house, the roof and the entrance are recognizable.  - phe 17:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Errm, you're right, that's not the correct house, see Stop 9. Tucking Mill or - phe 09:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed the photo and caption for the correct house, per the information in Winchester's book, pp. 103-104. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I had made the initial comment here. Winchester's book is an excellent read! EGREGORY7380 (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Ed

His map
I have added a pic of a map based closely on smiths map and a pic of his fossils. Peterlewis (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to work of John Strachey (geologist)
Should there be more in the article on his debt to the work of John Strachey (geologist) as described here?&mdash; Rod talk 10:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

New edits from Yorkshire
Hi, I'm a new editor based at yorkshire museum were we are doing some new research into William Smith. We've started with an upload of a high resolution map (see right) and more should be coming soon. Looking forward to working with you all! NicolaOates (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

First edition map found
this BBC article almost certainly contains a bunch of info to expand/reference the article. EdwardLane (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on William Smith (geologist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080310201732/http://www.geolsoc.org.uk:80/gsl/geoscientist/features/page1017.html to http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/page1017.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Сomplete bibliography

 * Smith W. Plan of proposed Somersetshire Coal Canal. London: J. Carry, 1794. 1 p.
 * Smith W. Plan of proposed deviation of Somersetshire Coal Canal. London: J. Carry, 1794. 1 p.
 * Smith W. A map of five miles round the City of Bath. Scale: 1,5 inch to a mile. Bath: A. Taylor & W. Meyler, 1799. 1 p.
 * Smith W. Aсcurate delineation and descriptions of the natural order of the various strata that are found in different parts of England and Wales, with practical observation thereon: Prospectus of work. London: B. M’Millan, 1801. 4 p.
 * Smith W. Mode of improving Boggy Land and account of the nine acres of Water-Meadow on Prisley farm near Fletwick, Westoning and Tingrith in Bedfordshire: Plan of a Water Meadow made out of a Bog on Prisley farm // Trans. Soc. Arts. 1805. N 23. P. 148-172.
 * Smith W. Plan of a Water-Meadow of nine acres made out of a bog at Prisley farm belonging to His Grace the Duke of Bedford // Communications to the Board of Agriculture. 1805. N 4. P. 341: pl.
 * Smith W. Observation on the utility, form and management of Water-Meadow, and the draining and irrigating of peat bogs, with an account of Prisley Bog, and other extraordinary improvements, conducted for His Grace the Duke of Bedford, Thomas William Coke, Esq. M.P. and others. London: R.M. Bacon, 1806. 121 p.
 * Smith W. Strata of England and Wales: [Letter to the editor of Agricultural Magazine, 5 Jul. 1806] // Agric. Mag. 1806. Ser. 2. N 1. P. 21-22.
 * Smith W. The improvement of boggy land by irrigation, as carried into effect // J. Natural Philosophy. 1806. Vol. 15. P. 302-312.
 * Smith W. Description of Norfolk, its soil and substrata. Norwich: [s.n.], 1807. [8], 56 p.
 * Smith W. Bath-Easton Coal company: [Report. Bath. 7 March, 1808]. Bath: T.M. Cruttwell, 1808. 2 p.
 * Smith W., Martin E. Bristol and Taunton Canal: Reports of Mr. William Smith and Mr. Martin, on the state of the collieries at and near Nailsea. Bristol: [s.n.], 1811. 8 p.
 * Smith W. [The Board of Agriculture sanction Map of the strata]. London, 1814. 1 p.
 * Smith W. A delineation of the strata of England and Wales, with parts of Scotland; exhibiting the collieries and mines, the marshes and fen lands originally overflowed by the sea, and the varieties of soil according to the variations in the substrata, illustrated by the most descriptive names by William Smith. Scale: 1 inch to 5 miles: [1 Aug. 1815]. London: J. Cary, 1815. 16 p.; 2nd ed. 1820. 16 p.; 3rd ed. 1824. 16 p.; 4th ed. 1827. 16 p.
 * Smith W. A memoir to the map and delineation of the strata of England and Wales with part of Scotland by William Smith, engineer and mineral surveyor: [1 Aug. 1815]. London: J. Cary, 1815. XI, 51 p.; Idem [Limited facsimile edition. 1 Aug. 2015]. Leeds: Hollingworth & Moss Ltd., 2015. VI, 26, IX, 51 p.
 * Smith W. [Submission of Mineralogical map for an award to the Society for Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce: 8 Feb. 1815] // Trans. Soc. Arts. 1815. N 33. P. 51-60.
 * Smith W. Strata identified by organized fossils, containing prints on colored paper of the most characteristic specimens in each stratum: [1 June 1816]. London: W. Arding [Sherwood, Neely, and Jones, and Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown]. 1816. 24 p.
 * Smith W. Geological table of British organized fossils, which identify the course and continuity of the strata in their order of superposition; as originally discovered by W. Smith, civil engineer, with reference to his geological map of England and Wales. London: J. Cary, 1817. 1 p.
 * Smith W. Geological section from London to Snowdon, showing the varieties of the strata, and the correct altitudes of the hills. London: J. Cary, 1817. 1 p.
 * Smith W. Section of strata, North Wilts. London: J. Cary, 1817. 1 p.
 * Smith W. Strata south of London dipping northwards. London: J. Cary, 1817. 1 p.
 * Smith W. Stratigraphical system of organized fossils, with reference to the specimens of the original geological collection in the British Museum: explaining their state of preservation and their use in identifying the British strata. London: E. Williams, 1817. xi, 118 p.
 * Smith W. Geology of England: Mr. Wm Smith claims: [Lithograph pamphlet]. London: [s.n.], 1818. 14 p.
 * Smith W. Mr. Smith’s Report on the State of Monmouth: [10 Feb. 1818]. Health: [s.n.], 1818. 14 p.
 * Smith W. Statement of facts: [Letter to the Committee of Management for the Diss Navigation. 4 Apr. 1818] // Benefits of an improvement in the navigation of the river Waveney: [Printed pamphlet]. Norfolk: [s.n.]. P. 4-11.
 * Smith W. Report on the Plan for draining the Low Ground north and south of the river Went, berween the rivers Aire and Dun, in conjunction with the proposed Aire and Dun canal, and Went branch: [12 Sept. 1818]. Pontefract: W. Hunt, 1818. 10 p.
 * Smith W. A new Geological Atlas of England and Wales (Part the first) containing maps of Kent, Sussex, Norfolk, and Wilts; showing the variety of strata, collieries, mines, etc.: 6 pts. London: J. Cary: Pt. 1. Maps of Norfolk, Kent, Wiltshire, and Sussex. 1819. 4 p.; Pt. 2. Gloucestershire, Berkshire, Surrey and Suffolk. 1819. 4 p.; Pt. 3. Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Essex. 1820. 4 p.; Pt. 4. p.; Pt. 5. Yorkshire. 1821. 4 p.; Pt. 5. Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Huntingdonshire and Rutland. 1821 (1822). 4 p.; Pt. 6. Cumberland, Durham, Northumberland and Westmoreland. 1824. 4 p.
 * Smith W. Geological view and sections: [Surry; Essex and Hertfordshire; Norfolk and Suffolk; Hampshire and Wiltshire to Bath; Dorsetshire and Somersetshire]. London: J. Cary, 1819.
 * Smith W. A new geological map of England and Wales, with the inland navigations; exhibiting the districts of coal and other sites of mineral tonnage. Scale: 1 inch to 15 miles. London: J. Cary, 1820. 1 p.
 * Smith W. [Syllabus of lectures given in Hull]. Hull: Hull Literary and Philosophical Soc., 1824. 4 p.
 * Smith W. Syllabus of lectures on geology. [s.n.], 1824. 3 p.
 * Smith W., Phillips J. Syllabus of lectures on geology in the Town-Hall, Scarbough. Scarbough: J. Cole, 1824. 4 p.
 * Smith W., Phillips J. Syllabus of 9 lectures in geology. Sheffield: Sheffield Literary and Philosophical Soc., 1825. 4 p.
 * Smith W. On retaining water in the rocks for summer use by Mr. William Smith, engineer, M.Y.P.S.: [Read to Yorkshire Phil. Soc. 6 Mar. 1827] // Phil. Mag. 1827. N 1. P. 415.
 * Smith W. Bed of coal at Robin Hood’s Bay // The Whitby Repository. 1830. N 6. P. 370-372.
 * Smith W. A synopsis of geological phenomena. Oxford: S. Collingwood, 1832. 1 p.
 * Smith W. Stratification in Hackness hills. Scale: 1 inch to 6.5 miles. London: W. Day, 1832. 1 p.
 * Smith W. Deductions from established facts in geology relating to the crust of the globe, its former associated beings, concomitant events and superficial Changes. Scarborough: C. Todd, 1835. 1 p.
 * Smith W. Coal finding // Mag. Nat. Hist. 1837. N 1. P. 645-647.
 * Smith W. Practical distinction in minerals // Ibid. P. 386-387.
 * Smith W. On the variations in the quantity of rain which falls in different parts of the Earth // 8th Meeting of the British Association: [Newcastle. 1838]: Trans. 1838. P. 27-28.
 * Barry C., Beche de la H.T., Smith W., Smith C.H. Report of the commissioners appointed to visit the quarries and to enquire into the qualities of the stone to be used in building the New Houses of Parliament: [16 March, 1839] // Parliamentary Papers. 1839. N 30. P. 523-569.

We need a complete list. Please check and add what I miss. Thank you, --Ivtorov (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Nationwide
"Nationwide" can doubtless be improved, but changing that to "Great Britain" is just incorrect. Only a small part of Scotland was included. SpinningSpark 18:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "Nationwide" (in "credited with creating the first nationwide geological map" in the first paragraph of this artcle) is definitely problematic, actually incorrect, because nationwide means "in all parts of a country". The country in 1815 was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The geological mapping of Ireland and northern Scotland are not included in Smith's map, therefore "nationwide" is unjustified. "Nationwide" is more incorrect than "Great Britain" because "nationwide" (as of 1815) should include the entire island of Ireland but "Great Britain" excludes the entire island of Ireland, by definition. (Both terms should include nothern Scotland.)


 * One possible solution could be to change the mention of the map in this article's Introduction paragraph to be the same as, or close to, the phrasing I created in the article's Publication and disappointment section: "the first geological map of most of Great Britain". This has the advantages that it (a) excludes Ireland because that is not part of Great Britain and (b) "most of Great Britain" is accurate because northern Scotland is a relatively small part of Great Britain. An alternative wording could be the accurate and unambiguous "the first geological map of England, Wales and southern Scotland" - I very much prefer this latter alternative. GeoWriter (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 'Britain' was fine. Maybe Great Britain in the wl'ed first occurrence. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This was the first geological map anywhere on a national scale right? I think it's more important to get that point across than precision over the  exact bounds.  I am reading nationwide as a general term, whereas GeoWriter is reading it as UK-centric.  Perhaps a compromise could be "first geological map of a country"? SpinningSpark 13:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * William Maclure's geological map of the United States of America, which was published in 1809, 6 years before Smith's British map, shows the geology of the United States east of the Mississippi River; it covers about half of the area of that country at the time of publication (although the half of the USA that was not geologically mapped was the then very newly acquired territory of Louisiana that was purchased from France in 1803, during Maclure's mapping). The USA geological map covers an area of about 2,000,000 km2 and it is at a very small scale (1 to 4,942,080). Smith's map covers a very much smaller area, of only about 190,000 km2, and has a much larger scale (1 to 316,800), showing finer detail.


 * "Nationwide" depends on what one means by "nation" and/or "country". Neither of these maps cover an entire nation/country in the sovereign state/stict sense, but both maps cover parts of sovereign states which have distinct culural identities and some devolved powers which could be described as a country or nation (in the broad/loose sense) but it is often subjective - many people claim of course England is a country while also claiming of course Kentucky is not a country. The fact that Smith mapped the small countries of England and Wales in their entirety needs to be put in proportion - Smith mapped these two very small countries while/after Maclure mapped an area of the USA that was more than ten times larger. (The area covered by Smith's map would put it at position 87 in the list of present-day country areas). I think the achievement of Smith is his detailed mapping of many thousands of square kilometres at a large scale (a point already made as "Smith's was the first geological map covering such a large area in detail" in the Publication and disappointment section of this article), not the point that it was or wasn't an "entire country"/nationwide. (I suspect that the first person to create a nationwide geological map of an entire country was possibly someone who mapped a microstate such as Monaco, but is that going to win any prizes as a huge pioneering contribution to science?) GeoWriter (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maclure's map is very crude (see this for instance) in comparison to Smith's. I still think the scope and scale of Smith's map should be highlighted in the lead, rather than concentrating on its Britishness. That is surely wnat he is notable for, not that he happened to be operating in Britain. SpinningSpark 17:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It was inevitable that Maclure's map would be less detailed than Smith's. If they were on the same scale, Maclure's original map would have had to have been about 30 metres across. GeoWriter (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's even cruder than the postage stamp sized navigation map on the Columbia University site I linked, and much cruder than the zoomed in views. The size of that map if it were all on one sheet would only be about two metres across by my reckoning. Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * At the risk of going off topic, but to correct earlier errors, as far as Maclure's map size is concerned, the dimensions of his 1809 map are 54 cm x 43 cm - seen here: . The dimensions of William's Smith's 1815 map are 260 cm x 180 cm - seen here: at a scale of 3.168 km per cm. The east-west distance covered by Maclure's map is about 2,900 km, which would need a map sheet 915 cm wide at Smith's scale, so both our earlier estimates were wrong (I had mixed up my metric and imperial units - 915 cm being 30 feet not 30 metres that I wrote earler). I think this size comparison with Smith's scale shows that Maclure could probably never have found a publisher for such a large map even if he had been capable of doing all the mapping to support it. The large size of his country worked against him. GeoWriter (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The estimate I made is not wrong. I was talking about the King and Beikman map I linked, not Maclure's.  My point is, the K&B navigation map is only about 12x7 cm, yet has hugely more detail than Maclure's much larger map.  Just look at Florida and Georgia, for instance.  On the Maclure map they are uniformly yellow everywhere.  The K&B postage stamp shows at least four different formations, and the zoomed in view shows this high level of detail.  I stand by my original statement.  Maclure's map is crude however you cut it, even taking into account its scale. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood your comment about the map size - I thought you were referring to Maclure's map size. I agree that Maclure's map is crude. I'll go further and say that Maclure's map is very crude in and of itself but also very crude compared to Smith's map. Is the only point that you are making with the USGS map on a Columbia University web page that small maps can include extra detail? Such a point is true, but this detailed map content is only available due to 200 years of extra field work that has occurred in the USA since Maclure's map. Smith's map is also not as detailed as the smaller 1969 BGS geological map of the UK, with its extra 150 years of fieldwork data - particularly north Wales, the Lake District and southern Scotland.
 * Addressing your suggestion: "first geological map of a country" - As you already pointed out by reverting my edit of 25 November, Smith's map is not the whole of Great Britain (nor the whole of the UK of course, so he did not (fully) map the country UK). If we accept that England, Wales and Scotland are countries, then Smith mapped about $2 1/3$ countries. "A country" would then seem to be selling Smith's achievement short. I think most reliable sources would state that Smith's map is the first geological map of Britain (which we already agree is inaccurate if we expect Britain to actually mean all of Great Britain not just most of it). I would expect most reliable sources have probably resisted making claims about first country.
 * I recommend moving away from emphasis on countries and nationwide, and move towards quantified areas, e.g. a Natural History Museum web page states that Smith's map covers "more than 175,000 km2". This happens to be "about the size of Florida", which could be included as a size-contextual note for our North American readers. GeoWriter (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia's Geology article, Smith's map is described as "William Smith's geologic map of England, Wales, and southern Scotland. Completed in 1815, it was the second national-scale geologic map, and by far the most accurate of its time." with a source reference Winchester, Simon (2002). The map that changed the world: William Smith and the birth of modern geology. New York: Perennial. ISBN 978-0-06-093180-3. GeoWriter (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Awickert (who inserted that citation), do you have a page number? It's quite hard to find where it says this is the second map without it.  However, on page xvi of the Prologue, I'm seeing Smith's 1815 map described as "...the first true geological map of anywhere in the world", which would seem to contradict the statement.  <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 00:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've found it; gbooks returns a hit for the claim on page 13, but the snippet is insufficient to see what it says. The snippet from gbooks appears on page 7 of my copy so either it has been repaginated or gbooks got the page wrong (this is why you should always use the ISBN actually printed in the book and those wikignomes running around using gbooks to "correct" ISBNs are actually causing damage).  Here is what it says about Smith's 1815 map ...the first large-scale national geological map.  The passage is mostly talking about the 1819 publication of the second volume of Smith's Geological Atlas of England and Wales (a book strangely omitted from our article, especially as the source calls it ...one of the most profoundly important books ever made.)  Assuming that the source has not been misused, it may have been a misreading since the Atlas is discussed first and only the publisher (Cary) is mentioned in regard to it, possibly leading to the (erroneous) conclusion that Cary is the mapmaker and predated Smith. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 09:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A History of the Taylor Family
You removed this source on the grounds that the Taylor's are unrelated to Smith. Richard Cowling Taylor, according to this book, was a pupil of Smith and himself an important geologist. I have no access to the book, but it undoubtedly contains information on Smith, and may well have been used as a source for the article. I'm inclined to restore it on those grounds unless there is further reason for its removal. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On further investigation, I take that back. The ref was inserted here by an IP editor to back up a dubious genealogical claim that was removed a couple of years later.  Together with the self-published nature of the book, it doesn't belong. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just going to point that out, but the IP proceeded to make several additional changes, most long removed. The ones that remain are edits to the lede summarizing well-documented material in the body, and the claim that he was orphaned and raised by his uncle.  Made in sequence, it is theoretically possible that the Taylor reference applied to this statement as well.  In the intervening 12 years, this sentence has become, with the age and the name of the uncle being additions, so presumably there is some other source for this more detailed account.  However, I have a concern, and that is that I found a statement "left an orphan at eight years old to the care of his uncle, William Smith", but it was referring to John Phillips being raised by our subject, not our subject by his own uncle.  It is possible that they both were orphaned at 8 and raised by an uncle named William Smith, but this seems like quite a coincidence, and I have to wonder if maybe we didn't somehow get the wrong end of the stick here.  I think rather than adding the Taylor ref back just in case it supports this fact, that instead we remove the claim until it can be independently verified, and then we can then cite that source rather than the obscure Taylor history. Agricolae (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Information from an SPS, inserted by an editor with an apparent POV to push, should not be trusted. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I found the 'Wm Smith raised by uncle Wm' bit in Winchester, so I will be referencing it to that. There will thus be nothing in the article dependent on the Taylor book. Agricolae (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

bias
Is this article accurate? Is the writing of Winchester so far off ? Smith was largely a victim of his own making. However, this article seems focused on making Smith a derelict ~ The truth always lay somewhere in the middle - this Wiki article is biased, and this isn't it. 170.144.228.30 (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)