Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Kohler (author, inventor)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Shi meru  17:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fred Kohler (author, inventor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable person. The article claims that he "appears to be the first" to write about the "human superorganism" as an evolutionary step, however, there does not appear to be any evidence that he was the first, or that his writing influenced any other thinking in this direction. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Smacks of a memorial. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Upon further review, I find 101 holdings of Kohler's 1952 book listed on WorldCat, complete with several scholarly reviews. Notability as an author on that basis. The article needs some work in terms of style, but seeing this is a first effort of a new editor, keep under "Ignore All Rules" (i.e. "Use Common Sense") and "Don't Bite the Noobs." Carrite (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The following comment is copied from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Fred Kohler (author, inventor)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I have enjoyed Wikipedia for sometime, this is my first article that I have attempted to add. The attempted deletion seems to be based on Kohler being non-notable. That his book "Evolution and Human Destiny" (1952) cannot 'prove' that he was the first person to put into print the concept of our human species becoming a superorganism. One cannot prove a negative. It is possible that sometime at a later date a reference will be discovered which contains an earlier reference by someone else. As of now, and it will probably always be true, he is the first person to put this major idea into print. The idea is currently a well respected idea and googling the term, which can be used as either one or two words, brings up over 300 references mostly all within the last 25 years. If this idea or concept is as important as I think it is, as the earliest reference, or at least the earliest know reference, it is important. It must have some importance because there has been an article in the wikipedia on it since 2003.


 * Point Two. There is no question that the polyswitch or resettable fuse is an important component of the modern industrial world. If it were not there would not be an article on the wikipedia about the polyswitch. There is also no question whatsoever that Mr. Fred Kohler patented the material that is the sine qua non of the polyswitch on March 29, 1966 patent # 3,243,753 and a google of the patent number lists over 30 references to Mr. Kohler as the inventor of this patent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosoxman (talk • contribs)


 * Comment There is no doubt that the concept of the superorganism is notable. There is doubt that Kohler (a chemical engineer with no special training in philosophy or biology) had any influence on any other thinking regarding this concept.  And while the polyswitch may be a handy little device in many applications, no evidence has been given that, other than the patent (which the USPTO hands out with alarming liberality), any recognition has come to Kohler from that invention.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I contacted Fred Kohler to ask if he wished to weigh in on the breadth of his original idea of the superorganism, on which he published in 1952 in "Evolution and Human Destiny". He has given me permission to publish his email from the noted author, researcher, and academic Dr. Alison Jolly, with which I will conclude this contribution.  It is true that Kohler's BA from Cooper Union in 1942 was in chemical engineering; however, chemical engineering was critical in Kohler's insightful thought processes to develop the concept.  In "Evolution and Human Destiny" the superorganism is the end process of human evolution which Kohler explains was in an early stages when molecules began self-replicating which then followed several more evolutionary steps bringing humankind to its modern state with the superorganism about to be formed in the near future (as written in 1950-1952).  Being a chemical engineer helped devise the conceptual theory which is now a standard of accepted scientific thought.  Also, to me, the argument that one must be a biologist to author this concept smacks of those dissing that country bumpkin Shakespeare for knowing 'little Latin and less Greek'.  In any event, whether properly trained or not, the book and its contents were published in 1952.

On the 'handy little devise' known as the polyswitch, a google of the patent number brings up 30 scientific articles that mention who the inventor was as listed in the patent. Mr. Kohler holds many patents but this one is just the most significant. The importance of the devices and their applications are unassailable.

Dr. Jolly has been familiar with "Evolution and Human Destiny" for over a decade. Here is here email to Fred Kohler.

From: alisonjolly To: fred Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 4:53 AM Subject: Re: essay concerning "Evol. & Human Destiny"

Dear Fred Kohler, Thank you very much indeed for sending on your fascinating essay. I do indeed agree with you about the evolution of the human + technology super-organism. (You already know that). And you can take pride in being the first to point out the power of the idea in evolutionary context. I do like your word "extropy". It also sets one thinking, when you point out that science fiction writers are quite happy to play with technological change, but don't usually dare to tackle the mental changes that will be coming as we more and more join with the super-organism. We happen to have had a teenager with us for the past year (son of my close Malagasy colleague.)  His world is very largely Facebook--he didn't actually lose touch with his circle of friends when he left Madagascar for England, because they already all exist within cyberspace. Your perspective as a 90 year old, and your thoughts on death and the future are inspiring to those of us who are merely 70. Congratulations both on reaching 90, and on writing so well about the human condition. Best wishes, Alison Jolly

Signed: Bosoxman. Whereas this is my first article for inclusion please forgive any rookie misunderstandings. 3:36 Eastern DT 8-9-2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosoxman (talk • contribs) 07:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * His work did get reviewed at the time Soil Science Feb 1953 but very little seems to show up. His patent does have some impact with 85 citations.--Salix (talk): 22:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ~ Qwerp  ♫ ♪ ツ  00:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Keep It definetly needs expansion, but it fits under point #2 of WP:AUTHOR. JeremyMcClean (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:AUTHOR #2 states that an author is notable if "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." (Emphasis added) Although Kohler conceived of a superorganism earlier than others, it does not appear that he has been recognized for that contribution.  No subsequent authors appear to have referenced Kohler's work when creating their own concept of the superorganism.  Is it unfair that his early work has been overlooked?  Perhaps.  But it is not the job of Wikipedia to grant recognition where none has existed.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

dELETE Sorry But I have had difficulty establishing noitability. Much of the articel included unsourced claims or weasle words (suchg as appears to be).Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have worked over the article for style. It looks better. If the polyswitch invention can be confirmed, that seems a more than sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Carrite's assessment of the viability of this article hinges on the significance of the polyswitch invention. How significant does an achievement have to be to be considered "notable". Kohler's polyswitch is a handy application of a phenomenon that had already been well known but little utilized for 20 years prior to his patent (see ).  The fact that the patent is cited by "30 scientific articles" as noted by Bosoxman above may seem significant, but is 30 citations really a significant number?  And are the citations themselves signficant, or are they mere mentions in passing of a device that makes use of a particularly interesting physical phenomenon?  Most of the articles I have found that reference the patent are not freely available, so I am unable to gauge the extent of their references, but they are mostly articles about the physical phenomenon of a positive resistivity temperature coefficient exhibited by thermoplastic materials embedded with conductive particles.  Kohler's invention takes advantage of this phenomenon, and the articles may mention that in passing, or they may examine it in depth.  But 30 citations (in 40 years) does not seem to be a "signficant" contribution.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think in this instance one could make a case of "borderline notability" in both the fields of philosophy and scientific invention. Are those two things additive? I don't know that. It's close one way or the other, and I would argue that the keep is justified in this very peculiar situation. Carrite (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article still reads a bit like a fan site and may need to be heavily edited, but that is not a reason to delete. As with many articles on Wiki, more sources would of course be welcome. VQuakr (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The main article mentions that the book "Evolution and Human Destiny" can be found through the "Internet Archives", but I would recommend anyone wanting to see or read the book to go to the alternate source of the Open Library , the open library seems more handy, there are 6 ways to arrange the print (including Kindle) and a link to "Evolution and Human Destiny: Reflections of the author sixty years after the book was Written".  As a small point of significance, the Open Library's copy which is used as a template was presented to the Marine Biology Library of Woods Hole by "Dr. Geo Wald Harvard University. The late Dr.George Wald was Higgins Professor of Biology at Harvard and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1967.  Kohler's book was published by the Philosophical Library which had relatively small runs but was at the cutting edge of intellectual thought.

It is true that polymer resistors were theorized around WWII but no practical solution or material was known before Kohler's patent in 1966. If it had not been for Kohler's discovery, the unique electrical properties covered by patent 3,243,753 my never have been discovered. Without doubt, lithium ion cells would have been invented, however, using known material with thermistic properties would make the batteries far more costly and far less safe from explosions. Kohler is universally recognized within the field as the discoverer of the material even if he did not personally benefit from the discovery. His substance, which is greatly used as a component in modern electronic applications has saved many lives and prevented many injuries because it immediately and quietly disables machinery when dangerous power surges appears and then automatically resets when the current stabilizes to the pre-set parameters of acceptable flow. At this time I do not have the patent numbers but the material was successfully patented not only in the U.S., but also in several other countries with more difficult criteria e.g. Japan, Germany, and the U.K.

I would also like to add my opinion that a person who has made two distinct and unrelated advances to human thought and development, that this is not merely additive but rather synergistic, such as the Brothers Grimm with their advances in the development of the German Language coupled with their field work preserving Fairy Tales, and Ignacy Paderewski who was not only the Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland during the difficult negotiations at Versailles following WWI, but also known for his compositions and virtuosity at the piano.Bosoxman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.175.185 (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.