Talk:Jethro Tull (agriculturist)

Death date

The comment at the end about his death date is based on a misunderstanding. At the time when he died, the English year number changed towards the end of March. Thus, a man who was buried on March 9, 1740, by contemporary reckoning, would have died in 1741 by ours.

David Harley

Comment now removed. MalcolmGould (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I see. I knew about the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars, but I didn't realize (until I read the "Old Style dates" article) that "Old Style" could also mean not starting the new year until March 25th. The Julian/Gregorian change only shifted eighteenth-century dates by a fortnight or so, so it couldn't reconcile a burial date in March with a death date the next year. But the "annunciation style" vs. "circumcision style" change can. I just put a "dubious" tag on the article, because the date discussion seemed wrong. Now that I understand it, I'm taking that tag back out. TypoBoy (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a statement that the date on Tull's gravestone, 9 March 1740, is equivalent to 20 March 1741 by the modern calendar. The carving differs from modern reckoning because of both the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar and the change to starting the year on 1 January instead of 25 March. (From "annunciation style" to "circumcision style".) These two changes collectively form the distinction between Old Style and New Style dates. A stonemason who inscribed "9 March 1740" would have written "25 March 1741" to mean a date two weeks and two days later. That date in the Julian Calendar is equivalent to 20 March 1741.

The Julian-to-Gregorian conversion can be confirmed with the date converter at http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/ That's an External Link on the Old Style page. Can I cite that site? How?

That site doesn't handle the 1-January-versus-25-March distinction. The more Anglocentric site at http://people.albion.edu/imacinnes/calendar/Old_%26_New_Style_Dates.html does handle it -- with a note at the top telling the user that it might be necessary to add a year for dates before 25 March.

Someone must have edited this again as the article currently say 1740, not 1741 so it is still confusing. I think a better clarification of the start date for the year is needed in the section rather than requiring the reader to follow the wikilink. Nyth63 21:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Gravestone picture

Geograph has a picture of his grave here http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1825198

4wd (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 4wd

Invented?

The article seed drill claims:

"The Sumerians used primitive single-tube seed drills around 1,500 BCE, but the invention never reached Europe. Multi-tube seed drills were invented by the Chinese in the 2nd century BCE. [...] The first known European seed drill was invented by Camillo Torello and patented by the Venetian Senate in 1566. A seed drill with a detailed description is known from Tadeo Cavalina of Bologna in 1602.[1] In England, the seed drill was further refined by Jethro Tull in 1701 in the Industrial Revolution. It is often thought that the seed drill was introduced in Europe following contacts with China, where the invention was very ancient and highly developed."

In short, if I am to believe seed drill, Tull merely improved the device, long after its initial introduction into Europe, and it was around in China and Sumeria long before that. This article makes it look like Tull invented the idea from scratch and is misleading. So I modified it. Dcoetzee 18:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Tull's improvements are significant because they lead to the wide-spread adoption of the seed-drill in Britain, i.e. he effectively introduced the technology into Britain (where it seems it was not widely used before, possibly because it didn't make enough difference, without his improvements, to be worthwhile). Given that "invent" (from the latin "to bring in") originally meant "introduce the technology" (in a given realm), it wasn't so far wrong to say he invented it. All the same, the "improve" wording is better, especially for modern audiences. (One could quibble about "perfected" in the opening: if anyone ever improved it after him, it clearly wasn't yet perfect !) Thanks for cross-checking with the seed drill article ;^) 84.215.6.238 (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Where is it?

I'm still looking for an on-line copy of The Horse-hoeing Husbandry. Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC) The good folks at Penn State have provided a link:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Tull%2c%20Jethro%2c%201674%2d1741 Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Paternal Appellation

I notice the article refers to his father as "Jethro Tull, Sr." The junior/senior styling, 'though common in modern US usage, is not in general use in Britain (although I can't say whether it was at the time). My understanding is that, even if it were, it'd be inappropriate if his father was also called Jethro Tull; do we know ? Is it really an appropriate way to refer to his father in this article ? What conventions are followed in similar cases elsewhere in this wiki ? 84.215.6.238 (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC) he was a very bad scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.27.46 (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2015

Jethro Tull (agriculturist) → Jethro Tull – Not sure who's more notable, but there's only two subjects, so one has to take priority. Either the agriculturist or the band named after him. Unreal7 (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: That's simply not true – there is no rule that says that one article must "take priority" in a WP:TWODABS situation. An article should only be placed as primary if one of them properly meets the criteria for WP:PRIMARY status. Please re-read the guidelines. Also, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of readers are primarily interested in the band. The first page and a half of my Bing search results (with search history disabled) are about the band. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Unreal7 why does one have to take priority? Why not just leave both with clarification? GregKaye 08:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• It absolutely should be the case that one takes primary topic; it's ridiculous to inconvenience 100% of our readers instead of 50%. Oppose this one, however, since the band seems a bit more likely a search target. Red Slash 04:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There are only two topics. One is a standard encyclopedia topic, the other is not. So this case is very simple and straightforward. I assume the guideline was written in the expectation that it would apply to at least some articles. Man from Nephew (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose a classic 50/50 WP:TWODABS In ictu oculi (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, history students can handle a bit of relevant rock education, pot-head Tull fans will probably finds the extra click too much to cope with:) Chienlit (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This is an encyclopedia. The more important Jethro Tull should be the more prominent. (And what else is the benefit of a rock band stealing your name if won't bring people to your Wikipedia page?) 216.8.170.184 (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we may apply either of two criteria: "usage" and "long-term significance." I interpret the usage criteria as, "Which article gets more page views?" This is obviously the band. (Compare page views here and here.) I interpret "long-term significance" as "Which article is more likely to appear in a print encyclopedia?" Britannica has an entry for the agriculturalist, but not for the band. There is no suggestion in the guideline that the two criteria should be balanced off against each other. The disambiguation page is not primary by either criteria. In short, it's better to inconvenience 79 percent of readers than 100 percent. Man from Nephew (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, neither has to take priority per others above, but if it did then the band article clearly gets more traffic. PC78 (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. If we can't get even a rough consensus on which is the primary topic, then that's good evidence that there is no primary topic, and that seems to be the case here. We should put that principle in the guidelines somewhere. Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • !Votes are supposed to be arguments concerning the merits of the proposal. You are posing as spokesman for the consensus, which I find inappropriate. I'd be happy to support either article for primary topic. I gather that this is a reason to dismiss my vote, at least in your mind. The issue in this RM is DAB vs article. The long-term significance criteria was added to make it easier to make subjects of academic interest primary. DAB pages are obviously not of academic interest. That the criteria ends up being used for DAB mongering is a screwy result. Man from Nephew (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • See my response below. Andrewa (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Reply

From the poll above:

!Votes are supposed to be arguments concerning the merits of the proposal. Agree, but I'm afraid still think mine is exactly that. It may be that the rules aren't perfect when applied to this case, in which case I'm appealing to WP:IAR. That's what I was trying to say, but obviously not clearly enough.

You are posing as spokesman for the consensus, which I find inappropriate. No, I'm not posing as anything, and I find this personal attack inappropriate too.

Agree that I am assessing consensus. Do you dispute my assessment? Do you think it's irrelevant?

I'd be happy to support either article for primary topic. I gather that this is a reason to dismiss my vote, at least in your mind. Again, that's not what I was trying to say, and that's another personal attack.

The issue in this RM is DAB vs article. Agree.

The long-term significance criteria was added to make it easier to make subjects of academic interest primary. Disagree that this was the only reason.

DAB pages are obviously not of academic interest. That the criteria ends up being used for DAB mongering is a screwy result. I can make no sense of this whatsoever, sorry. Andrewa (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Academic interest

This is sufficiently interesting that I'm putting it in its own subsection.

There seems to be an assumption above that the agriculturist is of academic interest, and the band not so or less so. The first possibility, that the band is of no interest, is IMO simply false, the band is of great interest to students of 20th century music. The second, that the band is of significantly less interest, is hard to assess. The agriculturist may be of greater interest (or not) but both are of great importance in their respective fields.

It appears to be true that Brittanica has no article in Jethro Tull the band, while they do on the Beatles, the Moody Blues, etc.. But they don't have an article on dioxane either, in fact unlike Jethro Tull (the band), who appear in their article on Art Rock, they don't seem to mention it at all in the online version (previous printed versions appear to have done so). I think this tells us something about Britannica but nothing about either chemistry or music, academic or otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)