Talk:Edgar Andrews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Original writer[edit]

This article was created by the Dutch publisher (the undersigned) of Edgar Andrews' latest book Who made God? after the first draft of the article was read and approved by the subject of the article himself. Readers can verify this by sending an e-mail to: info@whomadegod.org (the public e-mail address of Edgar Andrews). About the number of votes for the creationists at the Huxley Memorial Debate: some think that the speaker said that there were 150 who voted for the motion, however, if I listen very carefully to the speaker, it sounds to me that she says 115. Anyway, that is my opinion. Watch-Wiki Talk 13:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Neste Oy[edit]

As the original writer I wrote the correct name for 'Neste Oy'. The one who changed 'Oy' to 'Oil' might have thought it was a typo, but it is not. It should be and stay 'Neste Oy'. Watch-Wiki Talk 13:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case is the article Neste Oil at the wrong name? It looks right, especially as http://www.nesteoil.com/ uses "Oil" throughout. – Fayenatic London 17:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe oy or oyj is simply the Finish name for oil. Since dr. Andrews used that spelling on his own website, I did not see any reason to change it. I noticed you changed the layout of the education section to prose. I personally have no problem with that, but I thought the original layout was neatly arranged. Anyway, as long as the information is correct ... Watch-Wiki Talk 19:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a WP:Manual of Style; we either write in prose, or arrange data in structured lists or tables. The original presentation looked more like a CV than an encyclopedia article. We also use English-language terms where these are generally used in independent sources, so I changed Neste back to Oil. – Fayenatic London 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind the style, and as long as the facts are correct, I'm not protesting ;-) Watch-Wiki Talk —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The editor who may be Mr Andrews has helpfully clarified this: [1]. I now agree that that text should remain. – Fayenatic London 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ronald Numbers[edit]

I see that there is a quote from Ronald Numbers in this article, citing Edgar Andrews. In this case he is right, however, I would like to warn the readers about Number's sloppyness, and I advise readers to doublecheck the claims of Numbers, because some of them are clearly not true, and in order to prevent readers from misquoting Andrews and quoting Numbers indiscriminately, I will use one example to prove Number's sloppyness. I have made use of other authors to help me with this task:

According to Numbers, one of the founders of creationism was William Jennings Bryan. Numbers shows that the history of creationism starts with names such as William Jennings Bryan and George McCready Price. Opponents of the historicity of Genesis like to refer to Ronald Numbers' book The Creationists. It is claimed that Numbers has shown that 'young earth creationism' was invented in the early twentieth century by Seventh-Day Adventist George McCready Price. But actually this is one of the most absurd examples of historic revisionism, akin to the fairy tale that humanity used to believe that the earth is flat. It looks like Numbers doesn't know anything about the history of the period before Price and Ellen White. In the centuries before, the so called 'scriptural geologist' also expressed a belief in a young earth and a Flood. Nicholaus Steno (1638-1686) wrote in his Prodromus (1669) that the earth was about 6000 years old (following Ussher), and that sedimentary strata (with fossils in them) had deposited on the continents by the Flood. A century later Alexander Catcott (1725-1779) in his Treatise on the Deluge (1768) used geological arguments to defend the Genesis story, with a recent creation and a great Flood which created the whole geological time scale. Physicist and geologist John Woodward (1665-1722) appealed to the Flood to explain stratigraphy and fossilisation. He described this in his book Easy Toward a Natural History of the Earth (1695).

I am only sharing this example about the 'history of creationism' according to Ronald Numbers with the readers, to show that he doesn't always have his facts straight. Please be cautious when citing Numbers. So before rewriting and 'completing' the entire article, may I suggest a pause? Before you know it you are putting words in Edgar Andrews' mouth because someone misunderstood him or misquoted him. Watch-Wiki Talk 00:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is the way Wikipedia works: we verify things from independent sources. Please study the policy page WP:Verifiability if this is new to you. In particular, please see the section WP:SELFPUB for the limited cases where it is appropriate to rely on the subject himself.
In any case, the wording here is clear enough that it is stating Numbers' published conclusions. Given that Numbers is a notable commentator, we don't have to ask Mr Andrews's permission to publish Numbers' assessment of him; we just have to report Numbers accurately. I copied the information from the article Biblical Creation Society where it was added by another contributor who, while not sympathetic, gives the impression of taking great care over sources.
Citing sources who are not aligned with the subject helps to show that the subject is notable, and to build Wikipedia according to another key policy: WP:Neutral point of view. – Fayenatic London 16:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I know that in this case Numbers is right. Nothing wrong with the quote. I have read the suggested articles you mentioned, thank you for pointing that out to me. I commend you for your taking your 'job' seriously. It's just that the name 'Numbers' raised a red flag with me (notables can be wrong too) and that is what prompted me raising my concerns. Watch-Wiki Talk 20:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A. A. Griffith Medal and Prize[edit]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought the A. A. Griffith Silver Medal was awarded by the Materials Science Club of Great Britain and not by the Institute of Physics? Or perhaps the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining? See also A.A. Griffith Silver Medal. Watch-Wiki Talk 22:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, where did you get it from? I see that the editor who may be Mr Andrews changed the medal's name from Griffith to Griffiths, [2] but the IOMMM's Griffith Medal is for materials science, and named after the materials pioneer Alan Arnold Griffith. J. P. Holding's website tektonics.org mentions Edgar Andrews' A. A. Griffith Silver Medal from Materials Science Club of Great Britain, 1977, for published works on fracture, but I am not sure whether that should be taken as a reliable source, as the info probably came from Andrews himself. As for the awarding body, that Club may have been subsumed into the IOMMM (IOM3) between 1977 and now. I think on balance that the medal should be removed from this page. The phrase "Materials Science Club of Great Britain" only comes up on Google on pages about Mr Andrews, so the award does not appear to be notable. – Fayenatic London 21:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll make some inquiries. But I do wonder how you came to the conclusion that it probably wasn't that notable, especially when the IOM3 website describes the the A. A. Griffith Silver Medal as follows, using the word notable as you can see from their own description: Griffith (A A Griffith) Medal and Prize: In recognition of distinguished work that has made or is making a notable contribution to any branch of materials science. Watch-Wiki Talk 07:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


Okay, I hope this information (provided by the IMMM itself by e-mail) explains what the A. A. Griffith Medal and Prize actually means. First I'll provide some background history (also provided by the IMMM) and then I'll include a complete list of all the notable scientists who have won the prize. Many of those listed are FRS's. Fayenatic was correct in suggesting that the Materials Science Club has been absorbed into the IMMM. The award has been taken over by that institute, so it certainly has weight. The award has since been renamed as Griffith (no 's' at the end) Medal and Prize. Concerning weight, during its Material Science Club days, the medal was awarded to several notable scientists, including Sir Charles Frank FRS. The point to make is that Materials Science as an integrated discipline (as distinct from single-material studies such as metallurgy) was in its infancy in those days, and the Materials Science Club was a 'gathering place' for the new discipline. The Department Edgar created at Queen Mary (now Queen Mary University of London) was only the second such department in the UK. The first (at Bangor, N. Wales) was devoted exclusively to electrical/electronic materials, and so Edgar Andrews' Department was the first in the UK that really treated materials (such as metals, polymers, ceramics, composites etc.) in a unified manner. They were pioneering a new field of applied science in the UK and the Materials Science Club was an early and important manifestation of that fact, even though today it doesn't have an impressive resonance about its name and no longer exists. The list in the article about the A. A. Griffith Medal and Prize has been provided by the IMMM and is added simply to show how many really distinguished people won it.-Watch-Wiki Talk 22:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that Edgar Andrews is notable. Nevertheless this award may not be notable. Also, please study the policy WP:No original research; Wikipedia must be based on published information, not private sources. – Fayenatic London 12:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I will ask IOM3 about the notability of this award. When I get a reply, I will post their e-mail on this talkpage as a referrence. As for the impressive number of 55 medals and awards: this in no way suggests that any given award isn't notable. They are all seperate awards for (1) different fields of research (plastics, rubber, steel, ceramics, polymers, surface engineering, materials chemistry, biomedical materials, etc.), (2) research papers about different kinds of materials, (3) different age groups, (4) student projects, (5) educational awards ... on and on it goes. So it seems to me that you cannot conclude that a medal is not notable simply because there are 55 medals. Each medal seems to be a special award for a some special field of research or some notable contribution to materials science. This doesn't appear to be something like 'first place, second place and third place medals'. These are all seperate medals awarded for a special achievement in a seperate field of materials science. Actually, looking at all the different fields, it surprizes me there aren't over 100 medals and awards. At the moment I am also waiting for a response from IOM3 to the question for what published work or personal achievement the award was given to Edgar - I myself think its notability shows by the description itself using the words 'notable' and 'distinguished', and also based on the answer that pops up in my mind if I ask myself this question: given the notability of the distinguished scientists who received the medal and prize, do you really think IOM3 would award them with some prize that didn't mean all that much? You don't give an award to a distinguished scientist if what he has achieved doesn't mean much (in light of what he as a distinguished scientist is capable of). You don't give such people awards for underachieving. Otherwise, it all becomes a bit cheap don't you think? Just my thoughts. Anyway, if you think it is 'over the top' to mention the fact that Edgar received this medal and prize, and feel inclined to remove the mention of this award in the article until this becomes clear, go ahead.-Watch-Wiki Talk 21:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I already answered your main point: just because recipients are notable does not mean the award is notable. See this edit for a silly example. Anyway, this discussion should be continued at Talk:A. A. Griffith Medal and Prize rather than split between that page and this one. – Fayenatic London 20:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the discussion should be continued on the other talkpage; I have replied to you there. - Watch-Wiki Talk 21:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A further thought[edit]

IOM3 did not exist when the Griffith Medal was awarded to Edgar. IOM3 was created in 2002 by an amalgamation of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy and the Institute of Materials. It has a Royal Charter and its Patron is the Queen (about). The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy was itself an amalgamation of two earlier Institutions. Thus three distinct scientific and engineering disciplines have been brought together ... which explains why there is such a plethora of prizes. Furthermore, very few of these awards would have existed in 1977 when Edgar got the medal, so to argue that it is now one of many, is a fallacious anachronism. So in fact, the notability of the A. A. Griffith Medal and Prize should be decided on the notabilaty it had until 2002. And as for the period after 2002, please remember that IOM3 did not establish this prize, it took it over from a previous organization. It seems to me that the argument for naming Berkshire as the county in which Didcot is located because it was located there at the time Edgar was born, applies to this matter as well if you ask me. See also the history of the IOM3 here. - Watch-Wiki Talk 10:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Subject: A.A. Griffith Medal. A polite message from Prof. Edgar Andrews The Wikipedia page for (Sir) "Monty Finniston" states that he was awarded the Griffith Medal (by the Materials Science Club of GB) in 1975, two years before it was awarded to me. I reproduce the relevant portion of Finniston's entry here:
Sir Harold Montague "Monty" Finniston FRS[1] (1912–1991) was a British industrialist born in Glasgow, Scotland. Monty Finniston read metallurgical chemistry at the University of Glasgow, where he gained his PhD and then lectured in metallurgy. He spent the years of the Second World War in the Royal Naval Scientific Service. After the war he worked in Canada, and then was appointed Chief Metallurgist at the Atomic Energy Authority, Harwell. The years 1948-58 which he spent there were a time of rapid development of nuclear power. Finniston initiated and oversaw a wide-ranging research programme into the many metallurgical problems associated with nuclear reactor design, involving uranium fuel elements, their light alloy cladding, and reactor containment vessels. In 1958 he moved to north-east England to become Director of the Nuclear Research Centre newly founded by the Newcastle engineering firm C. A. Parsons. When enthusiasm for atomic power waned in the early 1960s, he persuaded Parsons' board to convert the Centre into International Research and Development Ltd. (IRD), a wide-ranging contract engineering research company.
He was Vice-President of the Royal Society,[1] 1971-2. He became chairman of British Steel in 1973, and was knighted in the same year. In 1975 he was awarded the A. A. Griffith Medal and Prize. If the award of the medal to such a notable person as Monty Finniston was notable enough to be highlighted in his Wikipedia entry (immediately following mention of his Vice-Presidency of the Royal Society, his chairmanship of British Steel and his kighthood), surely its award to me just two years later should be notable enough to be included in my Wikipedia page? After all, consistency is one of Wikipedia's objectives. - EHA25 (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC
Thanks Edgar. I myself added the medal to the page of Finniston, but there are several mentions of the medal on wiki's I did not add, such as on Jim Gordon's page. If it was allowed there, I don't see any problem. - Watch-Wiki Talk 16:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

The current infobox is for a 'person', I suggest changing it to the 'scientist' infobox. Watch-Wiki Talk 19:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds fine; go ahead. Note that the captions required in {{Infobox scientist}} may be different, and must match the template exactly. – Fayenatic London 21:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I added the box as you may have noticed. - Watch-Wiki Talk 16:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Didcot[edit]

I have a question. Since Didcot is now in Oxfordshire, and no longer in Berkshire, shouldn't it be 'Didcot, Oxfordshire' instead of 'Didcot, Berkshire'? Or do you have to go back in time as it were and present the facts as they were in 1932? Watch-Wiki Talk 15:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Where borders have changed, I think we state the county/country (etc) of birth. It may be Mr Andrews who made that edit: [3]Fayenatic London 20:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)