Talk:James Jeans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:James Hopwood Jeans)
Jump to: navigation, search


What about Sir James Jeans' 1943 work, Physics and Philosophy, which is still considered a significant and relevant means of bridging the gap between the two fields. Is it possible to insert anything on this work?

Fair use rationale for Image:JAMES jeans 1933.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:JAMES jeans 1933.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeans criterion[edit]

many physics textbooks refer to Jeans criterion, as do many webpages. Should not this somehow be incorporated into this article in some fashion? Elmsgrover (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Three editors (Miskaton, 2PeterElls, and supported retaining the sections that had been removed. They acknowledged that although the sections need work, the article is better off with the content. Two editors (Pincrete and DrkBlueXG) recommended discussion before opening an RfC. DrkBlueXG recommended improving the sourcing of the "Idealism" section.

Cunard (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think that this edit, while it removed sections that certainly needed work, has done more harm than good. I would strongly suggest that the material be put back as it is fairly important to understanding the man's lasting impact. -Miskaton (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Miskaton and have therefore reinstated the Idealism section. It would be good to have a proper reference for the Observer quotation. Also, in the final paragraph, I'm not sure if JJ is expressing his own views, or speculative views, or is just commenting on someone else's views. After all, according to the article he is an agnostic. Peter Ells (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@2PeterElls, Miskaton, and Solomon7968: hey guys, i noticed that User:Solomon7968 tried removing the idealism section, and didn't see any obvious discussion before removal. given that this removal has been attempted before, don't you guys think it's best we sort out the issues to prevent any further miscommunication? (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks IP for pinging me to this discussion. And others, edit summaries are there for a reason, learn to use them as most editors don't check talk pages before editing an article. Solomon7968 20:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment An RfC is meant to ask a specific question AFTER discussion on talk has failed to get an answer. Suggest you close, discuss, then do another RfC with a clear question if needed. Pincrete (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a proper request since no discussion has been made about it. But from looking at it, the Idealism section is not properly sourced; and the way it is worded, it is coming from three different sources. So that would be a suggestion to fix. DrkBlueXG (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.