Talk:Golding Bird

GOCE copy edit, Jan 2012

Arsenic poisoning

"Snow had previously investigated arsenic poisoning when he and several fellow students were taken badly ill after a new process for preserving cadavers was introduced by Snow." Clarification requested because "fellow students" implies that Snow himself was a student when he introduced the process, and it seems surprising that a student would be in a position to do this. --Stfg (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is Snow's own account in the Lancet in which he clearly states "fellow students". This took place at the Hunterian school of medicine in Great Windmill Street where Snow was indeed a student. It has to be said that Snow indicates this was done at the instigation of one of his supervisors. SpinningSpark 18:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at this soon. --Stfg (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. I've just added a mention of Hunter Lane, to save anyone else wondering the same thing I did. --Stfg (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Flexible stethoscope

"It has been suggested that part of Bird's motivation for inventing his flexible stethoscope was that his severe rheumatism caused him difficulty in leaning over patients when using a rigid stethoscope, and the flexible stethoscope greatly eased this problem." Of the two references given for this, one is by Bird himself (so "it has been suggested" would make no sense) and the other is the Samuel Wilkes paper. Here is what that says (from Wikisource):

I remember, however, that the first flexible stethoscope which I ever saw was the one depicted in Fig. 6, and used by Dr. Golding Bird when he saw out-patients in the year 1843. Being much crippled with rheumatism, and therefore not wishing to rise from his chair, he found

�����Fig. 6.

��Fig. 7.

��Fig. 8.

��this instrument very convenient ; he also was enabled to pass the ear- piece to gentlemen standing near him, while he held the cup on the part to be examined. I always thought it was his own invention. But, whether so or not, ...

says that Wilks isn't even sure that Bird invented it, much less that his rheumatism was his motivation for doing so. What am I missing? --Stfg (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wilks does not say that Bird did not invent it either - on the contrary, he thinks that he did. He does not say so, but he might be alluding to the dispute over priority which is already covered in the article. It certainly seems true that the instrument Bird used was his own invention, that is, he did not copy it from anybody else. Whether or not there was an independent invention by anyone else, Bird was the first to publish a description of such an instrument. Take note also of the exact wording of the claim in the article - a flexible tube stethoscope. In a biography of Bird Wilkes refers to an 1829 paper by Comins which Wilkes gives priority for the flexible stethoscope. Although not wonderfully clear, Comins is describing a flexible stethoscope with articulated joints and rigid tubes. Unfortunately, no examples or drawings have come down to us, but this might be the same as the "snake ear trumpet" described by Bird as preceding his stethoscope. SpinningSpark 23:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I think you have misunderstood my point, which is that Wilks in the article cited by FN73, says nothing about Bird's motivation for inventing it, as far as I can see. This citation seems to me merely to say that Bird found it convenient in 1843, not that he invented it in order to have this convenience. What brought me to this point was that I saw the words "It has been suggested" and the immediate reaction of any decent copy editor to that would be to slap a {{by whom}} tag on it. Instead, I checked the sources you cite, and could not find anyone in these sources suggesting this. Next knee-jerk would be to slap a {{Failed verification}} on it, but my recent experience has been that people get very bitey about that. What is a copy editor to do? Join in the research exercise? Please don't ask me to read further papers not cited in support of the claim. Please instead provide the citation that backs up the claim that "it has been suggested ...". --Stfg (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not meant to irritate you by linking to sources. Let's just reword this to something acceptable. This is my attempt. Could you please look it over. I have also added a couple of other small additions from the Wilks and Bettany source. SpinningSpark 11:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't think what came over me, to be so prickly. Sorry about that. Yes, the bit about its convenience is perfect. I've slightly twiddled the wording in the first part of the section. Hope that's OK? --Stfg (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help on this one. If you have any more comments before this goes to FA, I would be pleased to hear them. SpinningSpark 13:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no more comments. I found it an interesting and informative article, deserving of FA. I'll keep watch as you put it through, in case C/E services are stil wanted. --Stfg (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Helen Son (not registered) for helping to research this article. Diana Manipud at King's College London archives for assisting in identifying additional sources. Elaine Charwat, Deputy Librarian, The Linnean Society for providing additional information and sources. SpinningSpark 21:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC) to 16:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusion with the "Bibliography" title

At first glance I got the impression that the Bibliography section was Bird's works - hence the name. It took me a few seconds for my mind to process that it was actually the secondary sources used to reference the article. BV ^talk 15:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right -- this bit of the MOS warns of exactly this issue. As recommended there, I've changed it to "Works cited". Hope that's OK, Spinningspark? --Stfg (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think "Bibliography" is a perfectly normal title for this both on Wikipedia and in scholarly works generally. The MOS does mention this issue but does not recommend against using "Bibliography", on the contrary, it says it can be used. It is clear it is not a list of Bird's works because of the preceding "Works" section, because it is placed in the standard Wikipedia position for such sections, and because the names of the authors make this obvious. SpinningSpark 18:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've restored "Bibliography". It got to FA like that, after all. --Stfg (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't really want to revert it myself, that would have been a bit WP:OWNy. SpinningSpark 21:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome. I thought you might be reluctant to do that. --Stfg (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Layout deficienies

There's no lead, and there's no Template:Infobox scientist! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean there is not lead? There is certainly one as defined in WP:LEAD. There is no requirement to have infoboxes (ie, their absence is not a deficiency) and in my opinion often lead to misleading the reader through oversimplification. SpinningSpark 13:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

INFOBOX

this a featured article and needs infobox. I filled infobox but box needs some more information and maybe few edition.al (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Couple of points

A few points, some related to some of the points raised earlier, and some new ones:

• (1) I agree that an infobox is not needed. Certainly it should be done properly if added at all.
• (2) I made the following corrections. Getting the place of death wrong was a particularly egregious error, and I'll point it out to the editor who did that.
• (3) I failed to find any citation for Henle being Bird's "doctoral advisor" (did he even study for any higher degrees?), so I removed that.
• (4) The link in the lead and in the body of the article to Christian Medical Association is almost certainly wrong. This was (from memory) a red-link when the article passed FAC, but seems to have been created as a redirect in the period between then and appearing on the main page. Hopefully that can be corrected somehow (either rename the link or remove it or create an article on the earlier CMA, if they are different organisations). It might be worth checking all links to 'Christian Medical Association' and seeing if a disambiguation page is needed.

Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, the wiki-plague of infoboxes. My plan was to leave it littered with citation needed tags for a week or two and then delete it as unsourced. Sadly you have fixed it.
• I also have a problem with Downham Market as the birthplace. All the sources give just Downham. This might be the same place, but Welwyn and Welwyn Garden City for instance, are not the same, despite being close and contiguous and under the same council. If it is the same, and I don't think we can rely on a Wikipedia redirect to establish that, then it clearly was not called Downham Market in the 19th century.
• I agree the current target for the Christian Medical Association is probably wrong, but I can't be certain. I only know it was still going around ten years after Bird's death, it may or may not have survived into the present day. Redlink to something else? Or just unlink it.

SpinningSpark 03:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Re place of birth - if the sources state "Downham, Norfolk", then that is almost certainly Downham Market. Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Re place of birth - if the sources state "Downham, Norfolk", then that is almost certainly Downham Market. Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Does "almost certainly" really cut it? If it is the same place, then it clearly was not usually called Downham Market in the 19th century. At best we should have "Downham (now Downham Market)". SpinningSpark 13:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

English wikipedians

i undid Golding bird article. i'll never edit it more and give it to English native wikipedians. I love all English people. byeal (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golding Bird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/64lm0k6eF?url=http://www2.royalsociety.org/DServe/dserve.exe?dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqCmd=Show.tcl&dsqDb=Persons&dsqPos=0&dsqSearch=(Surname='bird') to http://www2.royalsociety.org/DServe/dserve.exe?dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqCmd=Show.tcl&dsqDb=Persons&dsqPos=0&dsqSearch=%28Surname%3D%27bird%27%29

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Violation of Ownership of Content rules

User SpinningSpark has invited me to a discussion on this page after we had a dispute caused by SpinningSpark reverting a series of my edits which included changing double-spacing between sentences to single-spacing.

SpinningSpark states that he reverted my edits because he personally finds it easier to read and edit pages that have double-spacing between sentences.

These reversions not only changed the spacings from single back to double, however, as they also destroyed a significant number of other constructive edits.

My position on this is that SpinningSpark is violating Wikipedia's rules on Ownership of Content (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content), and I consider the following passages to be relevant:

"Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about—perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

"Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states:

"Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone."

I've told SpinningSpark that I'm okay with him re-inserting double spacing into the article to suit his personal preference, even though the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are single-spaced, but not okay with him making blanket reversions when this includes destroying constructive edits. Newzild (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. Nor is it a WP:OWN issue. It is an issue about styles, and the relevant guideline is MOS:STYLEVAR. You are in breach of this and in breach of WP:EW by trying to edit war it in. You are also in breach of several talk page guidelines at WP:TALK, including the one about neutral headings. So please, stop throwing around accusations of rule breaches - glass houses and all that. Styles should not be changed from those already established in the article, as long as it is a style acceptable to the MOS. And yes, I believe that the styles that the article content creator(s) find convenient should be retained, rather than the styles preferred by drive-by copyeditors. If you were undertaking a major expansion of the article then you might have a case, but not for what you are trying to do. SpinningSpark 23:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes. The prose edits are making the text less engaging, and the style edits are plain subjective and in violation of MOS:STYLEVAR. @Newzild: I really wish you had opted to follow WP:BRD here instead of continuing to push it. If you revert again without consensus, this will be going to WP:AN/3 so an uninvolved admin can examine your behavior. I'm recusing here because I have stated an opinion on the issue and I was a reviewer when this article was up for Featured status. --Laser brain (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)