Talk:Robert Brown (botanist, born 1773)

Possible corrections to be made

That part that says "His mother was Helen née Taylor". It doesn't make sense. It should be changed to "His mother was Helen Brown née Taylor", right? I have amended it now. KorgBoy (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Robert Brown (botanist, born 1773)  — Amakuru (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Robert Brown (botanist) → Robert Brown (botanist born 1773) – Until a couple of days ago, we had titles Robert Brown (Scottish botanist from Montrose) and Robert Brown (Scottish botanist from Caithness), which were unambiguous but perhaps rather poorly constructed. Someone then moved the first of these to Robert Brown (botanist), which is ambiguous not only with the other Scottish botanist but also with Robert Brown (New Zealand botanist). The person who moved it has declined to take any action to fix the mess. They have since, however, moved the "Scottish botanist from Caithness" article to "botanist born 1842". I have no great objection to that, though I would have preferred "Scottish botanist born 1842". At any rate, it suggests that the fix for "botanist" is to move it to "botanist born 1773", rather than back to "Scottish botanist from Montrose". Hesperian 00:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support birthdate qualifier, having worked on scottish issues, locality not a good idea JarrahTree 01:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and JarrahTree. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Having parenthetical disambiguation that is still ambiguous with an existing article is rarely (or even never) a good idea. But please fix the proposed title Hesperian, he was born in 1773 (1858 is when he died). Jenks24 (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh dear. Thank you! Hesperian 10:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: The proposed move location should actually be Robert Brown (botanist, born 1773) per WP:NCPDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Question What do move proponents want to do with the title Robert Brown (botanist)? Keep it as a redirect to the more throughly disambiguated Robert Brown (botanist born 1773)? Retarget to the disambiguation page at Robert Brown as an incomplete disambiguation? There are close to 1000 incoming links to the title that would need to be disambiguated if the later option is chosen. Plantdrew (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It should be redirected to the dab page. It's a bit of work now but clearly for the best in the long run. Jenks24 (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Shouldn't the title be Robert Brown (botanist, born 1773). Pppery 18:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Robert Brown (botanist, born 1773). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

'Jan Ingenhousz already had reported a similar effect using charcoal particles' - add comment that this attribution is now being questioned?

Is it worth adding that the attribution to Ingenhousz of describing Brownian type motion is now being queried. Beale and Beale, 2011 in their biography of Ingenhousz 'Echoes of Ingenhousz' (Wiki ref. 1 in Jan_Ingenhousz) discuss and question the van der Pas interpretation in 1968 / 1971 of the Ingenhousz experiment (ref. 22 in the entry) and remark that it's 'almost certainly an overenthusiastic conjecture'. Ingenhousz was using the experiment to demonstrate the benefit of a coverslip which he is credited with inventing; one benefit is to significantly reduce evaporation. As Ingenhousz describes, with no coverslip 'everything' i.e. of all sizes is in 'violent' motion which is not a description of Brownian motion i.e. a gentler jiggling of particles typically 4 microns in size or less. (Quotes from van der Pas's translation, ref. 22). Declaration of own work (acceptable I gather on a Talk page to support a discussion): The experiment can be readily repeated (link below) with any student microscope and shows clumps of charcoal particles many times larger than those that exhibit Brownian motion are in motion caused by the evaporation currents. The second shows true typical Brownian motion of suspended fat globules in dilute milk.

https://vimeo.com/135788084 Ingenhousz repeat.

https://vimeo.com/133345758 Fat in dilute milk.

Triops56 15:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)