Talk:Alexander Fleming

Dicovery of bootyts

Discoveres of anti-bacterial effects of penicilliumtimmeh moulds before Fleming I am placing this link on the top of this page, since the person who removed text here referred to Tyndall. This link might help that person understand the perspective. In "talk" pages, please refrain from removing discussions, since that is all it is. Users normally only see the article. DanielDemaret 11:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, Fleming didn't isolate penicillin. Florey and Chain did. He just noted that the fungus was killing bacteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.234.202 (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Brown, Fleming isolated it. Florey and Chain managed to 1 isolate 2 concentrate and 3 make an aq solution of it. Do you have any reference to the contrary, 130.132.234.202? DanielDemaret (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

But fungus makes the bread fluffy

that is the help full thing about it 94.205.175.156 (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Daniel, it depends on your definition of "isolate." In his Nobel lecture, Fleming details how he used culture fluid from a culture growing Penicillium notatum to inhibit various bacteria. However, he never actually chemically isolated the active ingredient of the fluid.

I have at least two references which detail how Florey, Chain, and also Heatley were the ones who isolated penicillin.

"Three very different men [Florey, Chain, and Heatley], each a genius in his own field, fortuitously came together and isolated penicillin, a task that Fleming had been unable to accomplish."

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1891732

" He [Fleming] isolated the mold, grew it in a fluid medium, and found that it produced a substance capable of killing many of the common bacteria that infect humans. Australian pathologist Howard Florey and British biochemist Ernst Boris Chain isolated and purified penicillin in the late 1930s, and by 1941 an injectable form of the drug was available for therapeutic use."

-http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9059068/penicillin#800228.hook

I have changed the word "isolation" of penicillin to "discovery" of penicillin in the main article. I hope you will all agree. Ravinon (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Discovery is fine. He deduced that the fungus "Penicillium notatum" must have an active antibacterial substance, discovered the substance, isolated it and named it. I am not sure why one word would be more appropriate than the other. DanielDemaret (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, I too have a problem with the simplistic description of Flemming as "discovering" Penicillin; I find the line grossly misleading. It significantly undervalues the crucial work of Florey and Chain and misleads Wiki users by inflating the role played by Flemming. The Nobel Prize went to all three of them, did it not? I get the impression that this fact is unpalatable to some of the contributors to this page. The role played by Flemming needs to be put into context. Could I suggest something like: Penicillin was discovered by Fleming in 1928. He found that a mould culture could prevent the growth of various bacteria, even when diluted. Although the active substance was not fully isolated, he named it penicillin. Australian pathologist Howard Florey and British biochemist Ernst Boris Chain were responsible for the development of penicillin into a usable form. It was Florey and Chain who isolated and purified penicillin in the late 1930s, and went on to prove its therapeutic uses. Flemming, Florey and Chain ALL shared the Nobel Prize "for the discovery of penicillin and its curative effect in various infectious diseases" in 1945. references: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9059068/penicillin#800228.hook and http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1945/fleming-bio.html and http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1945/florey-bio.html

I think the issue of isolating the compound it very important and one could certainly argue that only then can one say it has truly been discovered. That's the way it's done because that is where the hard work lies. For example, consider the 2008 Nobel Prize in medicine. Although I could get a syringe of blood from an HIV-positive individual in 1980, I could hardly describe myself as the discoverer of HIV. And although it was known that the blood of such individuals carried an infectious agent at the time, it was the team that identified virus it that was given the credit for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.24.64 (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Penicillin patent

Fleming did not patent his invention, falsely believing that this would help get the invention into the hands of the sick who desparately needed it. Because he did not have the means to bring it into production, the invention languished for many years unused while many people died. Thankfully, a penicillin patent was issued to Andrew Moyer that began to get this very useful drug into wide circulation.

This is is put in a rather POV fashion, and there's no evidence for this claim (and it doesn't tally with what I do know of the story of penicillin). Please provide some, and if the evidence justifies the conclusion then the claim can be reincorporated using appropriate language. --Robert Merkel 13:17, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further to this, read this page on the penicillin patent, which pours a not insubstantial amount of cold water on this claim. I'm not claiming it's conclusive, but it's certainly persuasive. --Robert Merkel 13:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to Kevin Brown, (see ref) 1. He claimed that it did not occur to him. 2. No substance freely occuring in nature could be patented by the patent laws of that time.DanielDemaret 20:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Brown writes at great length about the patents, since there were several patents taken. Chain and Florey had not agreed on whether to patent their process. But later, first in the US, later in Britain by Moyer, all for different processes and for using different strains of different moulds. Most of the discussion was a about a heated debate of the US "stealing" inventions that were freely given by Great Britain for the benefit of the world. The story is complex, and if written, might be written in a separate article about that debate. DanielDemaret 20:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose the following language to be added to the article on Alexander Fleming:

Fleming chose not to patent his discovery of penicillin, stating, "I did not invent penicillin. Nature did that. I only discovered it by accident."Fleming's goal was to develop a cheap and effective drug that would be available to all the world. Although Fleming did not initially have the means to bring penicillin into mass production, Andrew Moyer, who, unlike Fleming, did apply for a patent, was eventually was able to facilitate penicillin's mass production and circulation.

Citations are as follows:

• avinodkumar, (18 December 2012). "Famous Personalities: Alexander Fleming." Blogspot.com. Last accessed 05 October 2013. http://alistoffamouspeople.blogspot.com/2012/12/alexander-fleming.html.
• Education Scotland, (n.d.). "Alexander Fleming (1881-1955) - 20th and 21st Centuries - Scotlands History." Last accessed 05 October 2013. http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/20thand21stcenturies/alexanderfleming/index.asp.
• Hill, Simon, (n.d.). "A Biography of Sir Alexander Fleming the Founder of Penicillin." AngryPict.com. Last accessed 5 October 2013. http://www.angrypict.co.uk/alexanderfleming.html.
• Lax, Eric, (1 February 2005). The Mold in Dr. Florey's Coat: The Story of the Penicillin Miracle. Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 978-0-8050-7778-0. Last accessed 5 October 2013. http://books.google.com/books?id=GCp9LY6vik4C.

I believe this statement, along with the provided citations, addresses 1) Fleming's humility in choosing not to patent the drug, thus passing up an opportunity to earn a great deal of money; 2) the fact that he viewed it not as an invention but rather as a discovery (regardless of whether patent law at the time would have permitted him to patent the discovery or not); and 3) crediting Moyer for his contributions in getting the drug into wider circulation. Any thoughts? Crice88 (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

There is an email forward floating around that says that Alexander Fleming's father saved the son of a young nobleman from drowning in a bog and that the nobleman offered to pay for Alexander's education. The young nobleman's son was Winston Churchill. Is there any truth to any of that?

I guess it's false. check this out --Chatool 22:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Has to be false. Prime Minister Winston Churchill was never the son of a nobleman. He was the grandson of one (his father's father), the nephew of another (his father's brother), and first cousin to a third (his father's brother's son), etc. as the title descended.2604:2000:1383:8B0B:B12A:ED4C:5B95:766E (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Accolades

At the turn of the century (2000) here in Sweden, I saw 5 Major Newspapers/Magazines list the top 100 Heroes of the millenia, and Alexander Fleming came up on top in all of them. Surely this article could say more about this kind (POV - we have mutual aquaintances ) man? User:DanielDemaret

Treated Not w/Penicillin but M&B

This sentence concludes the Birth and Education section: "Alexander Fleming did however, save Winston Churchill himself during WWII, by flying to North Africa with penicillin, which was in very limited supply at the time." That statement doesn't seem to jibe w/the info on this page, which refutes the urban legend that Fleming twice saved Churchill's life: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=102. Does anyone have the truth of the matter?

"Penniccilin Man", by Kevin Brown,

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0750931523/203-6687617-7055925 I think says differently, but I shall check this out before I re-edit it. And I suppose both claims should be entered for completeness. Regardless.... He saved Winston in both versions, so I think it should be included one way or another.DanielDemaret 12:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I just re-read the book, and corrected the text. Pity. It was such a good fable.DanielDemaret 19:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

after correction, I added a few ugly links. Let's see if I remember how to make a good links later. I have done links before, so one would think that I would remember how.DanielDemaret 20:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Brown has been Trust Archivist and Alexander Fleming Laboratory Museum Curator, and St Mary's NHS Trust, Paddington since 1989. His book is almost over-filled with references. I think that his book on Fleming qualifies by any wikipedia standard.DanielDemaret 10:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The speculation about why the fable turned out is my very own speculation. Is "not improbable", is that still too much POV?DanielDemaret 10:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Rediscovery: We need better references

I can not find any reference for the claim that John Tyndall discovered it, and Ernest Duchesne should have better references. If no references can be found at all for John Tyndall, I shall remove the claim in a weeks time or so. In the meantime I shall try to find better references for both of them. DanielDemaret 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Got a good reference :) DanielDemaret 18:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

First discoveries

I have put in so many "first discoveries" , inspired by JMcc, that this section will soon be in need of a sub-article, so that other articles can refer to that instead of repeating the same stories. DanielDemaret 08:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Re-discovery

I have changed Re-discovery of to Discovery, since he did indeed discover the substance.

What predates him was the discovery of the anti-bacterial effects of the MOULD, not the substance.

The discovery of the mould itself propably predates history.DanielDemaret 19:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fragment sentence?

He was very well known for making penecilin. (in Fable paragraph) is imho fragment, doesn't really go with the text. Can I remove it??

Thanks for noticing that - I've removed it, as it is indeed a random little fragment someone has dumped into the article, clearly without bothering to read the article first. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

First successful use

The article currently claims:

In 1933 he dramatically cured his research assistant, Keith Rogers, of conjunctivitis [1] and suddenly he had a notable clinical case to show that might interest a chemist to further pursue the goal of developing a stable form of penicillin.

I could only find one source—that was not a copy of the existing Wikipedia entry—that claimed successful use of penicillin by Fleming (and it lists a different year, 1932). Fleming’s Nobel Prize bio does not mention any such use, and according to the paper Post Penicillin Antibiotics Fleming and Rogers did not work together until 1935.
The source sited in the Fleming article, only uses the phrase “probably the first” to describe his treatment with penicillin, and does not give a year. All of this suggests that the 1930s claim was either seen as apocryphal or inconclusive by the medical community, whereas the 1942-03-14 case (see Penicillin) was widely sited and led the way for successful use of penicillin in WWII.
—MJBurrage • TALK • 06:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The case of Rogers is true (as peer-reviewed sources indicate). Rogers joined Fleming in 1929 as a medical student. But the year is 1932, and he was not the first to be treated/cured with penicillin. Chhandama (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

What's this Cashen name?

Is it vandalism that changed Alexander Fleming into Alexander Cashen in many places in this article?

Fact or Fiction?

I remember hearing a story about in Femming's lab that when he was producing it and being careless in nature, he contaminated a tennnis ball and his dog got a hold of it and spread it all over the place and that's why it can be present outdoors and stuff. is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.147.181 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Fleming- R-C9H11N2O4S, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.84.22 (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why Vandalism?

I'm curious - what is it about Fleming that attracts so much vandalism to his Wiki page? Halmyre (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My *guess* would have been that this is one of the articles that is referenced more than average, that is all. "Voronai Tessalonations" would get fewer vandals, simply because few people know about it. Perhaps if there are statistics on this someone might verify this? DanielDemaret (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

do change these pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.165.252 (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just a about to ask this question and noticed that it was first raised nearly two years ago. During the intervening period, the level of vandalism does not appear to have deminished. Davshul (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And the vandalism rate shows no sign of diminishing in 2012. I'm guessing that Fleming is a name that is evoked by the syllabus at quite a junior-school level? GFHandel ♬  03:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is the medal now?

The article states: "His widow presented his Nobel Prize medal to the Savage Club (a London Gentlemen's club), where Fleming was a member. The Medal is still proudly displayed among the Club's artifacts."

But the National Museum of Scotland claims to have the medal in its collection. I can't find a reference on the Savage Club story. Can anyone clear this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.76.115 (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

From Private correspondence with Rowan Julie Brown at the National Museum of Scotland, I have discovered that the NMS has the actual Nobel prize, and the medal in the Savage club is one of a set of three commemorative medals. I will alter the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.163.154 (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

According to various articles in the press, the medal will be on display at the recently refurbished National Museum of Scotland. Halmyre (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not EVEN discovered by Flemming !

Just to throw the 'cat amongst the pigeons...' Flemming had nothing to do with the original discovery... He had thrown the culture dishes into the bin before going off on holiday for 2 weeks back in 1928 leaving his two understudy doctors working at St. Mary's. One of these doctors, Dr Bill Andrews removed the dishes from the bin and continued monitoring them in Flemming's absence. Whilst he was still away, the two doctors saw the culture growing in the dishes and made further notes and observations. On his return, Flemming took the dishes off the doctors and presented their findings as his own!! Dr Andrews still had the original dishes in his possession until Lady Flemming, after Flemming's death, took Dr Andrews to the High Court to claim the dishes as theirs. The rest... "as they say"... is History... (Ever wondered why he never did anything with the "discovery" ????)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.44.110 (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a very interesting claim. Can someone who is a specialist in this area provide documentation to support it? The cite for the High Court case showing that Lady Flemming sued Dr Andrews would be a start -- if the story above was told under oath during the proceedings. It certainly sounds plausible, but many "good stories" do. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC))

It sounds like a troll. He can't even spell 'Fleming', so what does that say about the accuracy of the rest of the statement? Fleming couldn't do "anything" with his discovery because he didn't have the means to manufacture it on a large scale. He was a research chemist, not an industrial chemist. Halmyre (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Everybody makes mistakes ਰਾਜੇਨ੍ਦ੍ਰ ਸਿੰਘ (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

why scottish

what are the rules on giving the nationality of famous people. why is stephen hawking labled British but fleming labled scottish? either hawking should be labled English or the both be called British. sorry for the trolling, i am just curious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.196.72 (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of Scots would always give their nationality as "Scottish" rather than "British". It would be much better if "English" was also the standard usage for the nationality of an English person. These are much more meaningful terms than the anodyne "British" label. Seumasmac (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be changed to British and I will do that. There are ethnic Scots and Englishmen, but because of the union, there is really no such thing as Scottish or English nationality. Just British. If these countries had a real independence, it would have been a different story. Same goes for any athletes etc. It always show as British. Just look at David Coulthard. During his driving days, he was always listed as British. He's listed as one in Wiki as well. Norum (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just in case anyone wants to change it again, well, just as a Belgian could be a Fleming, Walloon or German or a mixture of those, a Brit can be English, Scottish or something else. In terms of sports, Olympic athletes compete for Great Britain even though that includes people from Northern Ireland, however, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own national football teams. 94.174.92.245 (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If anyone's still curious about this, please read WP:UKNATIONALS and it should help. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that Belgium is a country and The United Kingdom is a, well, a united kingdom. Halmyre (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better/ simpler/ clearer to label all Brits as British, and then qualify ethnicity, e.g., English, Scottish, Irish, etc.? There is no Scottish nation right now (clearly this is subject to change in 2014) and thus the opening para is misleading/ confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.228 (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Amended as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.228 (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And reverted. Please read WP:UKNATIONALS. Halmyre (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Just read the UKNATIONALS guidance... that was confusing!!! Given that he lived and worked in London, isn't it more accurate to call him British, like e.g., Gordon Brown, etc.? For people not used to the intricacies of UK nationality (i.e., most of the rest of the world), it's always easier to have someone referred to as British, rather than by ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"The difference is that Belgium is a country and The United Kingdom is a, well, a united kingdom " - Excuse me? The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a country, and "British" is a legal nationality. WP:UKNATIONALS is not a policy that has to be followed, as it is stated on there. Its a terrible failed attempt to get consensus that is outdated and deeply flawed. But if you read the page you will see the United Kingdom is a country. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the UK outranks Scotland in as much as it is an independent sovereign state. Scotland however is merely a country and, contrary to popular belief, the two are not the same thing in all circumstances. Post the union of the two kingdoms in 1707 the nationality became North British as opposed to Scottish. 86.153.249.235 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

North British was a fudge thought up by pro-union supporters and never gained widespread popularity. Besides, you never heard anyone talk about 'South British' as applied to England. Halmyre (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes North British/South British makes no sense. Its just British which is the legal nationality, and the nationality of the country the man was born in. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Giving nationality as Scottish and citizenship as UK makes no sense and also implies that Scotland is not part of the UK. The place of birth is given in the article and the summary so there can be no mistake that he was 'born Scot'. This article is not accurate and appears to be furthering a political agenda. Flagators (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, and so does longstanding policy and practice here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is more important that the information in the article be accurate, rather than conform to 'policy'. 'practice' or 'convention'. As pointed out above, after the Act of Union there was no 'Scottish' nationality. Could the person who keeps changing 'British' to 'Scottish' please provide a rationale based on historical and political facts? Flagators (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nationality and ctizenship can be viewed as different, you say there has been no Scottish nationality since the act of union? Could you show where this is so? Murry1975 (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

How about this from Wikipedia itself - The Acts joined the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland (previously separate states, with separate legislatures but with the same monarch) into a single, united kingdom named "Great Britain". Is it your contention that Scotland is an independent nation? Flagators (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've full-protected for a week to interrupt an ongoing edit-war over this issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I notice you locked it after it was reverted to the version that lacks any objective basis. Or can you provide an argument justifying the use of 'Scottish'?Flagators (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I locked it at the point at which I noticed the warring - see m:Wrong Version. I don't particularly care which version ends up being used nor do I have a strong opinion on which is correct, but actually discussing it and gaining consensus here first among those who do care would be a better solution than fighting and possibly getting blocked. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion above? And you think there is a consensus to use 'Scottish'? The problem is that there are people making edits and not discussing them on this pageFlagators (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

So basically Flagators, you are saying that there is no such thing a Scottish nationality since 1707? That Wikipedia should list folk like Alex Salmond and Kenny Dalglish as being British? I don't automatically say that's a bad idea but I cannot see it getting traction in the wider project. --John (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, technically no Scottish nationality and no English nationality for that matter. Obviously the word 'Scottish' still has meaning and in the main text Salmond and Dalglish should be described as Scottish politician and Scottish footballer, just as Fleming is described as Scottish bacteriologist, reflecting their cultural heritage. Unfortunately, like it or not, their formal nationality is British, which should be stated if nationality is given in the summary panel (which it may not need to be, as in the cases of Salmond and Dalglish). There is clear support for that in the above discussion, even if a majority of the current participants are of the opposing viewpoint. 'Scottish-British' as given for Logie Baird (not by me, maybe you should lock that page now, Nikkimaria) would also appear not inaccurate and reasonable if compromise is desired by anyone. If not, I guess it depends on whether the goal of Wikipedia is to be as accurate as possible, or to produce articles that most people (or the subset of people who bother to edit these things) find pleasing. Flagators (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not asking for technicalities, making up nationalities, as done above by an IP - I am presuming by language and style you as an IP- is not encyclopedic. The majority? Please read WP:CONSENSUS. And even with a count, adding your IPs as one with you, its not a convincing majority, or even a majority at this time. Murry1975 (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow all of that. The link you provide states 'Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms.' So two questions. What effort are you making to incorporate the concerns of those who think 'British' is more accurate. Secondly, can you provide a rationale for not using the definition of nationality that would have been given on his passport. And as you keep bringing up WP process could you please explain why you changed the nationality of Logie Baird without any discussion or consensus. Flagators (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship of state is given on passport. Murry1975 (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

On my passport it says Nationality - British Citizen. Scottish is the made up nationality Flagators (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Another of these ridiculous, petty 'Little Scotlander' arguments about British nationality, of COURSE, he is British unless Scotland briefly became independent and produced their own passport in 1881? People referring to Fleming being 'Scottish' may be referring to their feeling of identity, not to his citizenship as do we not know he felt regarding such matters, are there any sources suggesting he was nationalistic?? Everything I've read suggests he was proud to be British. What is so hypocritical is that non-English go berserk when anyone dares to set a British nationality as 'English' while defending their right to describe a Scot or someone from Wales as 'Scottish' and Welsh' even though their nationality is British! Also, we need to improve the WP:UKNATIONALS policty as it is about as clear as mud. It looks like the majority wish the nationality of Fleming to stick with factual reality and remain British, with that in mind I will edit it accordingly but will link the term 'British' to Scotland, which I believe all BLP's should favour, in that we state the nationality and link to the country within the UK that he was born in. Please do not revert before adding your input regarding consensus.

• Update: I have asked for some guidance from Admin on WP:UKNATIONALS, you may follow and contribute here Twobells^t@lk 13:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been around the project for years & past experience tells me that the chances of British sticking to this article's intro & infobox, are less then jello being successfully nailed to a wall. Others may speculate on why that is. GoodDay (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments about 'petty Little Scotlander' are inflammatory and do not contribute anything to the debate. It is bad form to make changes and then demand that they not be reverted until the issue is settled. The reverse procedure is should be followed - make changes once the matter is settled. As for the matter itself, it has been argued many times already and does not require to be raked over yet again. Halmyre (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that you felt offended, moving on, updated guidelines state that 'British' should be used for all people of the UK being that that is their nationality, however, for the sake of neutrality the 'British' link should refer the reader to the country that person was born in unless an editor can cite a single source that Fleming had nationalist tendencies? Twobells^t@lk 13:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What guideline says we should say one thing but link to another? WP:EASTEREGG says this shouldn't be done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I've linked British to British people & furthmore, I've eliminated the citizenship & nationality fields. Please fellow editors, look my changes over before you decide to 'revert'. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Understood, GoodDay, Nikkimaria thanks for your input, the idea for linking 'British' with the country within the UK was mine which I proposed for the sake of neutrality, however, I believe GoodDay is correct in that even though the country in say Fleming's case was Scotland he was British and even if a single source could be found that he had nationalistic tendencies his formal nationality would still be British. Twobells^t@lk 12:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

My edit lasted 3 days. That's gotta be a record for these British bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct this please

Hi, I have just watched a documentary about the discovery of penicillin, and it only recognises Florey and Chain and Heatly as the discoverers of penicillin. They tested it on one adult and a child successfully. Unable to produce penicillin on a large scale, Florey travelled to America to try and interest others to produce enough to be helpful in hospitals. Fleming got wind of this and wrote to Florey to ask if he would send him some penicillin, because his friend was in hospital and he wanted to try it on him. Florey did so, and Fleming was then hailed as "discovering" penicillin! The documentary was called "Penicillin: the magic bullet". Please rectify this error on Wikipedia. ThanksPoeticocean (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• What is the reference for this "documentary", which seems to fly in the face of all recognised information about the discovery of penicillin? Halmyre (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Halmyre,

This documentary was on the History channel on Television, that's all I know about it. However, this is not unknown information. The posts that deatil it further are near the top of this page. Fleming noticed the fungus killing the bacteria, that's all. Florey and Chain managed to separate the penicillin from the fungus, and consequently made an aqueous solution which was then able to be used by humans. He then tested this succesfully on some patients. After that Fleming wrote to Florey and asked for some of the solution and when it was in his possesion, Fleming claimed the "discovery of penicillin". Hence my request to correct this.Poeticocean (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Documentaries, even on the History channel, are not reliable sources. I think the article makes quite clear the roles Flemming, Florey and Chain played in penicillin's history. You say that Flemming "noticed the fungus killing the bacteria, that's all", but this is not true. There is no point in reproducing here what is already written in the article, but suffice to say, Flemming went on to test his "mould juice", which he later named penicillin, on a broad range of bacteria. But, and most importantly, he published the results of his original discovery. It was this paper that Florey read years later that started him off on the road to success. They each played an important part. Flemming never claimed anything; he was a very modest man. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

middle names

what was his middle name this is why kids get in trouble on projects .you shoule have all info on the person before you post . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.224.12 (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• He doesn't have a middle name. Halmyre (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Burial

The inclusion of the fact that his ashes were buried in St Paul's Cathedral was reverted by this edit indicating not in reference. The reference in the text just indicates he was buried there but this article from History Today magazine states "his ashes were interred close to Nelson and Wellington in the crypt of St Paul’s Cathedral". Has anyone any further information that can confirm if his body or just his ashes are in the cathedral? Keith D (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the addition of this information, and was only against the alteration of the existing article text—without a reliable source. If that has now been found, then go for it. If help is needed formatting the citation, give me a yell. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  22:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If he was indeed cremated and his ashes buried in an Anglican cathedral, this makes me question the veracity of the uncited statement 'Fleming was a Roman Catholic' under Personal Life. Cremation was still papally forbidden in the Catholic Church until 1963; certainly no RC priest would have officiated at such a ceremony.Cloptonson (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Obscenity at end of sentence

I just came across the obscenity at the end of this sentence. I think Fleming deserves better.

"Fleming published his discovery in 1929, in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology,[14] but little attention was paid to his article. Fleming continued his investigations, but found that cultivating penicillium was quite difficult, and that after having grown the mould, it was even more difficult to isolate the antibiotic agent. Fleming's impression was that because of the problem of producing it in quantity, and because its action appeared to be rather fuck in ur assslow,

Kind regards, Dr. Chris Reynolds.

Hi Dr. Reynolds, that was a bit of vandalism that hadn't yet been caught - I've now reverted it. If you should happen to see such a problem in future, feel free to be bold and fix the problem yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello! It appears to me that the intro paragraph to this article is very short and only covers a few aspects of Alexander fleming’s life. I think the article would benefit if something from each of the individual sections of the article was incorporated into the Intro so that it is at least a paragraph long. For example, Nothing is mentioned about Alexander Fleming’s early life, career or about how he went about discovering penicillin. A lot of cool stuff has been added to the article itself but the intro doesn’t feel like it’s reflected all the additions that have been made. Let me know if you agree. Thanks! (TaylorSwiftyBoot (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

I think the introduction as it stands satisfies the requirements laid down in MOS:BLPLEAD - name and title, dates of birth and death, context, notable achievements. If we start adding information from the main body of the article it will get too unwieldy. Halmyre (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Myth Section

Hello! I feel as though the myth section could be better incorporated into the Overall structure of the article. There is only a short paragraph about the myth so I think that it would be better off incorporating the legend about Fleming’s father into his personal life or into a legacy section. There are not a lot of subcategories in the overall layout and I feel like it could be slightly rearranged.

In addition, I feel as though the Myth section could be reworded a little differently so as to appear less biased in nature. Rather than saying the overall legend is false perhaps it could be said that these sources supported that the myth is false while as popular legend still suggests it to be true. I feel it is best to avoid concrete language in certain situations to keep content neutral.

I’m always open if u disagree though! Thanks! (TaylorSwiftyBoot (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

The Myths section is actually too prominent in the article. It comes before the reality of Fleming's life, i.e., Awards and honours, Personal life, Death. As to the truth of the myth, Fleming himself calls it a 'wondrous fable' (coming as he did from Ayrshire farming stock, he may originally have used a more robust description), which is as good a reference as any. Halmyre (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"In Oxford, Ernst Boris Chain and Edward Abraham discovered how to isolate and concentrate penicillin" where?

it saying that according to this source http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-sir-edward-abraham-1093226.html that both edward abraham and ernst chain discovered how to isolate and concentrate the penicillin but the truth is that it is mention nothing about it. please let me fix it or give other source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.138.132 (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain why you removed earlier references? Dbfirs 08:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Category question

While Alexander Fleming is in Category:Scottish microbiologists, Albert Schatz is simply in Category:Microbiologists (no nationality associated).

Surely it would be better to standardize on one or the other, but which approach do Wikipedia policies prefer? 199.46.249.146 (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a category for 'American Microbiologists', which has considerably more entries than 'Microbiologists', so move Schatz into that. Otherwise you're going to have to reassign everyone who's listed as a Microbiologist by nationality. Halmyre (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2019

Merlin Price should be changed to Merlin Pryce . See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12713008 or http://www.merthyr-history.com/?p=1895 165.225.38.211 (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 22:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Placing

I think that the place that Sir Alexander Fleming was born should be put in the first paragraph as it is easy to find out if people are researching. But, discarding that, overall it is okay and useful to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siren Fox (talk • contribs) 10:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Tired?

I see there has been a lot of vandalism on this page. Did it get so tiresome in the end that you outsourced some of the writing to a couple of chimps? "Fleming grew the mould in a pure culture and found that the culture broth contained the antibacterial a substance." "After some months of calling it "mould juice" or "the inhibitor", he named the substance it released penicillin on 7 March 1929." And my favourite: "Almroth Wright had predicted antibiotic resistance even before it was noticed during experiments." That almroth somethingsomething right? Yeah that guy, that managed to get himself written down in history for stating the most obvious thing ever. I mean the origin of species was only published 80 years ahead, so it's not like any person with more than 10 firing neurons and the ability to read could ever predict the same thing... Listen up world, I have a prediction! I predict that things will not always stay the same. There you go. Now do not forget to mention that I predicted all of them even before it was noticed on the wikipage for things that did not stay the same. Show some respect please, and do the right thing by mentioning that I predicted all of them, it's the honorable thing to do. Give credit where credit is due, because it is seriously due here... What a f shetshow of a wikipage.--84.209.8.208 (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand all of what you're saying, but it seems to me that the statement "John Smith predicted that someday Teddy Roosevelt would be dead" is not NECESSARILY non-encyclopedic. The obvious fact that Teddy Roosevelt must become dead someday is not the fact reported. The fact being reported is that John Smith predicted it. ONE way I can think of (and there could be others) that this prediction could be part of a story is if it is preceded by something to the effect of "Jane Jones then stated that John Smith would never predict that Teddy Roosevelt would one day be dead". If John Smith DID make such a prediction, thus causing Jane Jones to be wrong, then that could be relevant and the fact that John Smith predicted the obvious would need to be left in.2604:2000:1383:8B0B:B12A:ED4C:5B95:766E (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Does the Wright stuff always refer to the Right Wright?

The article has many references to Almroth Wright and to Arthur Dickson Wright. Under "Myths--The Fleming Myth" the first paragraph has a reference to "Wright" but it is very far away from the most recent preceding reference so it's not immediately apparent which Wright is intended. As paragraphs get moved around that most recent preceding reference might no longer contain the right "Wright". Someone who reads the article thoroughly might figure out that it can't be, or must be, one particular Wright. But it's not conducive to anything quicker. I believe there are ways to work with text so that, under the hood, every reference to any Wright is spelled out, but that in print and on-screen any reference to either one of them will collapse to "Wright" if the current reference matches the most recent preceding reference to either of them. Just to show the logic of it, in MS-Word this would be done by "SET" and "IF" field-codes, that, rendering the code here in everyday English, say

"If 'Last Reference To Any Wright' wasn't 'Almroth Wright', then spell out 'Almroth Wright' and reset 'Last Reference To Any Wright' to be equal to 'Almroth Wright', otherwise spell out 'Wright'" and "If 'Last Reference To Any Wright' wasn't 'Arthur Dickson Wright', then spell out 'Arthur Dickson Wright' and reset 'Last Reference To Amy Wright' to be equal to 'Arthur Dickson Wright', otherwise spell out 'Wright'"

so that every time you mentioned a Wright that was the same as the preceding reference to a Wright, the text would be "Wright" but would, otherwise, be spelled out as either "Almroght Wright" or "Arthur Dickson Wright", AND, the text-string to be checked against would be updated.

I'd elaborate this (it'd take more time than I have now) so that if a heading-paragraph or sub-heading paragraph falls in-between a reference to a Wright and the preceding reference to a Wright, then the name would be spelled out in full regardless whether it matched the preceding Wright or not.

Surely something similar is doable in HTML?2604:2000:1383:8B0B:B12A:ED4C:5B95:766E (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

In the “Discovery of lysozyme” section, the beginning of the third sentence has a typo:

“Fleming had tease Allison...”

“tease” should be changed to “teased” Jpmilstein (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 19:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2021

H3K3K (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)i like to change somethings

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You need to be specific about what you want changed. RudolfRed (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2021 (2)

H3K3K (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)1090910291029102910291081498238490348

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by E,kvmkm (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021

Respected Sir/Madam

              I request you to look into this issue as quickly as possible. Sir Alexander Fleming was born in Scotland but he died in London, England. He also conducted his research at his laboratory St Mary's, Paddington, London. Someone who is from the whole of the United Kingdom should be called British rather than Scottish. So, it would be more appropriate to call him a British scientist. 
        
            I consider myself to be British am very much concerned about calling him Scottish. Though I was born in Scotland I was raised in wales. Forthwith reply is highly appreciated.
Waiting for the change

Thank you

 Not done. See the above discussion on why scottish. Chhandama (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Synthetic Production of Penicillin TR1468.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 22, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-10-22. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 12:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Fleming (1881–1955) was a Scottish physician and microbiologist, best known for discovering the world's first broadly effective antibiotic substance, which he named penicillin. His discovery in 1928 of what was later named benzylpenicillin (or penicillin G) from the mould Penicillium rubens is described as the "single greatest victory ever achieved over disease." For this discovery, he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1945 with Howard Florey and Ernst Chain.

Photograph credit: unknown

Recently featured:

• Rose robin
• Abraham Bradley Jr.
• Red-billed gull

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2022

Discovery of penicillin.

Medical use and mass production.

The word "When" from the sentence "When Florey sent the incompletely purified sample, which Fleming immediately administered into Lambert's spinal canal." should be removed. Morich740 (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)