Talk:Charles Martin Hall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Owner[edit]

The owner of Aluminum Company of America [1]

Note the spelling on Halls patents here - http://www.fluoride-history.de/p-aluminum.htm

Spelling of Pittsburgh[edit]

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania spelled its name Pittsburgh from its founding until 1891. The name was changed to Pittsburg, but it was changed back to Pittsburgh in 1911. By the criteria of what it was called when Hall went there in 1888 and of what it is called today, it should be spelled Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh#Name_and_spelling

Ortcutt 21:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of siblings?[edit]

According to <a href="http://www.oberlinheritage.org/hall%20walking%20tour.pdf">this document (created by the Oberlin Historical Society)</a>, Hall had six siblings. Yet this article says he had four siblings. Which is correct? --tgeller 02:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biography[edit]

The timeline of events makes no sense. If CMH attends a lecture in his second term at Oberlin (~1880 or 1881) then how can he see the aluminum sample obtained by Jewett during Jewett's studies in Germany (1883-1885)? The article also strongly implies that CMH's initial experiments in 1881 were inspired by Jewett's lecture/aluminum sample, so that further muddies the water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.246.164 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated External Link[edit]

I have updated the dead external link to the ACS National Historic Chemical Landmarks program. I am the program coordinator of the ACS-NHCL program. KLindblom (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice bloody article[edit]

And I am generally disinclined toward exaggeration or flattery. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.154.39 (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One issue though[edit]

As noted above, the timeline for the Jewett background material is incosistent with the Hall discovery timeline. (Hall cannot have appled for the first patent in 1886, based on an interaction with Jewett, who is stated to have started at Oberlin in 1890.)

The Jewett paragraph is unsourced, while the Hall discovery paragraph presents a citation. Hence, the Jewett paragraph is moved here, until the discrepancy can be resolved.

Hall was encouraged in his scientific experiments, with ideas and materials from Professor Frank Fanning Jewett (1844–1926). Jewett received his undergraduate and some graduate training from Yale University. From 1883 – 1885, he studied chemistry at the University of Göttingen in Göttingen, Lower Saxony, Germany. There he met Friedrich Wöhler, and obtained a sample of aluminum metal. Upon return to the United States, Jewett spent a year assisting Wolcott Gibbs at Harvard University, then spent a further four years as Professor of Chemistry at the Imperial University of Tokyo in Japan. In 1890, he became the professor of chemistry and mineralogy at Oberlin College.

Le Prof [Leprof_7272] 73.210.154.39 (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are sockpuppeting? I ought to report you. 104.218.136.34 (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Martin Hall. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Martin Hall. 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:

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) 10:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Martin Hall. 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:

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) 04:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re my revert[edit]

Merger proposal[edit]

CLOSED
Agree article will use "Aluminum" as opposed to "Aluminium" per English Variants and Consensus. It is consensually agreed that Alum does not apply in this case due to its usage in this article being non-chemical. Non-Administrative closure-- GenQuest "Talk to Me" 01:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@DePiep: This is the edit I have reverted. The edit was justified by reference to WP:ALUM. The rule has its own applicability limits. In the past, there was an accident when supporters of the IUPAC spelling raided the articles on atomic clocks, which use cesium, or, as IUPAC suggests, caesium. The (presumably primarily American) editors argued they should not adhere to IUPAC rules as the topic is too far away from chemistry for this adherence to make any sense. The latter point of view prevailed and since then, as I recall, WP:ALUM explicitly mentions that it is only concerned with chemistry-related articles. (I remember the story only vaguely, so there may be small errors in my narrative, but the wider picture is correct.)

Now is this article chemistry-related enough? I'd argue that it isn't. You don't call Hall a chemist first and foremost; for instance, the lead of this article describes him as "an American inventor, businessman, and [only then] chemist." The book I have heavily relied on while writing history of aluminium, Aluminium: The Thirteenth Element, describes Hall as an engineer. If Hall produced aluminum as a chemical, with intention to use it in chemical reactions, then it would make perfect sense to declare this article chemistry-related; but this is not the case. He produced it as a material, that would be used in the very form it was made in (maybe alloyed). His production method, while still technically chemical, is normally distinguished from the previous production method, which is normally called the chemical method (as opposed to Hall's electrolytic method). The focus of the article is not on chemistry in any other fashion, either. That is why I argue the article is not chemistry-related, or if so, then only marginally, and the rule that is concerned with chemistry-related articles is not applicable.--R8R (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the first two sentences: " ... and chemist. ... best known for ... producing aluminium". How is that not chemistry? You are supposed to give an argument for not applying the MOS (instead you introduce personal opinion as argument to deny MOS). -DePiep (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: First of all, do not again revert a revert. If you think you're right, you can prove that within a couple of days in a way that if not your opponent, then any external observer of the argument would agree with you. See also WP:BRD.
Second, you say, "You are supposed to give an argument for not applying the MOS." And give an argument for not applying the MOS I did. The second paragraph of my original post was exclusively dedicated to that. How could you miss that when my last sentence was "That is why I argue the article is not chemistry-related, or if so, then only marginally, and the rule that is concerned with chemistry-related articles is not applicable"? The phrase "chemistry-related articles" comes from the very rule itself (please read it), I didn't invent it.
Third, I do have a personal preference on spelling the name of the metal but I didn't use it to justify my revert. I haven't even said a word about it. Feel free to prove me wrong by posting a quote from the message above. Similarly, I did not suggest to deny MOS entirely; again, feel free to prove me wrong by posting a quote.
In general, I would suggest you actually re-read what I wrote. It appears to me you've missed my point entirely. (Just in case: there are two paragraphs. The first is concerned with the fact that the rule has its limits, the second is concerned with how I think this article is beyond those limits.) What I have been meaning to say (and I indeed referred to it) is that if the criterion for a rule applicability is only marginally applicable, it is not applicable and is overridden by more general rules (in this case, WP:ENGVAR). I have read a lot of information of Hall, his discovery and subsequent improvements. I have not gotten at least once an impression that we are dealing with first and foremost, a chemist. What people emphasize much more commonly is that he not only invented a process (that, I will remind you, is usually distinguished from the chemical process of Deville), but he also put it to wrok on an industrial scale, set up (eventually) a plant at the Niagara Falls, which provided him with an incredible amount of energy, spread his production methods to other countries; there is far more engineering and entrepreneurship in this than chemistry. That's what people focus on and that's what he is best known for. In an article on, say, Friedrich Woehler, the person who was long considered the discoverer of the metal and who was the first to thoroughly describe it, your line of thinking would be more appropriate because Woehler is indeed first and foremost known as a chemist.
Now I will do what you should have instead of reverting a revert: I will ask for comments from other editors. If you ever find yourself in a similar situation to the one that we have today, please do that instead.--R8R (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified all WikiProjects listed at the top of this talk page (save for WikiProject Biography, which in its edit mode has a box that, as I see it, discourages editors from discussing specific articles): Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, United States, Ohio, Technology.--R8R (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I generally try to refrain from responding to back-and-forth discussions like this one because I don't want to be drawn in an "edit war," but in this case, I feel that I need to weigh in here as a member of the Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, United States, and Biography WikiProjects. The spelling should be "aluminum" because the biographical subject was American, and because this article is primarily a biographical sketch, which places it more under the heading of history/the humanities rather than making it "a scientific article." (Wikipedia provides numerous guidance articles indicating that "American English" is the preferred spelling format for American biographical subjects, events, organizations, etc., including the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling, which has a chart showing that the preferred spelling in the U.S. is "aluminum.") Furthermore, multiple American style guides (even those which are used by American scientists) use "aluminum," particularly when writing for the general public in America since many Americans would view "aluminium" as a typo.
An even better indication that the spelling in this particular article should be "aluminum" and not "aluminium" is the existing article itself. The final paragraph in the "Awards and honors" section of the existing Hall article uses "aluminum":

"The center features an exhibit called Aluminum: The Oberlin Connection."

The chosen spelling in the title of the exhibit mentioned above was created by the staff of an historic preservation organization in Hall's hometown (a community with which Hall had a lifelong affiliation - Oberlin, Ohio). The historians who decided on this spelling for the exhibit title are people who are well acquainted with Hall's writing and spelling preferences because of their familiarity with documents which were created by Hall.
I would suggest that the best way to swiftly resolve this debate and prevent an edit war would be to use the spelling of "aluminum" throughout the article and then expand the paragraph of the article which explains how the spelling variants ("aluminum" vs. "aluminium") evolved over the years. (You might even want to create/devote a separate section since this is a fascinating piece of history.) In any event,the spelling for this article about Hall should be "aluminum." Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
re R8R: I applied the MOS WP:ALUM. In other situations there may be more leeway (BRD), but this is a MOS. The guideline also clearly states that ENGVAR does not apply. I wrote "... not applying MOS" not about the considerations you mentioned (ENGVAR, cultural), but about annihilating the guideline itself. Why completely deny WP:ALUM, and restart that topic from scratch?
In short, WP:ENGVAR does not apply. It is not a cultural thing, the names of elements are well-defined; -um is outdated. In Shakesperian articles we do not write "Thou canst read more info at ...".
47thPennVols Of course the title of the exhibitions should not changed spelling. It's a title. Same with literal quotes. Point is that -ium is defined to be the one and only spelling, per WP:ALUM (and per IUPAC, as the MOS says). Very clearly it also states that ENGVAR or cultural preferences, as you invoke, do not overrule that MOS. Nice catch btw the /spelling overview. But as it states itself: just an overview. WP:ALUM being so overly explicit, it trumps this overview statement. -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And this is a perfect example of why I choose not to weigh in on these kinds of disputes. There is nothing that can be said to convince DePiep because this user is not willing to listen and seriously consider other points of view. (I note that DePiep has spread this debate across multiple talk forums, over several months, including Talk:Aluminum via the thread "AluminUm is local only - so say so".)
To be clear, this article about Hall is a biographical sketch about a native of Oberlin, Ohio with strong ties to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and is NOT a scientific article. Because Hall was a businessman, member of the board of trustees of Oberlin College and philanthropist - and not merely a chemist, this biography should present the common American spelling of "aluminum" because the article will be of interest beyond those interested in scientific terminology. (The spelling for "aluminum" in American business news articles, by the way, is "aluminum.") I note that similar opinions have been expressed by @The Rambling Man: and @Sca: (courtesy pings to both) on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors (for February 23):

"The target article uses aluminum almost entirely, as it's a bio of an American. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)"

"At a miniumum (Ha!) we should recognize that either spelling is correct depending on context, and in this case, since it's a U.S. item, it should be 'aluminum.' Changing the title of the article to solve an OTD problem seems a rather dubious expedient, IMO. – – Sca (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)"

Whether or not you feel that the spelling of "aluminum" is "outdated" in America is really not for you to decide, @DePiep:. The reality is that "aluminum" been the common spelling of the word in the United States for quite some time, is commonly used today by multiple major newspapers (just Google "'aluminum' and The New York Times"), academics, businesses, style guides, and local, state and federal government agencies, and is, therefore, likely to remain the choice of spelling for the word in America (and in articles about Americans) for the foreseeable future. 47thPennVols (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed! Sca (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, the claim by DePiep, "Point is that -ium is defined to be the one and only spelling, per WP:ALUM (and per IUPAC, as the MOS says)," is actually false. Not only does the IUPAC have pages on its website which use the spelling "aluminum", the Wikipedia article on aluminum provides this history re: the spelling variants, specifically noting that IUPAC "recognized aluminum as an acceptable variant" in both 1993 and 2005 (the most recent edition of IUPAC nomenclature, according to this article):

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) adopted aluminium as the standard international name for the element in 1990.[1] In 1993, they recognized aluminum as an acceptable variant;[1] the same is true for the most recent 2005 edition of the IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry.[2] IUPAC official publications use the -ium spelling as primary but list both where appropriate.[a]

Again, rather than continuing to debate over this and risk the situation degenerating into an edit war that then prompts a request for formal dispute resolution, I would suggest that a better way of improving this article would be to use the spelling of "aluminum" throughout the article (since the article is a biography and not scientific article, and since the subject of this biography was an American businessman) and then expand the paragraph of the article into a separate section which explains how the spelling variants ("aluminum" vs. "aluminium") evolved over the years. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just switch a MOS off when you like. This Wikipedia choose to follow the IUPAC preferred spelling. That's the job of MOS guidelines: to clarify and solve such disputes. If one wants to change that, you know where to start to propose that—it's not this incidental talkpage. (And there is no need to repeat "My way or there will be an edit war"). re is really not for you to decide is not for you to decide -- you are badly misrepresenting my post here. That decision was made and established by both IUPAC and WP:ALUM. Would you please fix that? -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That MOS itself states "These spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article." The disagreement is over whether this article is "chemistry-related" for the purposes of applying WP:ALUM. I would say that it is not. --Khajidha (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There seems little point in reiterating the point that I and other editors have been making since you don't listen anyway, but I'll give it one last try. Nobody questioned the authority of WP:ALUM as such. Nobody said they didn't like it as it was a bad rule and thus should not be followed. The point that was made is that this particular article is outside of the scope of its applicability. You keep putting words into my mouth that I did not say and ignoring the words that I did say. Cease that for once.
47thPennVols did not misinterpret what you said. You said that aluminum was an outdated spelling and compared that to the Shakespearean language. In direct response to that particular remark, an American told you it was not up for you to decide what was outdated in the English language and what was not and provided numerous examples of how people in their (English-speaking) country predominantly use aluminum and not aluminium today. It is you who keeps misinterpreting others' words.
(This may come as a surprise, but IUPAC does not have authority over English language in general. It does not even have full authority over chemical nomenclature---nobody would say gadolinium is a transition metal even if it complies with the IUPAC definition. In fact, IUPAC admits that---and this is a direct quote from the Red Book, page 249, including the period---"The alternative spelling ‘aluminum’ is commonly used." Therefore, if you believe that just because IUPAC decided that their spelling would be aluminium, the other option is entirely outdated and it was that that made you say that, then change your beliefs. However, for the purposes of this whole discussion, and not just the rebuttal to your comment that aluminum was outdated, it doesn't matter what IUPAC thinks. What matters is that we have our guidelines. Again, this article is outside the scope of the said guideline. That's why the guideline is irrelevant in this particular case, not because I don't like it or find it bad.)
There is a preliminary consensus on what sort of action should be undertaken as a result of this conflict. I will say it is only preliminary as we could hear many more opinions: after all, this discussion started not only yesterday, but also during the weekend. To anybody reading this, I plead to read the discussion that has taken place so far and provide more opinions, whether you agree with me or DePiep or maybe even have a different, entirely new opinion. Unless the consensus changes, at the end of the working week, on Friday evening per my time zone, UTC+3, I will begin to deploy 47thPennVols's suggestion. If you at that time still disagree with this, you can appeal to the Arbitration Committee. If you revert me again, then I will do that instead and I will also file a complaint to an admin on you. Not because I don't like you in general (which isn't the case) or because I don't like your position (I believe differences can be overcome), but because of how you have been acting during this discussion. I don't know how this works but I'll be sure to find out.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To weigh in, I'll reiterate that DePiep has misinterpreted WP:ALUM and attempted to apply the relevant guidance to contexts outside its scope (articles whose subjects are chemistry-related – not anything and everything with the slightest chemistry-related aspect).
Additionally, the assertions that "-um is outdated" and "-ium is defined to be the one and only spelling" are simply incorrect. —David Levy 18:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith? I claim that WP:ALUM is straigthforward. -DePiep (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith?
Please clarify this question.
I claim that WP:ALUM is straigthforward.
To what is this statement a response? —David Levy 01:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There might be repetition, but alas.
In this article, "aluminium" is used as a chemical element and its reactions full stop. The fact that it is in a biography does not change that. (It could be different when used as a topic of poetry, fantasy, SF, art—maybe). It's not that I am "not reading" other serious positions, it's just that I am not convinced for reasons already described. Second, I can only repeat myself: it is not my opinion to say "outdated", it is an IUPAC stated preference that has been incorporated in the MOS. It is disingenious to repeat otherwise after I pointed this out. Also, the guideline clearly says it overrules WP:ENGVAR. With all this, there is no need to show a NYT search here nor to explain that the -um spelling is common in the US, being ENGVAR arguments i.e., out of place. Any change of MOS belongs at Wikipedia talk:ALUM, not in an incidental talkpage. In general, it is a MOS for a reason: one is to make these such recurring discussions moot.
Now some more detailed replies.
re David Levy articles whose subjects are chemistry-related: no, that is an incorrect quote that conveniently changes the core point: it says "topics" not "subjects" (as in: the topic of aluminium production). No base in accusing me, by reiterating even, I "misinterpreted" based on a wrong quote.
re 47thPennVols & others: what I just wrote about "IUPAC and MOS decision": it is not my opinion then. And others repeating that does not change that. Re (I note that DePiep has spread this debate across multiple talk forums, over several months, including Talk:Aluminum ...") — Are you accusing of discussing an issue on a talkpage? You call this an argument? What were you looking for anyway? And: the Rambling Man quote you took from Main page MP ERRORS was from before someone started invoking WP:ALUM at all, so is quite incomplete to say the least. wrt Sca's quote: "Changing the title of the article ... dubious" indeed, and that was not proposed at all.
R8R: since you don't listen anyway — I object. I invoked and applied MOS, I described why, I pinged you, I responded to posts, I pointed out errors/mistakes. My very first sentence in my very first post here referred your point. The point is I do not agree with your reasoning, but I'm sure you can see that differing from "not listening". Re Nobody questioned the authority of WP:ALUM as such actually, 47thPennVols did so (@ 23:16) before you posted this, and there may be more. -DePiep (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"In this article, "aluminium" is used as a chemical element and its reactions full stop. " No, in this article aluminum is treated as something with which the subject worked. The article is not about aluminum, it is about Mr. Hall. And that is the important fact that renders MOS:ALUM non-relevant. And it may come as a surprise to you, but the IUPAC is not some god-like being with the power to determine what is and is not current English. --Khajidha (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
re The articke is not about aluminium - No one says that, you are protesting things I did not write. One more time: aluminium in here is used as a "chemistry-related topic" (to quote the MOS). No more, no less, no need to deviate. WP:ALUM does not require that the object of the article (the title) is aluminium. re IUPAC is not some god-like being with the power to ... - this too, no one claimed. IUPAC took a decision oon preferred spelling, and Wthis Wikipedia decided to take in that decision as WP:ALUM. It is a Wikipedia community decision. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more time: aluminium in here is used as a "chemistry-related topic" (to quote the MOS). No more, no less, no need to deviate.
There is more, actually. To quote additional words from that sentence, the guidance applies to "articles about" such topics. (Why do you keep omitting that part?) This article is about a person.
WP:ALUM does not require that the object of the article (the title) is aluminium.
No one says that; you are protesting things others did not write. —David Levy 22:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You said "It is not a cultural thing, the names of elements are well-defined; -um is outdated." So, yes, you did say that an IUPAC definition could determine what is and is not current English. --Khajidha (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @DePiep: I don't really expect to be pinged at discussions I am a part of anyway, since I normally watch them, but I appreciate the courtesy. Here's your ping in return.
Thank you for the civil tone of your comment. I will try to keep suit.
It appears to me this discussion heavily confuses the questions of how the word is spelled in general and how the word should be spelled within Wikipedia, the latter also subject to subdivision into spelling in chemistry-related articles and all other ones. So let's set the record straight on this one.
For instance, when you said In short, WP:ENGVAR does not apply. It is not a cultural thing, the names of elements are well-defined; -um is outdated. In Shakesperian articles we do not write "Thou canst read more info at ...", other editors, including myself, saw in this a proclamation of that it does not matter what the ENGVAR says because that is how the language is anyway. IUPAC decided is the only aluminium spelling and that's how it is in the English language now. Other options are obsolete. That's what other editors (again, including myself) saw in your comment. I still don't see if you actually meant something else, but did you?
Regardless, again, 47thPennVols in their 23:16 comment opposed that notion. They provided a quote that included your words that said that aluminium is the only spelling because IUPAC said so. That was what was opposed, both "aluminium is the only spelling" and "IUPAC said so." Aluminum is not obsolete in the English language; it's how the word is spelled in America and Canada. IUPAC voluntarily recognizes that aluminum is a spelling, too (which it does not do for sulphur, which is widely used in the Commonwealth countries. This is not a coincidence, IUPAC does not like that particular spelling. It, however, has nothing against aluminum). If you re-read that comment with this perspective in mind, you'll see 47thPennVols did not attack WP:ALUM; they attacked what they saw (and I see) as your claim that IUPAC settled on aluminium and that took the other option out of consideration entirely. WP:ALUM itself was not even mentioned, directly or indirectly. there may be more no no no, the discussion isn't too long. If there is more (I think there is none), please point that out exactly.
since you don't listen anyway -- I stand by these words, you didn't listen. To reiterate, here's a quick summary of our discussion. First, I started the discussion by commenting on why I undid your edit that replaced all occurrences of "aluminum" with "aluminium." My central point was that WP:ALUM was not applicable in this particular case. I did not once mention that WP:ALUM was stupid and I absolutely did not suggest we should ignore the rule on that basis. You, however, responded with what not only missed my point (more on that in the next paragraph), but you also said, you introduce personal opinion as argument to deny MOS. You didn't listen to what I actually said. But the discussion continued. I reiterated my point and provided more illustrations along the way. Again, you said basically the same: I wrote "... not applying MOS" not about the considerations you mentioned (ENGVAR, cultural), but about annihilating the guideline itself. Why completely deny WP:ALUM, and restart that topic from scratch? (Anyone is free to see the full text of my and DePiep's words to make sure I'm not whitewashing some horrible truth that I actually said or that I'm taking DePiep's quotes out of context.) You twice accused me of something I did not say during this discussion and you did not listen to what I did say, even after I especially pointed you were misinterpreting my words and suggested you use any words I said to make your case about my intentions. You did not---and could not---do that, because I didn't say such a thing. I invoked and applied MOS, I described why, I pinged you, I responded to posts, I pointed out errors/mistakes. You did invoke and apply MOS and you did describe why. I think you were wrong in how exactly you had done that but people can't always agree, some disagreement is fine as long as it comes from good will. You did respond to posts and it's your responses that make the problem because in doing so because instead of responding to the words I said, you thought of different words and responded to them, pretending those were my actual words. I'll leave it to your judgment how what you pointed at were "errors" and "mistakes"; personally, I don't see anything as such.
My very first sentence in my very first post here referred your point. Somewhat, but not quite. Here are the first two sentences of yours: From the first two sentences: " ... and chemist. ... best known for ... producing aluminium". How is that not chemistry? Funny enough that I had mentioned them both: he isn't primarily known as a chemist and his production method is not just not, but directly opposed to, what is called the chemical method of producing aluminum. And I had suggested that the article may be marginally about chemistry, and I had said this was not enough to be really "chemistry-related." (And as this discussion shows, I wasn't the only one who thought that.) But you acted as if I didn't say about it at all. It would have been fine if you had argued this was more than just marginally chemistry-related, but you acted as if I did not consider that at all, and this sort of reiterates my "you didn't listen" point.
Some context for an external observer: I do think WP:ALUM is a stupid rule and I do hope to see the day it is repealed (I'll get to that myself after aluminium is at least a GA). DePiep is aware of my opinion of the rule, presumably that's where their suggestions that I repeal the rule in a different fashion come from. However, as stupid as I find it, it is still a rule and I will not sabotage it as long as it stands. This is best illustrated by how I started the article history of aluminium (now an FA). I was reluctant to do so, I thought the title should be "history of aluminum." However, I knew WP:ALUM was a rule and I abided it. Anything I said about aluminum in this article came entirely from how I see that this article is outside of the scope of the rule, not because I find the rule stupid, which I did not say or hint at even once during this discussion. I really didn't focus on that, I don't live with a burning passion in my heart that would prevent me from finding peace until the rule is finally repealed. I see from this discussion that I am not alone in seeing that this article is outside out the scope of the rule. I do think this kind of information that helps take one's actions into perspective, so any observer is free to know that. I don't see why you would have problems with 47thPennVols trying to do the same to you (and that's it, all they did is pointed out is that you've consistently held your opinion and negated the other ones. They did not say you were wrong because of that; they didn't agree with you for different reasons). They did not try to conclude that you were wrong or right because of your past actions; simply that it was unnecessarily difficult to argue with you, and that was based on your actions. We're in a public environment, after all.
If things go the way they are going now, it seems that the consensus stands at that WP:ALUM is not applicable here. If things proceed how I think they are going to proceed, please don't undo me when I implement the consensus. If you really think you're right, it wouldn't hurt to wait for a few days for decision of an external arbiter to conclude that. This isn't as time-pressing an issue as would be a false claim of a crime a living person had done.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this article, "aluminium" is used as a chemical element and its reactions full stop. The fact that it is in a biography does not change that. (It could be different when used as a topic of poetry, fantasy, SF, art—maybe).
The relevant guidance pertains to articles about the elements listed, not to any and all mentions in that context.
I can only repeat myself: it is not my opinion to say "outdated", it is an IUPAC stated preference that has been incorporated in the MOS.
Where is such a rationale for the "aluminium" preference stated?
no, that is an incorrect quote that conveniently changes the core point
It was a descriptive statement, not a quote. Is it set off with quotation marks on your end? I didn't type any in that instance.
it says "topics" not "subjects" (as in: the topic of aluminium production).
To elaborate, it says "articles about chemistry-related topics". (This time, I am quoting the guideline.)
The Charles Martin Hall article is about Charles Martin Hall, a person. Certainly, elements of his life have significant connections to chemistry. This doesn't mean that the article is about a chemistry-related topic.
I object.
Please see WP:NOTUNANIMITY.
actually, 47thPennVols did so (@ 23:16) before you posted this, and there may be more.
Noting that "the article is a biography and not scientific article" is recognition of WP:ALUM's basic nature, not an expression of dispute as to its validity. —David Levy 13:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
re The relevant guidance pertains to articles about the elements listed, not to any and all mentions in that context. No, you are making this up (again, I can say after my previous post re you using the guideline). It does not have that limitation. You even suggest that in articles about other elements, say boron, the rule does not apply?
Where is such a rationale for the "aluminium" preference stated? - Search the MOS. Also, this thread may have some helpful links.
re the "(@ 23:16)" reference: that was to point to posts that did question the authority of WP:ALUM, which was denied in the post I replied to.
The article is about Charles Martin Hall, a person: Yes, that is the subject. However, aluminium as used in this article is a topic, chemistry-related actually. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You even suggest that in articles about other elements, say boron, the rule does not apply?
That wasn't my intent, but I realize now that my wording was flawed. My apologies.
I meant to say that the guidance pertains to mentions of those elements in articles about chemistry-related topics (as opposed to any and all mentions in chemistry-related contexts).
Search the MOS.
For text with which I'm unfamiliar? Why don't you simply quote it?
Also, this thread may have some helpful links.
If so, please cite them.
re the "(@ 23:16)" reference: that was to point to posts that did question the authority of WP:ALUM, which was denied in the post I replied to.
Please quote the specific comments to which you're referring.
Yes, that is the subject. However, aluminium as used in this article is a topic, chemistry-related actually.
Again, the guidance applies to "articles about chemistry-related topics", not to any and all articles in which chemistry-related topics are raised. —David Levy 22:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote the specific comments to which you're referring. - I already did. Just read the post referred to.
re Again, the guidance applies to ..: For a third time now, David Levy, you distort WP:ALUM and charge me. And that is after you firstly accused me saying I [sic] misinterpreted WP:ALUM. I don't think you are performing this dscussion sincerely. I don't think any next reply by me would help this discussion, given your attitude^3. Let's just read & apply MOS. -DePiep (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we're trying to do. Mr. Hall is not a chemically related topic, therefor MOS:ALUM does not apply to this article. --Khajidha (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. Just read the post referred to.
In response to "47thPennVols did so (@ 23:16)", I quoted text from the message by 47thPennVols timestamped "23:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)" and noted that it doesn't dispute the validity of WP:ALUM. You replied by stating that the "(@ 23:16)" reference" "was to point to posts that did question the authority of WP:ALUM, which was denied in the post [you] replied to". I realize that, and I'm asking you to quote the specific comments to which you're referring (purportedly contained within the aforementioned 23:16 post and one or more additional "posts" not yet specified).
For a third time now, David Levy, you distort WP:ALUM
By quoting it?
and charge me.
Pardon?
And that is after you firstly accused me saying I [sic] "misinterpreted WP:ALUM".
Why do you regard an assertion that you erred as an invidious accusation (and why have you prepended "[sic]")? My comments stand in stark contrast to your suspicion of "bad faith" on my part.
I don't think you are performing this dscussion sincerely.
I'm baffled as to why you've concluded this. —David Levy 13:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Five days ago, I said there was a preliminary consensus and that I would implement it at the end of the working week unless the consensus changed. The issue was DePiep's edit that changed all occurrences of "aluminum" within the article to "aluminium." DePiep's rationale was that writing "aluminium" would comply with WP:ALUM. My counter argument was that this article was not within the scope of that rule. After my revert was reverted, I appealed to the WikiProjects listed at the top of this talk page to provide more comments. All people that had provided comments by then shared my attitude in that the article was not within the scope of WP:ALUM. Nobody said that the rule itself was bad and should not be followed at all, despite the claims to the contrary.

Since then, the number of voices who suggested WP:ALUM is not relevant in this particular case has only increased and is now at five; the count of those who claimed the opposite remains at one. The consensus is certainly clear. As I promised, I will now change the spelling back to "aluminum." I think 47thPennVols provided good advice when they suggested we expand on how Hall influenced the spelling of the metal in the United States and I will implement that as well (but it is rather late already in my timezone, so not today, but I promise this will be my next activity in the article space).

@DePiep: I hope you can accept a consensus here. If you honestly think that we all are mistaken and want to change the spelling back to aluminium, then please seek a way to do so that would not include you undoing me. I believe this is the kind of thing that the Arbitration Committee exists for. If you undo me again, then I will take precisely the course of action I outlined five days ago. I'm sure that every administrator will agree that going against a consensus without a really good reason for it (like if we sought to reinstate a wrong claim on a living person) is edit warring.--R8R (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Emsley, John (2011). Nature's Building Blocks: An A–Z Guide to the Elements. OUP Oxford. pp. 24–30. ISBN 978-0-19-960563-7.
  2. ^ Connelly, Neil G.; Damhus, Ture, eds. (2005). Nomenclature of inorganic chemistry. IUPAC Recommendations 2005 (PDF). RSC Publishing. p. 249. ISBN 978-0-85404-438-2.[permanent dead link]
  3. ^ "Standard Atomic Weights Revised" (PDF). Chemistry International. 35 (6): 17–18. ISSN 0193-6484.[permanent dead link]

After closing[edit]

I have added info on Hall's contribution to the spelling of the metal, mostly based on Aluminium#Spelling. I think this should be enough given that this is a relatively minor point in his biography, but if anyone else is willing to assess the result, they're more than welcome to.--R8R (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why I reply here at all? -DePiep (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep: Your most recent revert goes against the consensus above. Please restore that text. You are close to the line laid out at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions; please tread carefully. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. It is following it. -DePiep (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clear things up. You all (well, not Jonesey95 who arrived after the party) have spend a week here last month saying that it is not about "-ium" here because this aliminum process Hall invented and named is not about chemical aluminum but something else (or so). That was concluded being the 'consensus', and I left you all, obviously happyum I hope, no fuss [2]. Then, a week later, the opening & concluding editor (ehm?) comes along and adds a load of text to the article about ... the spelling of alumin/i/um. To me and so far to no one else that does not follow from this thread & its conclusion, so I reverted. (note that this reversal was against the position I had advocated). To be clear: the "consensus" was that WP:ALUM was not applicable and so does not matter. Sure one can change mind, but that does not make the consensus superfluous at will. And, of course, changing ones mind does not give licence to attack someone for exactly following consensus. -DePiep (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re the addition of text about the spelling: that was in the consensus above. Here it is excerpted for you: I think 47thPennVols provided good advice when they suggested we expand on how Hall influenced the spelling of the metal in the United States and I will implement that as well – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does not follow from the discussion. The discussion had a different topic (ie, applying a specific MOS). Then to "conclude" that the opposite should be added too, is incorrect. -DePiep (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's set record straight on this one. You say that addition of more info on Hall and spelling was not a part of consensus. I'll try to tell you why I acted as if it was (spoiler: that's what things looked like to me; by using past tense, I don't mean to imply I think otherwise now).
So 47thPennVols in the very beginning of this thread suggested that we do that, add more info on how Hall influenced the spelling of the metal. This seemed like a reasonable suggestion to me: more content is generally a good idea, this is an interesting point, and the article is nowhere near the point where you have to be editorially picky with what you can have and what you can't anyway. So I thought so, too. Sca also added a generic yea to 47thPennVols's comment which I took as an approval of everything in the post. And again, more content is generally a good idea.
When I came down to making a final conclusion, I did feel like the case for having that advice, as good as I found it, was not as strong. Fewer people explicitly supported it. But the thing was that nobody---including you---made a point even once that we should not do that. This has been here almost since the beginning, this was mentioned four times in total (twice by 47thPennVols, twice by myself) before this was implemented---no way you could have possibly missed that. So I was under natural assumption that nobody opposed that idea. And let me tell you that if you had spoken up against the idea, I would have said that there was no consensus on that: fewer yeas meant a nay had more weight. Also, for the record, I would've happily released myself from having to add this information (but because I think a consensus needs to be implemented and because I felt that if I hadn't done it, nobody would, I had to). But you didn't say a word (feel free to prove me wrong; I'll apologize if I am wrong on this one).
Now as for how this information contradicts the consensus that WP:ALUM was inapplicable: it doesn't. WP:ALUM is plain irrelevant for content issues. It has nothing to do with that, does not support or object including any information. It merely regulates spellings within existing content. So this is not opposite to the consensus on inapplicability of WP:ALUM nor is it aligned with that; it is an entirely different issue. And, again, it was a part of the discussion. You could have easily spoken up against it during the discussion, and as I said, I would've listened to you if you had. So your undoing really came out of the blue, especially given that you had not objected changing spelling of the name of the metal (if anywhere, I expected problems there). It angered me but it also really puzzled me and it took me quite some time to come up with a possible explanation. The explanation that I came up with was that you still didn't accept that WP:ALUM was inapplicable (why else would you mention that rule in the edit summary) but a blatant undoing of the spelling edit would've resulted in obvious consequences and you did what you could. I didn't quite like it myself and I took some time to closely consider that was really it because of how unbelievable it looked, but there was nothing better. Late on Sunday it occurred to me that what you actually meant was that you simply meant that the issue of spelling was not important enough for the personality of Hall and that's why we shouldn't have that in the article (but boy, what an inarticulate way you chose to say this). I thought I had overreacted by then and closely considered apologizing for the inconvenience but I decided to take some time to consider everything again and again. And then I remembered: you had all the possibility if not to convince everyone otherwise, then to at least raise a voice. Not even saying a word during the discussion and then undoing what had been suggested? Well, that was outrageous.
So no, I don't take blame on acting against the consensus. I acted in full accordance with it. You're welcome to prove me wrong by naming one remark made during the discussion against having that information.--R8R (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Won't have time to reply within next 24h. -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your statement ('consensus') concluded that adding a section on the -ium/-um spelling was supported. However, such an addition does not follow from the discussion. First of all, the topic here is WP:ALUM. Suggestion by 47th to add "a separate section" no less on the spelling history as a sort of compromise, in a post that did not address the main issue at all. Even stronger: if you first conclude as consensus that this article is not about alimunum at all, let alone the spelling of it, the consequence is that this history of aluminum is beyond the pale even further. This looks so much of a deviation that I have not considered that serious, amidst all other distractions. (More below).

2. re 47thPennVols (47th) posts. 47th posted three times. Let us note that none of these refers to or argues about the issue of WP:ALUM. Even after quoting me including a wikilink to WP:ALUM "[DePiep:] per WP:ALUM (and per IUPAC, as the MOS says)", 47th did not address it. Before and after quoting the link, 47th used their argument "NOT a scientific article". Reused it, so no change even after mentioning WP:ALUM themselves.

Instead, 47th argues as if it is about WP:ENGVAR choice between en-US and en-UK. It all "strong ties", "numerous [wikipedia] guidance articles", "New York Times", etcetera. Of course nobody proposed en-UK. Unfortunately, this angle kept popping up.
47th copy/pasted two posts, "similar opinions" from WT:MAIN, that were written *before and outside of* the current thread. None of these posts referred to WP:ALUM. Nor did Sca when they came here to affirm; just a confirmation of 47th's underinformed statement.
The copy-posting and pinging of The Rambling Man and Sca is canvassing. And I don't think reusing other persons posts this way as an argument is not acceptable talkpage behaviour. As a closer, you should have noticed this and explicitly discard any such votes (not !votes) wholesale.
Another grave mistake in 47th's posts, uncorrected, is that they stated it "is really not for you to decide, @DePiep". Of course this follows from their misconception of being about ENGVAR not ALUM, but still it could and should have been corrected. Even after I pointed out this mistake writing "per WP:ALUM ... and per IUPAC" 47th quoted me, actually mentioning the actual deciding bodies, and still maintained their mistake.
The fact that 47th did not even read WP:ALUM had grave consequences. The by then falsified argument was repeated by Khajidha and R8R. So I had to spend half athread explaining this error, without effect.
All in all, 47th never argued to ignore WP:ALUM as you concluded. They just never used it in the discussion at all.
As for attitude, I quote 47th again. "... because this user [DePiep] is not willing to listen and seriously consider other points of view" says the editor who completely missed the topic WP:ALUM, even after being pointed to it. "is really not for you to decide, @DePiep:": WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT turned in to a PA - the arrogance. "I note that DePiep has spread this debate across multiple talk forums, over several months, including Talk:Aluminum via the thread ...". Accusing me of discussing then. What is this? Must I feel caught? What was 47th looking for at all? Why not read WP:ALUM instead of trying to find dirt on an editor? And R8R, you did not correct or even note one of these degrading, disruptive attacks.

3. re Sca's posting: was canvassed, arguing without involving WP:ALUM, redid ENGVAR while not-the-issue, went on about changing article title!? Still was vote-counted.

4. re Khajidha's posts: In general some arguing all right. Still talking down on me ("might come as a surprise to you"). And repeating the 47th distraction painting "IUPAC is not some god-like being with the power to determine ... current English", the misguided ENGVAR angle again, by now a red herring. Unnoticed, uncorrected by the closing editor.

5. re David Levy's posts: In their opening post, Levy first accused me I "misinterpreted WP:ALUM", after that misquoted the MOS themselves to fit their skewed argument. When I pointed that out, Levy sidetracked about exact quoting vs. describing, thereby evading the problem. Later Levy misinterpreted WP:ALUM to include only three artilces, and when sort of corrected it (after a prompt) but did not strike. Later on, Levy called me out for incomplete quoting by quoting incomplete, with a jab not an argument again and asking for links already provided. All in all, Levy made their point being a copy/paste issue. Up to this moment, the original accusation is not withdrawn. Except for counting, it is unclear what content argument the close got out of their posts.

6. re R8R, your replies. In general, can have a lot of understanding for some slips, since it is a big job to both guide & contribute to the discussion at the same time. Still some remarks are too skew, misguided or unhelpful in this thread in any way. Even worse they misrepresented my arguments.

For example, saying "(please read it [=WP:ALUM])" is a paternalistic, especially given that I was the one who linked it while inviting you [3].
Too often if not always, R8R, you first rewrite my comment and then start replying to your own rewriting. That is called a strawman. Throughout this discussion, this is misleading and distracting. What am I supposed to defend?
"47thPennVols in their 23:16 comment opposed that notion": no, 47th did not oppose [your strawman]. They ignored my point and your OP issue WP:ALUM.
"Nobody questioned the authority of WP:ALUM as such." - WP:ALUM was ignored by The Rambling Man, Sca, 47th. 47th cited Emsley and ENGVAR-pages to undermine the MOS/IUPAC base. Khajidha wrote "god-like" about the RL RS source of that MOS. David Levy misquoted the MOS after accusing me of misnterpretating it. They may have been be misguided only, but that does not allow you to conclude "nobody" as you did.
"Nobody said that the rule itself was bad and should not be followed at all, despite the claims to the contrary" (strawman). See previous line. Plus PAs towards me, you did not see while monitoring this page.
Yes I wrote "you [R8R] introduce personal opinion": what's wrong with that? It was just to point out that you both engaged and monitored this discussion. I see no wrong in noting that you expressed your opinion in an argument. What else is a discussion for? I really don't see anything wrong in this.
You claiming that I wrote: "both "aluminium is the only spelling" and "IUPAC said so."": strawman, here you even added the ""-quotes. False quotes, why or how am I supposed to discuss those?
"a proclamation [by DePiep] of that it does not matter what the ENGVAR says" (strawman). As described above re 47th posts, this is a false representation initiated by 47th. I have pushed back explaining, and I blame you for still repeating this until the end. I wrote about WP:ALUM, a MOS not coincidentally the topic here. After my so many corrections re this misreading, by then it takes a lot of tolerance to classify this as just sloppyness.
"... saw in this a proclamation of that it does not matter what the ENGVAR says because that is how the language is anyway.": no, I mentioned the deciding bodies. Also, note that it was 47th not me that started about ENGVAR-only arguing instead of relating to WP:ALUM, the topic. Can you follow that by now I've had enough of these repeated false representations?
"since you don't listen anyway". Sure.

7. re R8R, your concluding, the 'consensus'.

a. Adding a full section about the spelling was not topic of the discusison nor did it follow from it nor from your opening conclusion.
b. In your reasoning & arguing, you have made some very sloppy lines of thought, including, and often starting from, misrepresenting my statements and repeating statements already done with.
c. You resorted to vote counting, while certain votes are to be discarded and other votes were not measured for quality & relevance. Just vote counting. A major contibutor did not discuss the issue at hand, and introduced distracting sideroutes that made it into your conclusions. There was canvassing. There were PAs unchallenged by you.
-DePiep (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without getting into further back and forth on this, I'm simply going to point out that DePiep has made false statements in his/her/their most recent post. I'm choosing to respond here to only one of those (DePiep's statement that "The fact that 47th did not even read WP:ALUM had grave consequences.") because it's an utterly false claim by DePiep. I read WP:ALUM in its entirety before making my first response to DePiep. I stand by my initial statements and explanation for why the choice of word spelling for this particular article should be "aluminum." I have remained largely silent because I wanted to give other editors the opportunity to add their opinions. Furthermore, after re-reading the entire discussion on this matter, I also have come to believe that a consensus was reached for this spelling (that it should be "aluminum"). The only participant who appears to have not been in agreement with the group's consensus was DePiep. For this reason, I also hope that DePiep will now put this matter to rest so that we can all move on to other more pressing matters (or go for a walk in the woods, or spend time with loved ones, or read a good book, or do any of the other things ordinary people across the globe do on a beautiful day). After all, the article we've been debating is just a Wikipedia article, not the wording of an international peace treaty. Kind Regards to all. 47thPennVols (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not advocated here to overturn the main closure. I do have illustrated that the posts and conclusion-drawing process were seriously flawed. Of course 47thPennVols may have read WP:ALUM; my point is that in none of their posts they referred to it, nothing from there was not brought in as an argument (for or against) at all. 47th brought an ENGVAR-only argumentation about en-US versus en-UK. Also, your unwillingness to admit that it was not me "deciding" on the IUPAC/MOS spelling you still have not withdrawn, nor the tone applied. Obviously, you did find it useful to trawl my editing for dirt, and you came up with a discussion to blame me. -DePiep (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DePiep: Several editors involved in this discussion have politely asked you to move on to another project or different article. I am now asking again, and also giving you a gentle reminder that you've previously received indefinite topic bans and editing restrictions for continous disputation, recurring failure to WP:HEAR, and making personal attacks on other Wikipedia editors. (See the May 18, 2018 summary of that decision here in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984, item number 72.) Please move on. Thank you. 47thPennVols (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I replied to R8R, who has performed the monitoring & closing of this thread and who has addressed me multiple times recently in this. I think I have the freedom to respond in issues I am involved or drawn in. You are free to read & join this discussion by your own choice. If you want a wider overview of the context (it looks like you are missing some aspects), you can ask for clarification. As for HEAR: we might find a WP:BOOMERANG in there. -DePiep (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason people keep bringing up ENGVAR is because that is the controlling rule once WP:ALUM has been shown to be non-applicable to this article as it is not using the word in a primarily chemical context. --Khajidha (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Names of founders in lead but not in body[edit]

The names of the Alcoa founders are in the lead but not in the body. Did they go MIA from the body during the recent edit wars? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Martin_Hall&oldid=1217666866"