Talk:Eunice Newton Foote

untitled

Is this line supported by any sources? It seems plausible but speculative: "Due to a myriad of reasons, mainly the fact that Foote was a woman, her work had gone unrecognized." — Preceding unsigned comment added by N mc lucy (talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Editors & Happy Birthday Eunice Foote,[July 17]

 I very much study Eunice & Elisha and am good friends with other Eunice expert Prof John Perlin UC Santa Barbara. He has pointed out that I am responsible for a wrong fact. Eunice WAS NOT taught by Almira Hart Lincoln Phelps. She was very influenced by her textbooks, Almira was the sister to Emma Willard, but Almira had moved on to West Chester PA by the time Eunice got her education. [I am the one who tracked down her place of education.] I am sorry for the 'facto'. I am planning to open a website soon about Eunice. At that point you can expect very many additions to this page.  Please look for me today to make that edit; hopefully you will have seen this notice first.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by James 'Jimbo' Daily (talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC) 

Article claiming Eunice Foote first identified greenhouse effect

No time to work on this myself now, but this article seems interesting and relevant: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/02/the-woman-who-identified-the-greenhouse-effect-years-before-tyndall/ HouseOfChange (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

 Could someone please tell me why my external link was removed? I specifically am adding to the history of New York State with my write-up that has been linked to the internet by Katharine Hayhoe. Katharine is a very famous Climate Scientist from Texas Tech. She is the lead author of the 2nd Annual US Climate Assessment done for the National Academy of Sciences. Apparently she found my contribution worthy. Why not WikiP?

 Also, there is a problem with a fact. Footnote 12 is to substantiate the claim that Eunice and Elisha Foote's house is still standing as of 2016. This is not the case. Please check the address on the map listed on the website - you will see the site is a parking lot and lawn. Confirmed with a phone call to the Seneca Falls Historical Society. Fran Barberry there confirmed this fact.
 Thank You, James 'Jimbo' Daily (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

My concern with this part of the article is that the experiment that Foote performed may have gotten the right result (CO2 is a warming gas) for the wrong reasons (CO2 is denser than air, not that CO2 is an infrared absorber). My source for this argument is the following 2009 article: https://rtobin.phy.tufts.edu/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf. I'd be interested in the thoughts of more experienced Wiki editors whether this would be a reasonable addition to this section... e.g., something like "While Foote's work came to the right conclusions, it is possible that the actual physics behind her results was based on density, not the infrared properties of CO2. See the work by Wagoner et al (citation), which demonstrates this by using argon, a non-absorbing gas." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8500:19A0:55A6:125A:A2AC:B324 (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Photo/Sketch

Can someone check if there is a photo or sketch of her in this publication? prokaryotes (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Afraid not. Little about her at all. Fences&Windows 06:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Early or the first?

Dang, I just read of an early theorist on C02 greenhouse effect, I think from 1780s. I'll try and dig it up. We might be better to state "a very early discoverer of..." than "the first". Kudos to Eunice though, she nailed it. 72.141.106.240 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you're thinking of Horace Bénédict de Saussure whose "hot box" was an early analogy of a much simplified "greenhouse effect". Foote's apparatus worked in a similar way, but I don't think there's any evidence that she knew of his work or went as far as him in appreciating "obscure heat" radiating from surfaces that had been warmed. . . dave souza, talk 18:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Colour blindness paper

Time magazine, cited in the article, includes the point: "Did Tyndall know about Foote’s paper? It’s unclear — though he did have a paper on color blindness in the same 1856 journal as hers." That seems to suggest that Foote's paper in the American Journal of Science and Arts would have been read by Tyndall because a paper by him had been republished by that journal earlier in the same year, but there's no reason for that to have been the case, or even any evidence that his permission was sought for the republication. The following sentence showed the context:

A paper on colour blindness, which Tyndall had published in May 1856,<ref. "Tyndall 1856 pp. 329–333">Tyndall, John (1856). "XLI. On a peculiar case of colour blindness". The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. 11 (73). Informa UK Limited: 329–333. doi:10.1080/14786445608642078. ISSN 1941-5982.</ref> was republished in the American Journal of Science and Arts, which later published Foote's research.[ref name="Time"]

On review, I think it's not worth going into detail on what seems to be a misunderstanding by Time, so have removed it. . . dave souza, talk 18:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Physicist?

I'm wondering about the article lead describing her as a "physicist".

If I understand correctly she came to her work through a background in chemistry and biology. The greenhouse effect sits at the intersection of chemistry and physics. At the time would she have been seen as more of a chemist, or physicist, both, neither? Today, do people usually think of her as a physicist?

I'm genuinely curious. I've read about her contributions before and have seen her described as a scientist many times, but I think today was the first time I saw her described as a physicist. So that description seems atypical to me. Dragons flight (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I've looked through several of the better sources, and haven't found that description. Huddleston says "amateur scientist", Jackson says "scientific researcher", Sorenson says "woman scientist" and also says that evidence of other scientific work by her has not been found. I've removed the word until a good source is found. . . dave souza, talk 23:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Anti-greenhouse effect

Her finding is described thus in the article, does anti-greenhouse effect refer to the same thing? . dave souza, talk 18:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Eunice Foote

The photo looks to be from the 1890's, by which time Mrs. Foote was dead. Perhaps it's her daughter? 2A02:8440:3308:3EBB:0:2C:1D9D:FF01 (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eunice Newton Foote/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 18:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You're the best! Thank you so much. I really, really appreciate it and look forward to improving it. (I know you always ask and I usually say no, but this time I am thinking FA). SusunW (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Quick fail: "Foote" is consistently missplet.

AE, dearest, misspelled, but missplet seems off-foote for even BE. SusunW (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Emtirely correct, but I thought it may raise your eyebrow.

• "in the epicenter of social and political movements of her day". A bit flowery for an encyclopedia? 'at the center of the social and political movements of her day'?

• Okay, done.

• "She attended the Troy Female Seminary and the Rensselaer School from age seventeen to nineteen". Do you mean that? Or 'She attended the Troy Female Seminary and, from age seventeen to nineteen, the Rensselaer School'?

• Yes, I mean that. Both schools at the same time. She took different things at the schools which were according to sources "adjacent". SusunW (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• "the first gathering to discuss and examine women's rights". Ever? In the whole world, in the whole of history?

• Yep. It had been a side topic at abolition conventions, anti-slavery meetings and the organizational meeting of the Bábí religion in Persia, but never the sole focus of a gathering. Maybe the clarification I added works?

• "theorized". I think that the correct scientific term (as opposed to common usage) would be 'hypothesized'.

• done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me know if there are still issues with any of that. SusunW (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• "the first known publication in physics by a woman". In the world?

• Yes, I think so, but it's implied and not stated. The quote is "the only woman to be published in serious physics journals until Madame Curie", who obviously was Polish and working in France, so at the very least in Western culture. I added in a scientific journal for clarification.

That works, nice.

• "Her father was a farmer and entrepreneur in East Bloomfield, amassing wealth and losing money through speculation. Her father was a ..." "Her father was a ... Her father was a ..." And two sentences later "Her father ..."

• Good catch, thanks. I revised it.

• "Girls attending the school studied astronomy, chemistry, geography, and meteorology." Are you implying that she didn't?

• Not implying anything. Since we don't know what she actually studied there, I listed the entire curriculum offered (to girls, at Rensselaer) at both schools. I tweaked the wording to say could study, which perhaps makes it clearer? (I wrote to Perlin to see if additional biographical information had been discovered. He was given a grant in 2015 by UC-Santa Barbara to write her bio. Like every other male academic I have ever written, crickets.)

• Link suffragist?

• done.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Think I have these. Let me know if there is anything further to clarify. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking pretty good so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• No usable images of Foote? [1]

• No confirmed images. The one with the dog was on the article and removed. Clearly not her, as the dress/hair style is in the period of 1880-1890s and too young for her at that time - it's very likely her daughter Mary. (Compare the first photo in the first row of photos in your link with the fourth, which is definitely Mary.) The one on the far right of that row in the earliest article I could find said it may be her, or may be one of her daughters (unlikely as the style of dress/hair is from the 1860s and they would have been teenagers), or it might be a friend. No clue where they got it from. Multiple sources confirm that there is no definitively identified image, even after contact with descendants. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

And here is absolute proof that the image with the dog is Mary, Foote's daughter, from 1904. SusunW (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary break for ease of editing

• "She used an air pump with limited power to adjust the air pressure in a tube about two feet long and three inches in diameter and sealed at the ends with brass caps." Is it known what the tubes were made of?

• added glass

• Do you want your links archiving? (Open question.)

• Because I have lots of trouble linking websites from Mexico, I usually archive everything (unless there is a doi or other link, like jstor, muse, etc). If it is live, I generally try to use url-status=live, but admittedly sometimes I forget to do that. If this is about Reed, the url-link is dead and I added that.

• "Attached to the caps was a gold leaf electrometer". This is not clear to me. Were both caps connected tot he same electrometer? Or each to a separate one?

• I have no idea. Reed says "she reported experiments with a glass tube filled with different gases and attached to a gold leaf electrometer"…"and consisted of evacuating the tube and replacing the air with oxygen, hydrogen or carbon dioxide. She noted the effects of changing pressures [by the use of an air pump] and also the effects of heat and humidity upon electrical charges as indicated by the action of the gold leaves". (Reed's brackets, not mine.) In the first sentence, she says a tube and an electrometer, but then says multiple gold leaves. Okay, but Ortiz/Jackson say she used "a glass tube about twenty-two inches in height and three in diameter, with its ends closed by brass caps cemented to it. At the bottom was a stop-cock and a screw by which it was attached to the air pump. She goes on to describe the electrical components of the apparatus". Which makes me think one end was affixed to the pump and the other had the electrometer attached. I've changed it to read: "Attached to one cap was a gold leaf electrometer, which allowed her to measure electrical charges and the other cap was attached to the pump". Better?

• "Vacuuming out the atmospheric air, she tested oxygen, hydrogen, and CO2, as well as dry and damp air." How did "Vacuuming out the atmospheric air" permit her to test these other things? Surely vacuuming out the atmospheric air would leave, er, a vacuum?

• Well now, it seems logical to me that if you have air in the tube and you wanna test something else, you have to get rid of what's in there first. Reed says the experiment "consisted of evacuating the tube and replacing the air with oxygen, hydrogen or carbon dioxide". So I've changed it to read "Vacuuming out the atmospheric air, she replaced it with oxygen, hydrogen, and CO2, as well as dry and damp air for testing the effect upon the electrical charge". Better?

• "and gases in the air which could generate static electricity." Do you mean 'and which gases in the air could generate static electricity'?

• Ortiz/Jackson say the study tested the "impact of moisture and gaseous composition on the ability of air to generate static electricity.", so probably you are correct. Changed.

• "The work postulated that". By "The work", do you mean 'The paper'? Which has not yet been introduced.

• No I meant the testing/the study/the research. I changed it to read "She was working from an assumption". Is that better?

It is. Work, for all its advantages, is poor at postulation.

• "the first known publication in the field by a woman." Optional: add 'anywhere'.

• I hesitate to say that

Why? I mean, you have already said it. If you are doubtful about it you shouldn't be saying "the first known publication in the field by a woman."

But, but, what if they failed to check in China or Timbuktu? (I struggle with absolutes so much.) But, okay, known, limits it and if knowledge changes, we can change it, so done.

[2]

• "proving that adiabatic heating or cooling" is not grammatical.

• I'm not sure what you mean by that but if you meant by proving, I added "by"

Nope. I mean you need to say something like ""proving that adiabatic heating or cooling caused changes in pressure" or "proving that adiabatic heating or cooling turned her urine purple" or whatever.

I am still confused. The sentence reads "by proving that adiabatic heating or cooling… is a result of pressure". The phrase that explains what adiabatic heating/cooling is between these two parts but is necessary IMO to help mere mortals understand what adiabatic means. Whether the phrase is there or not, it is still a proper s/v clause. I could say "results from pressure", but other than that, I still don't follow. Sorry.

You're right. Apologies. I think that the length of this sentence "The article about Foote's findings published in The New-York Daily Times on August 18, 1857, claimed that her findings had been "never heretofore proven", though in fact, they confirmed the ideal gas law, published in 1834, by proving that adiabatic heating or cooling, in other words change that occurs in temperature without adding or removing heat, is a result of pressure" caused me to lose the thread. I'm male. I can't concentrate for that long.

Okay. I put a period after 1834, i.e. "The article about Foote's findings published in The New-York Daily Times on August 18, 1857, claimed that her findings had been "never heretofore proven", though in fact, they confirmed the ideal gas law, published in 1834. She proved that adiabatic heating or cooling…" Better?

• "which in turn, impacts the generation of electricity." Is this missing the word 'static'?

• added static

• "noted that the 1842 patent Elijah filed on a thermostatically-controlled cooking stove, was made by Eunice." This states that the patent was made by Eunice. I don't think that's what you mean.

• "Elijah filed a patent in 1842, on a thermostatically-controlled cooking stove, which had been invented by Eunice." Better?

• "Rachel Brazil, a science writer for Chemistry World, noted that". Is it known when this was noted?

• added "in 2020"

• "the machine allowed better wrapping and printing paper to be manufactured". Perhaps 'better quality'? If that is what is meant.

• The Daily Evening Star says: "An improvement in the manufacture of wrapping and printing paper has recently been invented by Mrs. Eunice N. Foote…This is said to be a very valuable invention and one certain to make paper better and cheaper." I struggled with this because cheaper generally means that quality suffers, but if we're talking of going from hand-crafted with imperfections to machine-made with consistency, then likely quality would go up. Your thoughts?

Looking at the source I think you could go with "better quality".

Done.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

We're getting to the parts that make my head spin, so I might have to "phone a friend". I literally read these scientific papers multiple times to have even a slight clue as to what they were trying to convey. SusunW (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I thought that the explanation of the first paper was excellent, and with this one the main issue seems to be the obtuseness of the source.

You are kind. It could well be the obtuseness of the writer.

• "Some writers nevertheless credit the greenhouse effect to Svante Arrhenius". Delete "nevertheless".

• done

• "for increased representation in academia". Perhaps 'for increased female representation in academia' or similar?

• I avoid female as it is a politically charged (i.e. non neutral) word,[3] so went with "for increased representation of women"

"“female” has biological overtones and focusses too narrowly on the reproductive system." You have got to be kidding me. "You would never refer to Cory Booker as “a male candidate,”" Of course you would - a skim of the coverage of the ongoing contest to become UK prime minister yields dozens of examples. Hey ho, it's your article, by all means let us not ruffle the tender sensitivities of the woke.

• "hoping to address historical omissions and address discrimination". "... address ... address ..."

• changed 2nd to eliminate.

• "academic inclusion of women". What does this mean?

• changed it to read "The push for the inclusion of women as both historical subjects and a field of study for academics resulted in the first university women's studies program". Better?

Yep.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That part was not brutal. Still in my comfort zone. Next part won't be so easy for me. But, I truly appreciate your attention to getting the article right and making it better. SusunW (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Roland Jackson, a visiting scholar at the London-based Royal Institution, set out to analyze the questions of priority of Foote's work". When?

• added 2019

• "as did Hayhoe." When?

• added 2016

• "could not distinguish between the effects of energy emitted from the sun and the earth's heat, infrared radiation, in other words visible and invisible radiation." I am not convinced you have this right. If you have, I don't understand it.

• Jackson says "Foote's experimental apparatus was simple… her experimental arrangement does not differentiate between the direct effect of solar radiation and that (in modern terms) of radiated longwave infra-red from the earth's surface". Hayhoe says "her rudimentary experimental design of simply putting jars out in the sun did not actually allow her to isolate the effects of the infrared (heat) radiation given off by the earth from the higher-wavelength energy given off by the sun." Hecht says "solar radiation reaching the ground was mostly visible, but the "heat" radiated by the Earth and hot surface objects was largely infrared…invisible to the eye". Thus, to my eye, they are saying that she couldn't tell if sunlight was causing the gases to heat or if it was radiation causing them to heat? Your thoughts? Yeah, you got that right, and I can now see what the original was driving at. How about '"could not distinguish between the effects of energy emitted from the sun and infrared energy radiated by the Earth.' or similar?

Thanks, done.

• "Does the composition of the gas in the atmosphere affect its warming response to the Sun’s rays?" Perhaps 'Does the composition of gases in the atmosphere affect its warming response to the Sun’s rays?' ?

• The three questions are a direct quote from the source.

• "and Can the effect of different gases on the warming response of the Sun’s rays be ranked?" "Can" → 'can'. Perhaps 'and can the warming response to the Sun’s rays of different gases be ranked?" ?

• Ditto to above

• "they could not be elevated to the titles of". I think one can be given a title or elevated to a position.

• okay. Changed to given

• "Katharine Wilkinson, climate activist and writer acknowledged that social norms may have played a part in Foote not presenting her own paper. When?

• 2019 added

• "Washington Post journalist Gillian Brockell wrote that perhaps Henry presented the work so that male scientists would take it seriously." Ditto.

• 2021 added

Et fin. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with me and your help to clarify the article. I genuinely wanted to improve our article on her and her work and truly could not have done so without the collaboration of many. I think we are down to the one question, but let me know your thoughts. SusunW (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

So when would you like this wrapping up? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I have answered all of your questions and those of BennyOnTheLoose on Reed, so, whenever y'all are ready to push the buttons, I think we can go to DYK with the double hook. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Excellent article, on a woman who sorely needed the skilled attention. A privilege to be promoting it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Eunice Newton Foote
• Elizabeth Wagner Reed

)

Wagner Reed, 1933

• ... that the lost contributions of Eunice Newton Foote, about climate change, were recovered by Elizabeth Wagner Reed (pictured), whose contributions to genetics were also lost? Source: "Foote’s groundbreaking conclusions fell into obscurity","Tyndall’s work is widely accepted as the foundation of modern climate science, while Foote’s remains in obscurity." "But in a lost piece of scientific history recovered only in 2011, Foote scooped Tyndall by three years",[4] "Elizabeth Wagner Reed, a teacher and researcher has drawn particular attention to American antebellum women in science ... gathering a list of twenty two biographies of such women.” pp88-89 "[Foote] also found the result that the cylinder containing carbon dioxide became much warmer in sunlight than the one containing air, thereby demonstrating what we call the greenhouse effect.p 66 "Among the leading figures historians present as those who established the field [of population genetics], none were women... This picture, as we will see, is historically inaccurate. From the very early days of Drosophila population genetics, which included studies of speciation, women were present. Natasha Sivertzeva-Dobzhansky (1901–1969), and Elizabeth Wanger Reed (1912–1996) were pioneers".EBSCOhost 143003976
• ALT1: ... that sexism contributed to the works of both Eunice Newton Foote, on climate change, and the geneticist who recovered her legacy, Elizabeth Wagner Reed (pictured), falling into obscurity? Source: See above and re Foote: science was largely a male-dominated field, ignored a discovery claimed by a woman, re Reed: "because they were married to prominent men in the field, their contributions have remained invisible, masked by those of their husbands".EBSCOhost 143003976

Declaration of Sentiments with Foote's signature

• ALT2: ... that the scientists Eunice Newton Foote (signature pictured) and Elizabeth Wagner Reed, who recovered Foote's legacy, were both women's rights campaigners? Source: see above and re Foote: "Foote attended, and signed the convention’s “Declaration of Sentiments” that stated the societal changes necessary to fully include women. More than that, she helped prepare the conference proceedings".[5] re Reed: "she taught women about their rights, helped improve their self-esteem, and encouraged them to continue working as scientists".EBSCOhost 143003976 "She had a lifelong commitment to women’s rights, expressed through activism, teaching and research”.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur Samuel Garretson and Template:Did you know nominations/Emma Hunter (telegrapher)
  • Comment: These are two important women scientists whose legacies were lost. Many sources give the recovery of Foote to Sorensen, but he did not first recover her. Reed's work was published in 1992 and noted her theory on warming gases affecting climate, predating Sorensen's discovery in 2011 that Foote's work was earlier than Tyndall's. I'd really, really like them to have the lead slot. There are no known photographs of Foote and though we contacted Reed's daughter, a better photo of her could not be obtained. If the 2nd alt is chosen, the File:Declaration sentiments foote lrg.jpg (Foote's signature on the Declaration of Sentiments) could be used, but I have no earthly idea how to add a 2nd image to this nomination.
    • Added image to nomination, though Foote's signature isn't very prominent. --GRuban (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Improved to Good Article status by SusunW (talk), Ipigott (talk), XOR'easter (talk), and GRuban (talk). Nominated by SusunW (talk) at 14:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC).

• No issues with either of the article's eligibility, referencing, neutrality, copyright status (all quotes, org names and false positives on Earwig) or the like, as expected from writers of this calibre. The relevant achievements of each woman are quite nuanced—it's not so simple to say that Foote "discovered climate change", for instance—but I believe the articles communicate this nuance appropriately.
  However, when it comes to the hook (ALT0), I'm not too sure on the description of either person's work as being "lost". Foote's work was published in scientific journals under her own name. And perhaps I'm misreading, but it looks like Reed's work was built upon, just with her contributions not always fully portrayed. Is some other wording possible—about how the works were initially "overlooked" or "obscured", or were later "brought to prominence" or "reappraised" or "recognised"? I would like to stick with some variant of ALT0, though, as interesting and eye-catching.
  While I am sympathetic to this hook being appropriate for the first slot due to importance, I don't believe the images presented or any others in either article are of appropriate quality for the image slot, especially given the imbalance with no image of Foote. — Bilorv (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Bilorv, I'm okay with that, but had to take a shot. The lack of a photo for Foote is frustrating, but nothing can be done about it unless one surfaces. As for lost, they were well and truly buried, scientists denied/ignored/didn't know or acknowledge that they had written works in their fields. Even though there was a published record, lack of digitization and biases also played a part in later scientists not recognizing them. I don't really know the best word to describe that phenomena. Perhaps unacknowledged? I get 176 characters if we go with "that the unacknowledged contributions of Eunice Newton Foote, about climate change, were recovered by Elizabeth Wagner Reed, whose contributions to genetics were also obscured?" Does that work? SusunW (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• ALT3: ... that the unacknowledged contributions of Eunice Newton Foote, about climate change, were recovered by Elizabeth Wagner Reed, whose contributions to genetics were also obscured?

Yep, that works for me. For clarity, I've written it out as ALT3 and it's an ALT3 approved from me. — Bilorv (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Allowed to speak?

I'm having difficulty with the sentence, "Foote did not read her paper to those present—women were in principle allowed to speak publicly at the conference—and her paper was instead presented by Joseph Henry of the Smithsonian Institution."

This would make more sense with "women were not allowed to speak publicly at the conference". Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Vaughan Pratt Not sure why you are having a problem with it. To me, it's clear, there weren't rules saying she couldn't but no one would have taken her seriously because she was a "mere woman", so she didn't. Saying they weren't allowed to speak would not follow the sources. SusunW (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not following. If "women in principle were allowed to speak publicly at the conference", how does that explain either of "Foote did not read her paper to those present" or "her paper was instead presented by Joseph Henry of the Smithsonian Institution"?

With no actual barrier to her speaking, why didn't she speak? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Vaughan Pratt I am having difficulty understanding if this is a genuine lack of understanding or if you are attempting to provoke or incite drama. However, I will AGF that it is genuine and reply, but as I am going to be away, I will ping Gog the Mild, a FA coordinator, to monitor the discussion. It is very, very clear from the sources cited and numerous scholarly works which can be found from a Google search that her work was discounted because she was a woman. At the time, women were legally classed as dependents often styled in a category including "criminals, idiots, women, and children".[6] Few women were allowed education, and cultural expectation for a woman of her social class at the time would have been that she was "at home" and could not have accepted paid wages after marriage.[7] Despite the fact that scientists considered her to be an amateur, she wanted her work to be seriously considered. Had she presented it, it wouldn't have been, so she opted for a man to present it. I cannot make it any clearer than that. SusunW (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

If you are "having difficulty with the sentence" - and I don't blame you in the slightest if you are - then I think it may be a case of your more having difficulty with what the reality of the time was. As you say, to the modern observer it makes no sense. Nevertheless, it accurately reflects what the sources say about the event. (And about many, many other women's situations; but that is another matter.) Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"so she opted for a man to present it. I cannot make it any clearer than that."

Thank you, that makes it perfectly clear. Here's a suggested fix for the concern I raised. "Foote opted to have her paper presented by Joseph Henry of the Smithsonian Institution." Much shorter and perfectly clear. If there appears to be a need to add further clarification, I'd have no problem with that. The important point is that it was her choice, which is not clear to people like me from the present article. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Er, no. The important thing, as brought out in the source, is that in reality she did not have a choice; no matter what the "theory" was. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, and thanks Gog the Mild. I appreciate you. SusunW (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Phew, thank you. So my original point, "This would make more sense with "women were not allowed to speak publicly at the conference"." was correct after all, yes?

SusunW's reply to my original point, "Saying they weren't allowed to speak would not follow the sources" seems to contradict Gog the Mild's "as brought out in the source, is that in reality she did not have a choice", which SusunW then agreed with.

Either SusunW changed her mind in the interim, or I'm suffering from dementia. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Vaughan Pratt No your original premise was not correct, not in line with the sources, and I didn't change my mind. It seems obvious to me at this point that you do not know about women's history. I totally understand that because it isn't taught in general history courses and must be taken as a separate field of study in university level courses. There weren't rules saying she could not speak, as the source says. There was a similar situation when a friend of Foote, Susan B. Anthony, attempted to address a teacher's meeting in 1853 (around the same time as Foote's presentation). Debate ensued for half an hour by the men present over whether or not Anthony should be allowed to do so. Although they did let her to speak, the crowd was hostile.[8] Custom, not written laws or rules, made it unlikely that a woman would be allowed to speak. The audience might have allowed Foote to do so, had she asked. But she didn't ask because few of the men present would have listened to her and fewer would have given any weight to what she had to say. SusunW (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"It seems obvious to me at this point that you do not know about women's history."

I don't claim I do. But for those like me who were trained in physics and work on the greenhouse effect, it would be helpful if the article clarified whether she chose not to present her paper or had no choice. Gog the Mild said she had no choice, but if one needs familiarity with women's history in order to infer that from the article then surely that violates some WP guideline. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)