Talk:John William Strutt, 3rd Baron Rayleigh

message: How his family name ('Strutt') is pronounced? Mir76 17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine that it's pronounced like the verb 'to strut.'  For my part, I'd like to know how his title is pronounced.  I've heard the 'y' pronounced as a 'w'. --Smack (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smack:  not according to the OED.  They have /ˈreɪlɪ/ (see IPA). — DIV (128.250.204.118 08:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've heard a similar thing said of Hilbert.  It's almost certainly not possible to know for sure - what would we include in 'mathematics' and 'physics'?  7daysahead (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Rayleigh's son, Robert John Strutt, 4th Baron Rayleigh, was also a well known physicist.  I've added a link to his page. It was Robert John Strutt who discovered active nitrogen in 1910, and I've moved references active nitrogen to Robert John's page. --Ijf3 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rayleigh's son

message: I've heard it "Ray lee", "Rah lee", "Rye lih", and several other variations and combinations. Anyone know how it should be? DMacks (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on the Barony of Rayleigh doesn't explain the origin of the title, but the family came from Essex, so I would *guess* that there is an ancestral connection with the town of Rayleigh in Essex, even though the family seat is closer to Chelmsford.  The town name of Rayleigh is, and presumably has been for many years, pronounced 'Ray-lee'.  Other pronunciations may arise from confusion with Sir Walter Raleigh, who is completely unconnected either with Rayleigh in Essex or with the Strutt family.109.150.7.208 (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: Are Rayleigh's views on religion so important that it warrants 1/3 of the content of this page? Surely, there are many more important aspects of his life that could be expanded. 130.237.175.78 (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious views 

message: This has got to be about the worst article in WP. Rayleigh's place in maths/physics is hardly done justice. The separation principle (applicable in optics, statistics, and all spectral analysis) has not been mentioned. Rayleigh terms in the Lagrangian formulation for fluids not mentioned, still unproven. The religious views are simply a nonsense. I'm a physicist who has reviewed the works papers of Kelvin and Rayleigh, and they are NOT religious in any way. Rayleigh is best know for his work on wave theory.220.240.253.34 (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of it may be undue; sources like that below stress such aspects and may be the reason this article was edited in relation to religion.  —PaleoNeonate – 00:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really bad article 

message: I have removed this source as unreliable and promoting evolution-denialism (published by Institute for Creation Research, see p. 69 for instance, confusing spontaneous generation with evolution and claiming that DNA disproved it rather than confirming and improving it; then also see p. 28 as an example of how it is "illuminated" in general).  New Leaf Publishing can also be discussed at this reliable sources noticeboard thread.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elements of Faith Vol. 1: Hydrogen to Tin: Faith Facts and Learning Lessons