Talk:An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump

message: The Henry Power*s* linked to is an American born 150 years too late.
It seems that the Halifax air pump, if it existed, would have belonged to
a Henry Power (no s) (1626-1668) of New Hall, Elland.
See   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.155.89 (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, that looks correct to me. I've inserted a hidden warning in the page that will hopefully prevent the mistake from reappearing. Thanks for pointing that out! Awadewit | talk 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Henry Power 

message: well how did it work??  little more information please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.142.163.7 (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you get some paint, and you put it on a brush, which you then touch to a canvas. Is this what you meant? Capuchin 14:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I assume unsigned meant how did the the apparatus or experiment work, and assume capuchin is being a facetious, but I'm not sure. It seems like the experiment is described in sufficient detail as it relates to the painting: air is sucked out of the bird's chamber, and at the time, death was attributed to lack of essential air.  Seems reasonable, specifically lack of oxygen, though perhaps death is due to lower air pressure causing some other problem, like [decompression sickness] in scuba diving or something. The mechanics of the equipment are not described well here, but that doesn't seem too central to the article. This non-authoritative page has a decent two sentence summary: "Air was ratcheted out from a cylinder and piston attached through a stopcock to the receptacle. After each cylinder of air was evacuated, the stopcock was closed and the ratchet and piston reset." Perhaps something like that could be worked into the article? Agyle 15:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hows it work? 

message: is the picture supposed to be like that
Tikai 13:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like what? Agyle 21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is the picture supposed to be like that 

message: There's bunch of vandalism happening
: It looks like about a hundred changes were made (vandalism and undoing vandalism) on the day of this entry, 2007-07-21. It was the featured article on that day, and attracted more attention. The following day the vandalism stopped, so this seems to be a closed issue. Agyle 15:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we lock this article please 

message: "The Air Pump [1768] departed from previous painting conventions by depicting a scientific subject in the reverential manner formerly reserved for scenes of historical and religious significance." 
Compare this with 
“In 1632, Rembrandt painted his first group portrait, The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp. This painting, which depicts Dr. Tulp demonstrating the anatomy of the hand to fellow members of the Amsterdam Surgeons’ Guild, secured Rembrandt’s reputation by introducing to the staid genre of group portraiture some of the anecdotal interest and narrative action of a history painting … “
Stephanie S. Dickey, Dutch Art: An Encyclopedia ed Muller, Garland 1997
“Shortly after the turn of the seventeenth century, surgeons began to commission group portraits of themselves seated around a dissection or an anatomy lesson. Rembrandt’s Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp is the best-known example of the genre painted also by Aert Pieterz., Thomas de Keyser, and Nicolas Eliasz Pickenoy.” 
Ann Jensen Adams, Dutch Art: An Encyclopedia ed Muller, Garland 1997
The statement may be true for British painitng conventions, but I doubt it; can this either be validated or updated? Thanks, appreciated. 
Arvwd 19:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depicting Science in Art 

message: * Are the lovers truly "absorbed in each other"?  When I look at the painting, I feel like they've just turned to look at one another to compare their reactions, so that one won't say something that the other would disapprove of.
:* Absorbed isn't the word I'd use.  I interpreted the look differently still; perhaps a more neutral, less debatable description would describe as simply looking at one another rather than being absorbed by one another. Agyle 21:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * That makes sense, as flying ability was noted in his experiments on insects, but notes and conclusions from Boyle's Experiment 41 dealt only with the question of death, not of flying ability.  (ExperHe did use mice, snails, eels and bees as well; birds were just one type of subject. Why the painter and/or repeaters of the experiment chose a bird is another question. See Lecture 12 for more notes on the experiment. Agyle 21:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * It should be THE air pump; the image title is in error. I'd also note that the image scan crops out some of the painting, and is too dark to pick up some of the details.  Its copyright attribution seems highly questionable as well, claiming it's not copyrighted because the image is over 100 years old. The painting is that old, but the reproduction (photograph etc.) of the painting probably is not, and under US law, the copyright on the reproduction would be held by whomever created that. Agyle 21:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *I have argued with the National Gallery staff that it is much more likely to be a lung or a pair of lungs (human, or from another large animal). Why store a skull in liquid? Why mount it on a stick? What relevance has a skull to the experiment in progress? The artist has accurately rendered the stick, even showing the effect of refraction as it breaks the surface of the liquid, yet the object is an amorphous lump which does not look like a skull. Surely this must be soft tissue, and if it is, a lung is by far the most relevant possibility. It even looks like a pair of lungs with the stick stuck in the stub of the windpipe to top left. An intriguing possibility is that the stick is actually a tube and the pump has earlier been connected to this to demonstrate respiration by inflating and deflating the lungs. This would account for the pensive study of the old gentleman front right as well as would a skull. JohnAHind (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems plausible, & gets some support from here. but I need a better ref to add it. The identification of the object as a skull only dates to Schupbach 1987, accoring to Egerton 1998. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: There seem to be long stretches of unsourced material. The second paragraph of the main section only has one cite in it, and there're sentences with words like "probably." I'm practically talking to a brick wall here since nobody's touched this @(*#$ talk page in over a year, but can someone PLEASE do a doublecheck on the sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this page to my watchlist when Yomangani retired.  There's been little discussion because the article is in good condition.  The cite in the second paragraph is to a good source.  What makes you believe that this is the sort of information that must of necessity come from many different sources.  Are you thinking critically about the content or just eyeballing what you think the appropriate citation density should look like.  Why would you think that's a good method?  The word probably means, it is likely from what is known about the period.  It's not an inherently problematic word in the contexts here.  Are you sure you've really thought through your concerns about this article?  I don't sense that you have. --JayHenry (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's one paragraph near the end that's totally unsourced. Should it stay or go? Also, I have a hard time believing that five books, even multiple pages from, consitutes a wide array of coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you read the content of the last paragraph and clicked on the links?  You're disputing that this image is a reference?  This would seem to be more evidence that you are eyeballing what you believe to be appropriate citation density and not actually even bothering to read the article.  Have you bothered to spend even a minute investigating the quality of the references?  There are more than five sources.  On what basis are you concluding that they are inadequate?  It's nearly impossible to refute your assertions because they're completely unsubstantiated. --JayHenry (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with JayHenry here. I see no reason to doubt that the information in this article actually appears in the sources. If you feel that does not, please check the sources first and then report the specific errors back here. Also, if you know of crucial research that is not included in this article, please point us to that research or add it yourself. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Bah, screw it. I trust you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said at the abortive FAR, "I have the National Gallery full catalogue on the British paintings, which has an entry of 13 big pages on the painting, so will give it a run-through when I have time. In my experience the better an article is, the fewer edits it gets." That should cover the painting itself, & hopefully the background if there are any real issues. It is by Judy Egerton, already a ref with another book, & is from 1998, more up to date than any of the art history refs, so will cover anything up to then.  Johnbod (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article looks good, doesn't seem to have the problems described above, where is the rot? I can't find it...Modernist (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So far, very minor cleanup and a bit of new sourcing.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to add more on the genre context, and other candlelight painters, but I'm not seeing extra referencing needed for the existing text, so I'm only adding refs to new material, though one could ref virtually the whole article to Egerton 1998. Egerton, now with 2 books, can fairly be said to be the leading expert on Wright of the current generation, and Nicolson of older ones, so I think the coverage is fine. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929092928/http://www.search.revolutionaryplayers.org.uk/engine/resource/exhibition/standard/default.asp?theme=59&originator=%2Fengine%2Fcustom%2Fpeople.asp&page=2&records=35&direction=1&pointer=2447&text=0&resource=5230 to http://www.search.revolutionaryplayers.org.uk/engine/resource/exhibition/standard/default.asp?theme=59&originator=%2Fengine%2Fcustom%2Fpeople%2Easp&page=2&records=35&direction=1&pointer=2447&text=0&resource=5230
*Added  tag to http://kranidiotis.gr/?p=828
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060920011508/http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/courses/MatCult/content/Shapin_Pump.pdf to http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/courses/MatCult/content/Shapin_Pump.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:An Experiment on a Bird in an Air Pump by Joseph Wright of Derby, 1768.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 8, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-05-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:An Experiment on a Bird in an Air Pump by Joseph Wright of Derby, 1768.jpg]] and subsequent to appear as POTD soon 

message: I removed this from the article:
: Erasmus Darwin's study in his original house survives at Beacon St, Lichfield WS13 7AD, and is recognisable as the site of the painting. The eight-paned window is unchanged; the door position remains as depicted in the painting, though the architrave is missing. A full moon can be seen from this room at the same bearing and inclination as in the painting, just after midnight when the moon is full. Darwin's "philosophical feasts" that started with the afternoon meal often carried on throughout the night. 
Unfortunately, no source is given, and I can't at a quick glance find any source (other than those obviously copying Wikipedia) asserting that the location of the painting has been identified as Darwin's house. This is a well-known painting, so if it is generally understood that its location has been positively identified, it shouldn't be hard to find a source before reintroducing this. TSP (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erasmus Darwin's house