Talk:Jethro Tull (agriculturist)/Archive 1

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

Recent revert

I reverted (twice now) because the edit did nothing except re-organise and re-cast some of the article to no purpose, while introducing poor English. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, how I beg to differ. I see that you've fought the good fight in warding off various vandals, but the rank hypocrisy in defending the relatively poor quality of the previous version by characterising my efforts as being to no purpose and "poor" is particularly loathsome. Shall we start?
  1. The opening reference to "scientific agriculture" is misleadingly close to the modern field of agricultural science (but agricultural revolution has been moved to see also).
  2. There was no actual reference to the specific agriculture practice with which the seed drill is concerned, sowing (but tillage has been moved to see also).
  3. The seed drill did not so much as create holes of "prescribed" depth, but of a standard or specific depth.
  4. Not biggies, but nevertheless, no wikification to such directly relevant articles as crop and yield (also since revised) and hoe.
  5. You cannot reasonably consider that "war on weeds" is ultimately an appropriate turn of phrase to retain in Wikipedia, with its long range vision for excellence.
  6. "Organic emendation" (aka fertilization) similarly should not have long stayed in the article, as it plainly presents as a laboured and obscure expression, and does not appear to be an industry term in wide use (happy to be corrected on this point).
  7. And my personal favourite, the sentence "Although Tull was in error on this latter point – the error of a pioneer, it should be noted – (etc) ". Now I think the difficulties with this baby should be self-explanatory, but I am open to you creating the article "on being a pioneer", with the section "personality traits characteristic thereo", and wikifying "error of a pioneer" accordingly.

Although I wish I did not have to talk you through these more or less basic points, in the spirit of why can't we all get along and using this event as an opportunity to re-examine and recast my version, it has been modified. As you clearly view the previous version with a certain paternalistic fervour, an attitude which left the article unimproved for so long, you will also note that much of it has been reinstated, but with revisions addressing the points outlined above. 203.198.237.30 05:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  1. Your offensive tone does you no favours (nor does your heavy-handed facetiousness).
  2. Your new version is something of an improvement on your last, though it over-links (including a number of pointless links, such as crop and yield — for which there are in fact no articles, just disambiguation pages with brief dictionary definitions). A problems shared with the old version is that seed can't lie fallow — land lies fallow. New problems include the use of "fertilisation" to mean "fertilising" (insects go in for fertlisation of crops, farmers fertilise them).
  3. What on Earth is all that stuff about creating articles on "being a pioneer", etc.? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Mel, I really will need to stand by my so-called "offensive tone" and "heavy-handed facetiousness" when you were the one to start casting about aspersions in response to a good faith edit of an article which obviously could be improved. It is hypocritical for you to say this, and in this regard I refer back to the comments in my first paragraph. I would have thought that the offensive attitude, first displayed by yourself, is what did you no favours.
    I wrote a compressed edit summary; there's a difference.
  1. With regard to your "tidying & correcting" by way of changing science to Science, hoe (tool) to Hoe (tool), and by capitalizing the see also articles, we can leave these alone if you insist.
    The articles are capitalised, so it's more efficient to capitalise the links where possible.
  2. However it is arbitrary and seemingly partisan of you to determine that crop and yield do not require links. What did the seed drill accomplish for society? It massively improved crop yield. Fewer seeds required for larger crops, and more seeds for next season. It is not for you to rule that readers should not be able to learn for themselves what these terms mean, particularly as the articles themselves may likely be expanded over time, in the way of Wikipedia. A better solution would be to create the article crop yield. Any takers? NOTE to future editors: the significant impact of the invention on society is not really explained and should be briefly mentioned in the Tull article and much expanded in the seed drill article (and perhaps something for another time, there is speculation that the seed drill was first invented in China and imported to Europe).
    There's no point linking words when there's nothing useful to link them to — as I explained. We assume that readers can use dictionaries, if they don't understand simple English words.
  3. You have also removed the links to invention, sowing and innovation. These need to be reinstated. On the one hand sowing is the very practice Tull revolutionized, and on the other the man was an inventor and innovator extraordinaire. In a way you lessen him by not allowing readers to discover more about inventions and innovation by reading these relatively extensive articles.
    As for the previous comment. Have you read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning overlinking?
  4. And you have also changed nutrient#Nutrients and the environment to nutrients, which although the same article, takes everyone to nutrients in the body. I think we need to change this, don’t you? In your apparent haste to make some change to the article, you also removed the link to weeds which previously existed. I’ll put that back in for you.
    I saw no reason to go to the specific section when the whole article was relevant; "weed" falls into the same category as "crop" and "invention".
  5. Re the use of fallow, I can only rhetorically wonder, if this was an issue for you, why didn’t you address it since the time you were first logged as doing something to the page, back in March 2005? And on the meaning of the term, while it may be very slightly creative to characterize seeds as laying fallow, it is not incorrect. But happy to leave it out, and I have modified this section in any event.
  6. Re fertilization/fertilizing, am I to understand that you are going to debate the appropriate use of noun and verb forms? And are you really going to insist that only insects "go in for" fertilization of crops? If this is important to you, we can again leave it alone.
    Correct, clear English matters to me, yes. And I didn't say or even imply that only insects fertilise.
  7. Re the "pioneer" bit, ok maybe I did get carried away there. Basically, you did an absolute reversion without any regard to the form or substance of the edits, and then later characterized the edits as "poor English". Yet, you were quite happy to leave in, amongst other things, the phrase "the error of a pioneer, it should be noted". Seeing as how you had no difficulty with this phase, I was simply suggesting that you could explain for everyone what it meant by creating the appropriate article.
    I still have no idea what you think is wrong with "the error of a pioneer, it should be noted". As I was reading this while in the Common Room I asked a couple of colleagues to see if I was missing anything; no-one could see what you were getting at.

Your critique of my revisions has resulted in a better article. Are we satisfied to leave it as this? 203.198.237.30 04:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the excessive Wikilinking, etc. If you're happy (or if you'd like to read Wikipedia policies and guidelines on article-writing, and then find yourself happy), fine. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Mel, every change I have made following my first revision has been made specifically with reference to issues you have raised. I'm listening to you man (if you look through the cut and thrust), how about a similar courtesy? With regard to the claim of "overlinking", this strikes me as particularly disingenuous, given that (for example) the seed drill was an invention which deals with sowing and you have unlinked invention and sowing! 203.198.237.30 11:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

By "disingenuous" you seem merely to mean "mistaken". I'll repeat: we assume that our readers understand English, and that if they don't know ordinary English words, they can use a dictionary. There's nothing in the article on "invention" that helps the reader of this article; "sowing", on second thoughts", is probably OK (though in fact everything that the reader needs to know is in this article). We can also assume that the reader knows what a horse is and what "innovation" means. I take it, though, that you still haven't read the policies and guidelines?

Concerning: "Without regard to where they landed or whether they germinated" — there's no reason to think that this is true (though the latter part is obscure anyway; how could one scatter seed with regard for whether it germinated?). The point is lack of control, not lack of concern. "Some sources indicate" is too vague to be useful, and so manages merely to be clumsy. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • At last, we're getting somewhere, although I don't know where you get the idea that any linked article must always assist readers of this article. It also seems rather misleading to blend in by way of support of this doubtful view, that it is all about assuming a certain level of English comprehension. On this I say that you have it the wrong way around entirely. It is not about whether the invention article assists readers of this article, it is that we are in fact dealing with a particularly ingenious, revolutionary invention, and readers may well want to learn more about them generally!
  1. Re horse, fine. Re innovation, also fine. However, I think it just smacks of supreme arrogance to assume that people will know exactly and completely what the term means (Mel, I'm glad you do), not to allow them to discover for themselves this meaning, or to learn about related concepts. Your view on this seems incompatible with what Wikipedia is about.
  2. Re the germinated bit, again fine (modified slightly). The point is that the previous version was lacking. Its now improved. We move on.
  3. Re the year Tull died, we in effect have "He died in 1740. Or 1741". You want to leave it like this, ok.
  4. I have also left out the disambiguated link to nutrients in the environment, over your preferred link to nutrients in the human body.

What I have done is tidied "fertilising" simply to fertilizer, and reinstated the link to invention, weeds (this was in the original version!), and changed your "nutrients…in soil could be released through pulverising it" back to "nutrients…in soil could be released through pulverisation". Can we please at least agree that we should not be ending sentence fragments with "it". 203.198.237.30 03:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Links and Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. There are already more than twice as many links as lines, with just under 10% of all words being linked (over 10% with your additions). "Innovation" and "horse" are plain English words, and don't need linking (and the idea that it's arrogant to assume that people will understand them is bizarre). My link is to the Nutrients article, not to "nutrients in the human body".
I dislike the barbarism of giving a Latin root a Greek ending, so have returned to "fertiliser" (if the article were in U.S. English, I shouldn't have that option — but it isn't). I also dislike the clumsy "pulverisation", especially when there's a perfectly decent gerund to be used. And I have no idea what you have against ending a sentence with a pronoun. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I refer you in turn to Wikipedia:Build the web, and also note that in accordance with making links relevant, invention is particularly relevant to the context. Will you please reconsider and link it yourself?
    Have you read Invention? Do you really think that it adds anything?
Your claim to "better style" is not sustainable, simply because your "and germinated (or failed to germinate)" presents as more clumsly than "to germinate (or fail to germinate)". Similarly with your preferred "pulversing it" over "pulverisation". These two sections read quite awkwardly as you currently have them. In view of this, your continuing edit comments to the effect that your style is superior is unwarranted.
First, no-one sows seeds to fail to germinate, though they might well sow seeds that fail to germinate — hence my preference. Secondly, "pulverising" is a much more everyday and wieldy than "pulverisation".
Re the nutrient article, you're plainly wrong. Follow the link you've maintained to nutrients in the human body. The disambiguation link to the appropriate part of article is clearly more appropriate.
My preferred link goes the article, not to a specific part of it.
We are simply at cross-purposes regarding "fertilizer". Apart from the pedantry we are descending into, we are dealing with the same article in both cases. Agreed on Brit usage (sp checker bias). As I am now unclear on the subject matter of Tull's belief (did he have a problem with the efficacy of fertilizer per se or the use of it - fertilizing?), I leave this one alone.
So I change nothing as you will simply automatically revert, but I do ask that you reconsider invention. 203.198.237.30 04:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I never automiatically revert; I only revert if I've judged that it's the right thing to do. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Can we please keep it real by not breaking up my responses with yours.
  1. Regarding the invention article. Yes, it needs work (I will see what can be done about this). Nevertheless, linking would be entirely consistent with linking articles which are relevant to the context and with Building the web.
  2. Regarding your comments on the germination section. These are not relevant, as the phrase in question does not transform to "sows seed to fail to germinate". Compare "seeds were sown simply by being cast upon the ground, and germinated (or failed to germinate) where they landed" with "seeds were sown simply to be being cast upon the ground, to germinate (or fail to germinate) where they landed". One seems rather less awkward (a better version is possible) than the other...
  3. Regarding your comments on pulverising/pulverisation. Also not relevant, as the phrase in question is "pulverising it" versus simply "pulverisation". You may well use "pulversing", but using "pulverising it" halfway through a sentence is plainly inelegant!
  4. Regarding the nutrient article. It is becoming increasingly pointless to purse this one. You previously stated that you did not link to nutrients in the human body. This is true, but the point is, why not simply have a disambiguated link to that part of the article which specifically deals with nutrients in the environment. A "straight link" otherwise takes you to that part of the article which specifically deals with nutrients in the human body. This is not overlinking (you have maintained the link itself), so why not simply disambiguate it? As I've said over and over, we are dealing with the same article and I simply suggest linking to the relevant part of same, by using the link nutrient#Nutrients and the environment.
  5. Regarding automatic reverts, I think the edit record and the nature of your edit comments are the judge of that.

What a pedantic pair are we! So what about invention and "pulverisation"? 203.198.237.30 03:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the link to Invention, fair enough (especially if the article can be improved); I still think that it's just a plain English word that doesn't need linking, but OK. I really dislike "pulverisation" though; depending on when I think about it, it sounds either like U.S. military-speak, or something from the Beano. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is longer than the article. If you want to actually improve the article you could actually tell us more instead of arguing about useless technicalities. 68.145.207.92 23:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Every paragraph begins with "Tull." Thats bad.

==Just a thought==

Tull is one of the most significant memebers of history. Dare I say, he's had more impact on the world than most pre-Enlightenment figures. Now, many may argue, history's very most significant figures were pre-Enlightenment, but their numbers are few. I've heard it said that Confuscious influenzed more lives than any other person that lived, certainly that does not directly translate to historical and actual significance, but it's a "title" that holds obvious value. That being said, a strong argument can be made that Tull has had more impact (thus is more significant) on China than Confuscious has. You never ehar about Tull in hsitory books, at least not at the elementary level, but he is responsible for so much about the world today.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Feliciahjiang. Peer reviewers: Analiese Batchelor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Death date

The comment at the end about his death date is based on a misunderstanding. At the time when he died, the English year number changed towards the end of March. Thus, a man who was buried on March 9, 1740, by contemporary reckoning, would have died in 1741 by ours.

David Harley

Comment now removed. MalcolmGould (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I see. I knew about the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars, but I didn't realize (until I read the "Old Style dates" article) that "Old Style" could also mean not starting the new year until March 25th. The Julian/Gregorian change only shifted eighteenth-century dates by a fortnight or so, so it couldn't reconcile a burial date in March with a death date the next year. But the "annunciation style" vs. "circumcision style" change can. I just put a "dubious" tag on the article, because the date discussion seemed wrong. Now that I understand it, I'm taking that tag back out. TypoBoy (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a statement that the date on Tull's gravestone, 9 March 1740, is equivalent to 20 March 1741 by the modern calendar. The carving differs from modern reckoning because of both the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar and the change to starting the year on 1 January instead of 25 March. (From "annunciation style" to "circumcision style".) These two changes collectively form the distinction between Old Style and New Style dates. A stonemason who inscribed "9 March 1740" would have written "25 March 1741" to mean a date two weeks and two days later. That date in the Julian Calendar is equivalent to 20 March 1741.

The Julian-to-Gregorian conversion can be confirmed with the date converter at http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/ That's an External Link on the Old Style page. Can I cite that site? How?

That site doesn't handle the 1-January-versus-25-March distinction. The more Anglocentric site at http://people.albion.edu/imacinnes/calendar/Old_%26_New_Style_Dates.html does handle it -- with a note at the top telling the user that it might be necessary to add a year for dates before 25 March.

Someone must have edited this again as the article currently say 1740, not 1741 so it is still confusing. I think a better clarification of the start date for the year is needed in the section rather than requiring the reader to follow the wikilink. Nyth63 21:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Gravestone picture

Geograph has a picture of his grave here http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1825198

4wd (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 4wd

I've uploaded that and a photo of his memorial into commons:Category:Jethro Tull (agriculturist) But it may not be our best photo of his grave. ϢereSpielChequers 15:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Invented?

The article seed drill claims:

"The Sumerians used primitive single-tube seed drills around 1,500 BCE, but the invention never reached Europe. Multi-tube seed drills were invented by the Chinese in the 2nd century BCE. [...] The first known European seed drill was invented by Camillo Torello and patented by the Venetian Senate in 1566. A seed drill with a detailed description is known from Tadeo Cavalina of Bologna in 1602.[1] In England, the seed drill was further refined by Jethro Tull in 1701 in the Industrial Revolution. It is often thought that the seed drill was introduced in Europe following contacts with China, where the invention was very ancient and highly developed."

In short, if I am to believe seed drill, Tull merely improved the device, long after its initial introduction into Europe, and it was around in China and Sumeria long before that. This article makes it look like Tull invented the idea from scratch and is misleading. So I modified it. Dcoetzee 18:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Tull's improvements are significant because they lead to the wide-spread adoption of the seed-drill in Britain, i.e. he effectively introduced the technology into Britain (where it seems it was not widely used before, possibly because it didn't make enough difference, without his improvements, to be worthwhile). Given that "invent" (from the latin "to bring in") originally meant "introduce the technology" (in a given realm), it wasn't so far wrong to say he invented it. All the same, the "improve" wording is better, especially for modern audiences. (One could quibble about "perfected" in the opening: if anyone ever improved it after him, it clearly wasn't yet perfect !) Thanks for cross-checking with the seed drill article ;^) 84.215.6.238 (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Where is it?

I'm still looking for an on-line copy of The Horse-hoeing Husbandry. Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC) The good folks at Penn State have provided a link:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Tull%2c%20Jethro%2c%201674%2d1741 Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Paternal Appellation

I notice the article refers to his father as "Jethro Tull, Sr." The junior/senior styling, 'though common in modern US usage, is not in general use in Britain (although I can't say whether it was at the time). My understanding is that, even if it were, it'd be inappropriate if his father was also called Jethro Tull; do we know ? Is it really an appropriate way to refer to his father in this article ? What conventions are followed in similar cases elsewhere in this wiki ? 84.215.6.238 (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC) he was a very bad scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.27.46 (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Jethro Tull (agriculturist) → Jethro Tull – Not sure who's more notable, but there's only two subjects, so one has to take priority. Either the agriculturist or the band named after him. Unreal7 (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose: That's simply not true – there is no rule that says that one article must "take priority" in a WP:TWODABS situation. An article should only be placed as primary if one of them properly meets the criteria for WP:PRIMARY status. Please re-read the guidelines. Also, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of readers are primarily interested in the band. The first page and a half of my Bing search results (with search history disabled) are about the band. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Unreal7 why does one have to take priority? Why not just leave both with clarification? GregKaye 08:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It absolutely should be the case that one takes primary topic; it's ridiculous to inconvenience 100% of our readers instead of 50%. Oppose this one, however, since the band seems a bit more likely a search target. Red Slash 04:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    • There are only two topics. One is a standard encyclopedia topic, the other is not. So this case is very simple and straightforward. I assume the guideline was written in the expectation that it would apply to at least some articles. Man from Nephew (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a classic 50/50 WP:TWODABS In ictu oculi (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, history students can handle a bit of relevant rock education, pot-head Tull fans will probably finds the extra click too much to cope with:) Chienlit (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an encyclopedia. The more important Jethro Tull should be the more prominent. (And what else is the benefit of a rock band stealing your name if won't bring people to your Wikipedia page?) 216.8.170.184 (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we may apply either of two criteria: "usage" and "long-term significance." I interpret the usage criteria as, "Which article gets more page views?" This is obviously the band. (Compare page views here and here.) I interpret "long-term significance" as "Which article is more likely to appear in a print encyclopedia?" Britannica has an entry for the agriculturalist, but not for the band. There is no suggestion in the guideline that the two criteria should be balanced off against each other. The disambiguation page is not primary by either criteria. In short, it's better to inconvenience 79 percent of readers than 100 percent. Man from Nephew (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, neither has to take priority per others above, but if it did then the band article clearly gets more traffic. PC78 (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If we can't get even a rough consensus on which is the primary topic, then that's good evidence that there is no primary topic, and that seems to be the case here. We should put that principle in the guidelines somewhere. Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • !Votes are supposed to be arguments concerning the merits of the proposal. You are posing as spokesman for the consensus, which I find inappropriate. I'd be happy to support either article for primary topic. I gather that this is a reason to dismiss my vote, at least in your mind. The issue in this RM is DAB vs article. The long-term significance criteria was added to make it easier to make subjects of academic interest primary. DAB pages are obviously not of academic interest. That the criteria ends up being used for DAB mongering is a screwy result. Man from Nephew (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
      • See my response below. Andrewa (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Reply

From the poll above:

!Votes are supposed to be arguments concerning the merits of the proposal. Agree, but I'm afraid still think mine is exactly that. It may be that the rules aren't perfect when applied to this case, in which case I'm appealing to WP:IAR. That's what I was trying to say, but obviously not clearly enough.

You are posing as spokesman for the consensus, which I find inappropriate. No, I'm not posing as anything, and I find this personal attack inappropriate too.

Agree that I am assessing consensus. Do you dispute my assessment? Do you think it's irrelevant?

I'd be happy to support either article for primary topic. I gather that this is a reason to dismiss my vote, at least in your mind. Again, that's not what I was trying to say, and that's another personal attack.

The issue in this RM is DAB vs article. Agree.

The long-term significance criteria was added to make it easier to make subjects of academic interest primary. Disagree that this was the only reason.

DAB pages are obviously not of academic interest. That the criteria ends up being used for DAB mongering is a screwy result. I can make no sense of this whatsoever, sorry. Andrewa (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Academic interest

This is sufficiently interesting that I'm putting it in its own subsection.

There seems to be an assumption above that the agriculturist is of academic interest, and the band not so or less so. The first possibility, that the band is of no interest, is IMO simply false, the band is of great interest to students of 20th century music. The second, that the band is of significantly less interest, is hard to assess. The agriculturist may be of greater interest (or not) but both are of great importance in their respective fields.

It appears to be true that Brittanica has no article in Jethro Tull the band, while they do on the Beatles, the Moody Blues, etc.. But they don't have an article on dioxane either, in fact unlike Jethro Tull (the band), who appear in their article on Art Rock, they don't seem to mention it at all in the online version (previous printed versions appear to have done so). I think this tells us something about Britannica but nothing about either chemistry or music, academic or otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • It isn't just Britannica that gives the agriculturalist priority over the band. Columbia Encyclopedia does the same. If you've looked at the Britannica entry, you know that they credit Tull with establishing "the basis of modern British agriculture." The focus on his seed drill is a bit misleading. His "new horse hoeing husbandry" was more influential, albeit now discredited. It is sometimes claimed that Tullian farms were no more efficient than traditional ones. If so, that would only make the question of why his methods were widely adopted all more interesting. British landowners assumed that mechanization and large-scale agriculture was the modern way even at a time when there were no steam engines, slave labor, or other technologies to take advantage of this approach. Britian's agricultural revolution might have happened without Tull, but he is its personification. This revolution created surplus labor in the countryside for the industrial revolution later on, so it is an event of top-level importance. Man from Nephew (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Blocked sock struck, note that edited when logged in with the wrong sock:
  • 08:51, 25 April 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-838)‎ . . Talk:Jethro Tull (agriculturist) ‎ (Undid revision 659111335 by The eigenvector (talk))
  • 08:49, 25 April 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+838)‎ . . Talk:Jethro Tull (agriculturist) ‎ (→‎Discussion: replies)
Easy mistake to make. 1 sock per user per RM please. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Three dates of death

Tull died in 1741 at Prosperous Farm at Hungerford. He is buried in the churchyard of St Bartholomew's Church, Lower Basildon, Berkshire, near his birthplace. His gravestone bears the burial date 9 March 1740 using the Old Style calendar, which is equivalent to the modern date 20 March 1740.

and yet

Died 21 February 1741 (aged 66)

NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarized source

Large sections of the current article are lifted word-for-word from a 1903 article in Volume 13 (pp. 145-153) of the Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales (for example, see: https://books.google.com/books?id=G3kxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147dq=%22omitted+no+occasion+to+observe+and+note+everything+which+supported+his+own+views+and+discoveries%22&source=bl&ots=YwtXttH75F&sig=EkiMhSbtB2OzdYWQt2ENc8L08Sw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjptYvv-4nOAhUT12MKHcusA0oQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=%22omitted%20no%20occasion%20to%20observe%20and%20note%20everything%20which%20supported%20his%20own%20views%20and%20discoveries%22&f=false)

This would explain the stilted (and often over-the-top) language. Someone needs to rewrite the entire article. I have have made a minor dent in one section.

Mukogodo (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Consistency The consistency of this article might benefit from a rearrangement of paragraphs, such that the section on Legacy comes after the section entitled Rejection of Virgilian Husbandry. In addition, the Tribute section might benefit from either being expanded upon, or being incorporated with the larger, and corresponding section on Legacy.Analiese Batchelor (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Viscountcy?

On February 3, 2017, a user with IP 51.37.73.241 added "Viscount" in three places in the article. One was later moved down to where it is now listed as a title. But I see no evidence that Jethro Tull was ever created a viscount, certainly not in any British peerage. No references were added to any peerage when the "title" was added to the page. In searching the related pages in other languages, I found he was listed as "Visconte" in the Italian page, but again with no reference or peerage listed.

Is this some sort of error, perhaps? 2602:306:BC2A:CDF0:A4B4:4C62:A336:E50D (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a confusion between Jethro Tull and his contemporary Charles 2nd Viscount Townshend (known as Turnip Townshend). Tull was not created a peer.

Law studies?

Degrees in English law were introduced anywhere in England only in the 19th century. Admission to the legal profession was solely through the Inns of Court, as he appears to have done. Possibly he was enrolled in a Law degree that would have been concerned with Roman law, though perhaps not with canon law. Wikiain (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Wikiain (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jethro Tull (agriculturist). 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) 22:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Looks like there's some plagiarism in the "Legacy" section, and possibly elsewhere. I (badly) fixed part of it but there's still more work to be done. MuffinInTheSky (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Clarify, please

...the similarity of his own horse-hoe husbandry to the practice followed by the vine-dressers of the south of Europe...

What exactly was horse-hoeing, and how did it work? Valetude (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
With a horse.Bmcln1 (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Helpful answer, that one. Actually I meant that it sounded a bit awkward if you were mounted. Was the horse pulling a cart with men hoeing from either side? Valetude (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
So glad it helped. You found the picture on Google, I'm sure. Bmcln1 (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jethro_Tull_(agriculturist)/Archive_1&oldid=1178643021"