Talk:John Logie Baird

Scottish vs. British

I note that there's been another change -- the latest of several -- from Scottish to British for Baird's nationality. This clearly seems to be a matter about which some feel strongly, but after carefully reading through Wikipedia:Nationality_of_people_from_the_United_Kingdom, it seems to me there are strong arguments to identify Baird as Scottish (which of course also allows that, given his dates, he was "British" as well). The key points to me seem to be:

• He appears on numerous lists of Scottish Inventors online -- for example here and [www.socyberty.com/Social-Sciences/Scotland-A-Nation-of-Inventors.64254 here] -- and his Scottish nationality is therefore clearly a matter of pride for many Scots.

• He is cited in the majority of print sources as a Scottish inventor -- Google Books brings up 147 citations in books where he is cited as a "Scottish Inventor," versus 40 as "British Inventor"

• Baird self-identified as Scottish, according to recent biographers, including Kamm and Baird (the latter being Malcolm Baird, the inventor's son).

So unless there are other arguments that could be made -- in which case, they should be posted here -- I feel that "Scottish" is the more apt designation. Clevelander96 (talk)

After watching the edit wars for Tesla, Jedlik,and now Baird, I propose anyone born or living east of Mid-Atlantic Ridge and west of the Volga be just called "European". --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, that will just give us further problems, especially when Turkey -- if it does -- joins the EU! But how about a compromise: Scottish (British) ? Clevelander96 (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, that's not a good compromise. on Wikipedia I believe we should have the nationality the person legally was. Logie Baird was born in 1888, 181 years after the Acts of Union 1707 caused the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and the end of the independent "Scotland" and "England". Scottish is still certainly a valid term in self-description, but it is an ethnicity, not nationality. Much as some people would like, there no longer, as of 2009 exists an independent Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland or England, but a United Kingdom of equally British people. I may be 100% English, but my passport has not nor never will called me "English", I am forever a Briton. Logie Baird, being born when he was, was a British inventor, he simply took pride in his regional identity. This is a pretty minor debate if you ask me, since there's very little controversy in calling him British. A more substantial debate would be whether a figure like Oscar Wilde (born 1854) is actually Irish - he was born 53 years after Ireland was absorbed into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and 22 years before the creation of the Irish Free State. South-East7™^Talk/_Contribs 18:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Scotland is not a "region" of the UK, and "Scottish" is not an ethnicity. Scotland is still a nation, in a UNION of nations. If JLB self identified as Scottish then why should he not be listed as such? As someone else pointed out, we could use "European" for anyone from this particular region.2.125.67.48 (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

British is the Nation though. Hawaii and Texas are part of the union of the United States but you wouldn't describe the nationality of President Bush or Obama as Texan or Hawaiian respectively would you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.34.195 (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, if there were a single official Wikipedia policy along the lines you describe, I'd have no problem following it. As it is, the dust still seems unsettled; "Scottish" or "Scots" is preferred by many, the Scottish Parliament has a spiffy new (and very expensive) building, and other elements of a gradual devolution are marching along. "Scottish" isn't excactly an ethnicity either, as I've met people of Indian and Asian descent in cities like Glasgow who think of themselves as "Scottish." It's one of those strange sorts of not-quite-absorbed identities left over from the expansion of Britain over the centuries, and seems to demand some special set of considerations. All this is not, of course, to suggest that Scotland will leave the Union, but that it now acts and thinks of itself in a variety of nation-like ways seems a fact of life. I recall overhearing a heated argument at Victoria station between a Scotsman, who had a £20 note issued by the Royal Bank of Scotland, and the counter server at Burger King, who refused to take it. So these are factors, and to my mind reasons why WP should have some kind of consistent policy. In short, I would be happiest if WP itself would adopt some clear policy, so that these debates could recede from article texts and into entries on the debates themselves. Clevelander96 (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So how exactly do we engineer some variety of clarification in WP policy? South-East7™^Talk/_Contribs 19:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks as though the discussion of this issue became a sub-page, then an "essay," and then was largely archived and mothballed. I don't know quite how the process would work to re-start, but I would suggest someone propose a Wikipedia Manual of Style policy, either stating that the subsumed nation -- Scotland or Ireland -- within the UK either should or should not be used in the biography box. There could then be fresh talk and debate, and -- if we're lucky -- a final decision. Do you know any admins or active community members interested in doing this? You can respond directly on my Talk page, as this no longer seems a discussion of the Baird entry. Thanks, Clevelander96 (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Aww, isn't it cute - we've got our very own race war here on this page, as the various partisans claim different nationalities for Baird. Just like the "was Tesla a Serb or a Croat"? or the impenetrable fog surrounding people named either Ferenc or Franjo, depending on who last edited the article. I tell you, anyone who didn't have the sense to come to Canada should just be labelled "European". --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly a "race" war -- no one speaks of the "Scottish Race" anymore -- but it is a question of nationality/region and identity. Scotland is indeed part of the United Kingdom, and has been since the Act of Union, but there is considerable regional/national pride over Scottish figures such as Baird, and there has been, for many years -- however judged -- a process of devolution of certain authority upon Scotland. I would suggest either "Scottish (British)" or "Scottish/British" as Baird's nationality, but would prefer over either some consistent policy that Wikipedians agree upon. Clevelander96 (talk)

Serb! Croat! Serb! Croat! Serb! Croat! Duck season! Rabbit season!... Thank heaven Baird wasn't from some controversial part of the world like Macedonia. No wonder the Europeans start a world war twice a century.

What is the purpose of identifying the "ethnicity" or "nationality"? What did Baird's passport say on it? Could he have gotten a passport from Scotland with no United Kingdom references on it? Citzenship is definitely British. Ethnicity is also pretty definitely Scottish, though I have no picture of how closely Baird conformed to the plaid-wearing, whisky-drinking, pipes-playing, Burns-quoting, sheep-herding, penny-pinching, brouge-speaking stereotype of comic book fame. Why can't he be both, just like one can be a Texan and an American, or a Quebecois and Canadian. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And the race war rolls on - the Sassenachs shall not claim Baird as one of their own. Could we not just agree that a Scot is a Brit? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone read Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Changing an existing UK nationality? - Jcvamp (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, because this debate started a year before that section was written. I'm glad it's there, though, and as per all the discussion above, it makes sense to me to say that, as someone who is so frequently regarded as a "Scot," it makes sense to use Scottish ... Clevelander96 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again [1], [[2]]. Good thing you can be both a Texan and an American, because you can't be both Scottish and British. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

British, British, British of course. Who cares about Scotland? It's all thistles and haggis, anyway. Here, have a glass of good British whisky, accompanied by a tune on the British Great Highland Bagpipes! Snezzy (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Once more around the barn [3]. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to waver on such issues. British kings are improperly titled as English kings - yes those with the surname "Stuart"! The British Army long ago dealt with this issue and soldiers are listed as "Brit/Scot" or "Brit/Eng" etc. The suggested compromise sound like a fair one. Acorn897 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A reasonable solution. Unfortunately WP 'admin' are deleting comments and blocking accounts of people who don't conform to their ideology Hmnfscts (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Essentially to list someone as Scottish rather than British is to conform with the nationalist's agenda of trying to control the narrative of history to support their political position of extreme nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.34.195 (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries - Main page

Hi, just highlighting that if the yellow tagged issues with the lead, Later years section and External links can be resolved, this article would be eligible for the selected anniversaries on October 2nd Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 2, which features on the main page. Whizz40 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Baird television co

He was put out of business by EMI in the first days of television broadcasting. The BBC made the decision to invest in EMI's camera's. 213.205.241.50 (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Baird was by no means the first OR the most successful inventor in the development of television - so why keep saying he was.

The British Patent Office ‘Television’ classification was granted on 24th December 1908. Baird was not the first to demonstrate a form of television. What about A. M. Low's public demonstrations at the Institute of Automobile Engineers and at Selfridges Store in 1914 of his Televista. This was so impressive that it was the subject of a US Consular Report. Low’s cellular flat screen Televista was more like our post-1980s digital television systems than any of the other early systems but 70 years before its time. Then there is George William Walton and (Sir) William Stephenson's 1923 patent 218,766. ‘Scophony Limited’ operated there commercial form of television right up to the start of World War II, something that was not achieved by J. L. Baird. Using valve (tube) technology, their Patent 213,654 describes the signal between the television transmitter and the receiver as a carrier signal modulated with both the low frequency synchronising signal and the picture data. After amplification at the receiver, a suitable filter separated the synchronising signal and from the picture data carrier. Please be objective in your articles and reference the other contributors. Baird did a lot but there are of course a host of others such as Alan Archibald Campbell-Swinton, Philo Taylor Farnsworth and Manfred von Ardenne. PLEASE STOP IMPLYING THAT BAIRD WAS THE FIRST TO DEMONSTRATE A FORM OF TELEVISION.86.191.157.31 (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Cross-Refer to Sydney Moseley article

Friend and biographer and director of Baird's company ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Moseley Enri999 (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)