Talk:William T. G. Morton

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Opening Line

Modifying the opening line. Getting rid of parentheses which seems too informal. The discussion of Long's discovery is covered below in the article. Rewording to state "popularized ether anesthesia" which is true. Long discovered first but wasn't the advocate that Morton was.

Mount Auburn Cemetery

For what it's worth, Mount Auburn Cemetery is mainly in WATERTOWN and partly in CAMBRIDGE.Mfbabcock (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just now added Watertown. - Astrochemist (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to William T. G. Morton ?

William T.G. Morton → William T. G. Morton — Naming conventions — -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 07:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf, you know by now (since you insist on moving every abbreviated article to have a space and have been met with resistance) that this is not uncontroversial. There is no agreement that names with abbreviations have to have spaces and most of the respected style guides are either neutral or support not having a space. Proof has to be given that Morton used a space in his name. TJ Spyke 09:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncontroversial No, I don't; the MoS is clear. There was an AfD to discuss the issue and (just like every other time it's been discussed) there was no consensus to change the rules. There is a naming convention that addresses this, and the article should be moved in accordance. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 09:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The supposedly "clarity" you mention in the MoS is also disputed guidance, and has been for quite some time. Hardly the basis for making "uncontroverial" moves. older ≠ wiser 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again This has been brought up several times and never changed, and it's still the standard. The MoS is, in fact, clear about this topic, even if you don't like it. If the standard was ever changed, I would be happy to move pages to a new standard. In the meantime, this is what the MoS says, so article titles should reflect that. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what you consider to be the "standard" is disputed, and has remained disputed for a very long time. Simply because there is no agreement on replacement language does not mean the disputed language can be considered as uncontroversial. older ≠ wiser 11:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously controversial/contested, and the extended discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Initials looks to be heading towards a consensus against imposing this kind of stylistic rule. Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus? The conversation died about five weeks ago, and had half a dozen editors involved; that is hardly "heading towards a consensus." There was an RfC, it has since been taken down from the active discussions and there was no change in policy; this page should be moved in conformity with the standards. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the guideline you are using as the basis for making an "uncontroversial" move is still disputed and has been for a very long time. Nothing has changed. No matter what you might like, a disputed guideline cannot be used to justify a move as uncontroversial. older ≠ wiser 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed? Someone periodically brings this up, as is the case for any and every standard, rule, or convention on Wikipedia, and it is never changed. Since there is a rule, it's been the case for years, and it there is no reason to think that it's going to be changed, this article should be moved to conform with the rule as is. If, someday, somehow, this rule is changed in a way relevant to this article, it will be non-controversial to move it again. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, disputed and you should know as well as anyone as you have been party to many of the previous discussions. The plain fact of the matter is that the practice IS disputed and is unsuitable to use as justification for uncontroversial moves. older ≠ wiser 03:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's notThe last discussion about this standard is long over, there was not even a remote consensus to change, and the standard stayed as is. There is no controversy about this and the MoS is clear. The page should be moved. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, Yes it is. You might want to check again. The disputed points have been removed from the guideline. There is no basis for using that no longer accepted guidance as a basis for making uncontroversial moves. older ≠ wiser 13:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Wells

I think that it should be mentioned that Morton and Wells worked together and that he got his idea to use a gas as an anesthetic from observing Wells use of nitrous oxide in his dental practice. I am not an expert on this topic so I will leave it to others to make changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheinberg (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consequently, no effort was made to enforce the patent...

I do not think this is true. I have read that Morton made strenuous but fruitless efforts to obtain payment (license fees) from the Federal Government for ether administered to Union soldiers during the Civil War. I'll have to try and locate a reference. Moletrouser (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William T. G. Morton. 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/20110605225236/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=249&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=249&ResourceType=Building

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He sex my stepmother vnjux we kysu

Msulkyzhlusulzylhlxduyk the you 61.4.75.197 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]