Talk:Big science

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 January 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

History of Science C‑class Top‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

The comment on Nobel prizes

It is true that up until now only individuals have been awarded the Nobel prize, but I attended a lecture in Uppsala, Sweden with representatives from the Nobel committee saying, basically, that it was only convention and that it could be awarded to groups. I cannot find a source for either of the positions, so maybe changing it to something clearer or removing it would be best.Augustwollter (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take this out?

In the article, it is stated that "World War I was the first war in which science played a major role in warfare and armaments." This is obviously untrue and kind of silly. If it were up to me, I'd change it. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.20.51 (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever wrote that has obviously not played any strategy games. I'll fix it, but the real problem is that this article doesn't actively cite its sources, so silly statements like that easily occur. Merzul (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that the scientific method has only been around in its modern form for a few hundered years. So perhaps it would be better to say something like "WWI was the first war to take full, government sponsored advantage of big science." keep in mind that this article is about big science, not about og the caveman realizing that fire hurts.Playwrite (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible references

"''Big science'' is a term coined by Alvin Weinberg in the 1960's when he was the director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Big science involves the collaboration of large numbers of scientists, Government officials, university faculty members and administrators and industrial contractors, and large sums of money, to produce new instruments to advance our understanding of nature. Examples of big science include the space sciences, particle accelerators, oceanographic vessels, research in fusion energy and the project to map the human genome. It is apparent that, the more deeply we look into nature, the more big science we are going to need." Big Science in the Sky, Leon M. Lederman, New York Times, April 8, 1990.

Reflections on Big Science, Alvin M. Weinberg, 1969, MIT Press, ISBN-10:0-262-73018-9 [1] --mikeu ^talk 12:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Science: The Growth of Large Scale Research, Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly, eds., Stanford University Press (April 1992), ISBN-10: 0804723354 --mikeu ^talk 12:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To feed the "citations needed" in the "criticisms" section

this article by the economist might prove very useful http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.220.59.18 (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived 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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Common nouns are not capitalised (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalisation)). Mr P. Kopee (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per proper noun. While the second or subsequent words in an article title is not capitalized, it is capitalized if it is a proper noun/proper name. In this context, Big Science or Big Oil is a proper name. Beagel (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They would be capitalised if they were proper nouns, but they are common nouns ("big data" and others are in the same situation). Mr P. Kopee (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose. A quick Google news search shows Big Oil, Big Science, and Big Tobacco are all treated as proper nouns. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 16:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other people might incorrectly consider them as proper nouns should not mislead us. These are common nouns. Mr P. Kopee (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Of course, depending the context they are also common nouns. However, we should look the context. In the context of the Big Oil article, it is certainly the proper name, not a common noun. Beagel (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – book evidence does not support the claim that these are proper names. They are often capitalized for emphasis, or in titles and headings and tables, but still most uses are lower case, which is far from the the MOS:CAPS threshold of "consistently capitalized" in sources. big oil, big chocolate. On the other hand, perhaps Big Tobacco seems to be treated as a recent-onset proper. Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The phrase "big oil" may be used in different contexts, not only to describe the large oil companies which is the topic of Big Oil article. In this context the term appeared only after 1940s and was term was popularized in print from the late 1960s. As according to the graph the non-capitalized phrase has been dominant since beginning of the last century, it is clear that it is used also in other contexts (e.g. "big oil find", "big oil deal", "big oil money" etc) and therefore making decision based on this is not correct. Beagel (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose they are commonly capitalized per Calidum and Beagel -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all as per WP:COMMONNAME if nothing else. Red Slash 06:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need a source for this and further elaboration

"Big Science is labelled as fragile by essayist Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his books."

223.24.109.229 (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]