Talk:Vera Rubin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This article has her middle name, Cooper, in parentheses. Was that her maiden name? If so, the article should say so. In any case, the article should explain why "Cooper" is in parentheses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelMunoz (talkcontribs) 19:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

ADDRESSED Ybidzian (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing information[edit]

This article is really disorganized, and is missing information on the heart of the subject: the work she did that made her notable. There is no shortage of material in the references and links. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

ADDRESSED Ybidzian (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's ENROL not ENROLL[edit]

Please do not change the word "enrol". Enrolled, enrolling, etc use a double "l". Enrol uses one "l" only, as does the word "enrolment". Thank you.

enrol Pronunciation: /ɪnˈrəʊl, ɛn-/ translate enrol | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish Definition of enrol verb (enrols, enrolling, enrolled) 1 [no object] officially register as a member of an institution or a student on a course: he enrolled in drama school [with object]: all entrants will be enrolled on new-style courses [with object] recruit (someone) to perform a service: a campaign to enrol more foster carers archaic write the name of (someone) on a list or register: our Seamen and their numbers were carefully enrolled 2 [with object] Law, historical enter (a deed or other document) among the rolls of a court of justice: the endowment of religious houses cannot be measured simply by the licences enrolled in chancery

Derivatives enrollee Pronunciation: /-ˈliː/ noun enroller noun Origin: late Middle English (formerly also as inroll): from Old French enroller, from en- 'in' + rolle 'a roll' (names being originally written on a roll of parchment) Spelling rule Double the l when adding endings which begin with a vowel to words which end in a vowel plus l (as in travel): (enrols, enrolling, enrolled). enrol in other Oxford dictionaries Definition of enrol in the US English dictionary [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybidzian (talkcontribs) 12:25, 24 March 2013

Disagree It is enroll in the US, and enroll is an acceptable secondary spelling in the UK. According to Webster's, enroll is the correct spelling. [2] Additionally, you will notice that Vera is American and not British nor Australian. Wikipedia policy is to use American spelling for for American subjects. See Wikipedia:Manual of style#National varieties of English, summarized in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive N#British/American Spellings.
That you would spend so much effort guarding this article from such a trivial change and reverting multiple attempts to effect the change over a long time concerns me. This is apparently due to a misconception you expressed on my talk page, that this article was, in your words: "my article on Vera Rubin". There is no such of a concept as my article in Wikipedia. Please refer to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. If that isn't perfectly clear you should probably go on to study WP:DBF. I'm not criticizing you but rather letting you know about this, since you apparently didn't re-visit my talk page to see my reply to your post.Trilobitealive (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


Trilobitealive (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


It is not accurate to say astronomers did not study or pursue galaxy clusters until "two decades" later. For example, Zwicky first discovered dark matter by studying the Coma cluster, and spent a significant amount of time over his career studying clusters. This was in the 1930s. Abell's catalog of galaxy cluster appeared in the 1950s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esheldon (talkcontribs) 14:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Vera Rubin. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

MOND comment not referenced[edit]

Please see the comment "Alternative MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) models for galaxy rotation curves have been excluded."

This is comment is inserted with very poor flow, and without reference. Moreover the MOND article does not say that it has been excluded, but instead only lists some challenges. For example that MOND is not a complete explanation has been answered by Milgrom ad nauseum.

I have not been following MOND for a while, but I have not heard of any knock-out blow either.

In other words, the comment is unreferenced, sounds political and if some hard reference cannot be brought to back it up, it ought to be removed or reworded in a more neutral voice and for historical context consistent with the next lines in the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKN1 (talkcontribs) 00:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur with the concern, and note that it is a general problem of the article—trying to make the case for the importance of the title subject, instead of reporting how important others think she is. (She is a member of the National Academy for goodness sake. She does not need WP editor elaborations on her accomplishments and ability, just statement of the facts.)
In this regard, the Sarah Scoles popular science piece in the otherwise estimable Astronomy should be recognized for what it is—a partisan argument, rather than good history of science. Is should not serve as a source to determine the importance of Dr Rubin's accomplishments, or place in the history of her science. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Very nice article, and timely, mais[edit]

…it is very much in need of a look by two editors, one a biographer, aware of biographical standards, the second an astronomer, who understands the standard for assigning astrophysical and astronomical "firsts". This is said—because, despite today's work to correct the Rubin-Ford effect content (to be consistent with that separate article), and to make clear a more standard view of her role in the discovery of dark matter, the article still is in need of both scientific and biographical corrections.

Note, the tags are placed as minimally as I can imagine needed, and I would like to see them removed soon—but not until an astronomy expert reviews the Career section, and a biographer, the whole article. (I am very proficient, generally, as a science editor, having taught university natural science to non-majors over the years; but I am not an astronomer, or historian of science.)

Otherwise, I will continue, via Checklinks, to try to improve the fundamentals of the article. Lets get the science right, and the biography sound, soon. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent addition of NYT material to the lede[edit]

…may be a bit too much. The lede needs to summarise the article, and not introduce new material. Moreover, it needs to be the preponderance of opinion, and the "cosmic consciousness" bit certainly is not going to be uniformly stated/shared. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)