Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Questions, Discussion, etc.

Quick question: would articles on historians of science (like current HSS President Michael Sokal) count as a History of Science article, or articles on historians? Xuanwu 23:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not the final authority on this, but I would consider such articles as history of science. The way it is now, Category:Historians of science is a subcategory of Category:Historiography of science, which is a subcategory of Category:History of science. But I'm the one who created the historiography of science category, and Buridan has suggested on Category talk:History of science that my recategorization may be objectionable to some.--ragesoss 00:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

They'd be both! But if it came down to categorization: "historians of science" is a subcategory of "historians", I'd imagine, though in real, disciplinary terms of course such a hierarchy is somewhat misleading (as not all historians of science have strict historical training). --Fastfission 15:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. (I meant, in addition to historians as well; I forgot to mention that).--ragesoss 16:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on Historiography of science. --arkuat (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Biography COTW

The biography of the week would be a very easy way increase the profile of this WikiProject; currently the biography project seems to have very little participation, despite high visibility. There aren't any nominations with more than 2 votes, so they haven't changed the COTW article for several weeks. With only a little bit of participation we could nominate and determine the next biography collaboration. I suggest Theodosius Dobzhansky, Lise Meitner or Mendeleev, or we could revitalize the Louis Pasteur nomination.--ragesoss 11:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's a good idea. There are lots of very prominent scientists with really cruddy biographies at the moment. --Fastfission 02:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've nominated Thomas Hunt Morgan; unlike many of the prominent scientists we could choose, there is a massive amount of good English sources readily available to improve this one. If we can get a couple of votes from project members, it ought to become the COTW almost immediately; all the other nominations are technically expired and the current collaboration has been going for a very long time.--ragesoss 06:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Image requests

Fastfission's mention of the need for diagrams reminded me that this has also been recently discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Unfortunately, the pre-existing mechanism for this, Wikipedia:Requested images, is very underused. We can either try to encourage more use of WP:RI or create our own internal image request section or subpage. I don't know which would work best. – Laura Scudder ☎ 20:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Whatever the case, it would be really helpful, in instances where people want diagrams rather than photographs, if they could provide an example of what the final product would look like. It's not very hard, in my experience, to whip up a nice looking diagram of something if one has an idea ahead of time what the final product could or should look like (which is not to say that one just traces or makes duplicates, of course – I often change things around very considerably in terms of drawing style, but the basic factual information is the same). (One of the WP:RI examples is for an illustration of an Island of stability but gives no explanation of what such an illustration would look like, and Google Imaging the term seems not to turn up anything that would work either. If someone knew what one should look like, visually, it would be very easy to draw one!) I suppose what this comes down to in the end is a better collaboration between people with active scientific knowledge and the people drawing the diagrams. --Fastfission 02:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • To digress, somewhat... I have a textbook with an image that gives an idea of the islands of stability, but I don't think it would be too good of an image to try to illustrate; doing it right would mean having a graph with every known element and a few unknown ones, each in specific positions (corresponding to the number of neutrons and protons in the most stable isotopes). But I suppose you might be able to find a way to simplify it to the conceptual core of islands of stability. I could send you a scan of the image, if you like.--ragesoss 02:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The downside of not operating in meatspace is that you can't just sketch what you want. I believe that Eisberg and Resnick has just such a plot. I seem to remember it's rather simple in principle (especially with color unlike Resnick), so I could make one tonight. – Laura Scudder ☎ 18:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured topic: Nuclear weapons?

I think nuclear weapons would make a good candidate for the new featured topics. What do ya'll think? Anyone up for creating a series template to link the articles and spearheading the nomination?

There are a ton of articles (92, plus 14 categories) in the nuclear weapons category, so we would need to identify the core articles (which shouldn't be too hard, starting from nuclear weapon and going to the linked main articles).--ragesoss 04:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happens to a successful "featured topic" proposal. Does it get displayed at Main Page? There's nothing about featured *topics* at Help:Contents. Wikipedia:Featured_articles shows that nuclear weapon has already been featured. I agree that the article is particularly . . . encyclopedic, for lack of a better word. Alison Chaiken 05:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't go on the main page, but I'm not sure about other exposure. There is only one featured topic so far: Diamond.--ragesoss 05:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to try and work on this, it is a subject I'm pretty well versed in. The only complicating factor is that there is already a {{Weapons of mass destruction}} template which has a lot of nuclear-related articles on it as it is. But I think would actually make more sense if we removed the nuclear things from that template and made a separate nuclear template. Hmm. --Fastfission 03:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah; that whole extra section on nuclear weapons template could just be removed; it would still have the one link along side the chemical and biological.--ragesoss 04:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to have a template confined to the featured topic, only that there is either a clear main article or a unifying template. The whole thing is on rather shaky legs still so far as knowing exactly what featured topics will be. – Laura Scudder ☎ 18:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a new template might be a good idea though; the entire WMD template doesn't always apply to nuclear articles (i.e. nuclear weapon design or nuclear explosion), and the nuclear weapon-specific articles don't apply at all to most of the other WMD articles. I made a mockup of a new template, based on the WMD section, at {{Nuclear weapons}}. Comments, re-arrangement, new image choices, etc. are appreciated. --Fastfission 21:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it a lot. I had imagined something more inclusive, encompassing most of Nuclear_weapon#See_also. But, especially with the consistency in titles in your template (and the fact that those articles basically link to all the others in short order), I think it's much better the way you've done it. I think it's ready to go as a featured topic candidate; it should be a shoe-in.--ragesoss 06:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think nuclear terrorism should not be there, though. Controversy over the Japan bombings is covered elsewhere, and the article doesn't compare to the nuclear articles.--ragesoss 06:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed "History of nuclear weapons" to "Nuclear weapons history", so all the articles would start with "nuclear". The image I think is the perfect choice; the only thing better would be an animated, hi-res version of Image:Slim-pickens riding-the-bomb.jpg.

As for ordering, I would have done it like this:

• Nuclear weapons history
• Nuclear warfare
• Nuclear explosion
• Nuclear weapon design
• Nuclear testing
• Nuclear delivery
• Nuclear proliferation
• Nuclear countries

I think it makes more sense to have countries after proliferation, and warfare as sort of an extension of history. But I have no major objection to your original ordering.--ragesoss 06:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I started the nomination: Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates/Nuclear_weapons. It should be a shoe-in. One place it should get some exposure is the new Portal:Featured content.--ragesoss 20:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I find the fascination of contributors to this WikiProject with nuclear weapons curious. When I think "history of science," nuclear weapons and their history do not come to mind. While that is a very worthy topic (I have vivid memories of my Cold War childhood), this isn't the forum for it. For one thing, have enough documents from the Cold War era been declassified to permit a complete account of the making and deployment of nuclear weapons at the time? The discussion above also omits a topic dear to me: the history of accidents and close calls. I think it important to reveal the extent to which our Russian and American fathers and grandfathers played with fire.

It may be the case that nuclear weapons will become a purely historical topic within the lifetimes of readers of this thread. A recent article in Discover states that the USA claims to have made no plutonium since 1990. If that is true, the American nuclear arsenal will evaporate within the lifetime of most readers. This does not preclude a nuclear exchange between,. e.g., India and Pakistan. Such an exchange would be horrible, but would not call world civilization into question.

In any event, I see the primary mission of the history of science as sorting out the details of the scientific and industrial revolutions that took place during the several centuries prior to the outbreak of WWI. Those revolutions, more than anything else, have shaped the world about us. The greatest human problem today is getting the entire human race on board of those revolutions. Solving that problem will require a careful understanding of how that revolution began in western Europe 400 years ago.202.36.179.65 18:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As for why people are interested in it on here – beats me. They are a fairly hot topic as of late because of the end of the Cold War makes it a little easier to get critical distance on them. They were heavily featured in history of physics literature of the 20th century for a wide variety of reasons before that as well. I do a lot of work in my "real world" identity on the history of nuclear weapons, which is why I contribute so heavily in this department.

As for documents – the document problem is of course always present but not as bad as you would at first suppose, though it depends from what era one is talking about. There is a ton of documents on the early developments of the weapons from the 1940s through the 1950s. When you get to the innovations of the 1960s and 1970s, though, things tend to peter out a bit in the arena of warhead development (probably because miniaturization is still considered a major issue, unlike the basic things), but there is lots in terms of deployment and delivery systems. The history of the accidents is discussed in the history of nuclear weapons article, and a few of the others (some of the close-calls are in the nuclear warfare article I believe), and there is a very long list of military nuclear accidents as well. So these have not been totally neglected.

Of course nuclear weapons are not a "purely historical topic" but "history" is a pretty broad concept; 20th century history of science is well established as a field, even if some of it is quite recent. Some people I know work on the history of things which haven't even been achieved yet, like quantum computing! I tend to think that approach starts to really stretch the definition of "history" but I'm not one to criticize (my Early Modernist colleaques think it is absurd that one could/should do history about people who are still alive!).

I don't know what the primary mission of the "history of science" is in general (I don't think there is one), but as for the WikiProject, I think it should be to shore up all history of science coverage on Wikipedia, and we all should try and fill in what we know best, since that is an easy thing to do for most of us. For a few of us, that involved 20th century military funding of science and with that one often comes back to nuclear weapons. One can of course endlessly debate what is "more important" in the long run but I don't think that nuclear weapons can probably be plausible argued to be relevant still. ;-) --Fastfission 18:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've recently joined

The history of science is a particular area of knowledge of mine, as I read lots of books. I'm not a professional, but I'm new here, and may require guidance. So hello, I'll work on chemistry articles for a while. Any history of chemistry/chemist articles I can improve on?--Young XenoNeon (converse) 19:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Try Chemical Revolution; it's just a stub.--ragesoss 20:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I like chamical revolutions. I'll get round to destubifying it soon...--[[User: XenoNeon]] (converse) 19:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Compare Willard Gibbs as it stood in early January 2006 with what it is now. The inept amateurish writing of the earlier version is typical of what I've found in many purely intellectual Wikipedia entries (strangely, entries on popular culture are often better written). Even though I am no Gibbs expert whatsoever, I rewrote the entry because I revere him. It was a matter of recasting the sentences, reordering the facts, sourcing (regrettably few) added biographical facts on the web, and adding links. I should hasten to add that I think that the entry's description of Gibbs's scientific accomplishments, to which I am not competent to speak, is inadequate. A lot more could be done by someone, such as yourself, having substantial knowledge in the area.

There is a fair web resource on the history of mathematics, the MacTutor maintained by the University of Saint Andrews in Scotland. The articles are not always well written, but a lot of facts are there. I wonder if there is a comparable resource for chemistry. If there isn't such a site, it would be lovely if the ACS were to set one up.202.36.179.65 17:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Request

There doesn't seem to be a History of Mathematics Wikiproject, so I thought I'd drop a note here. If anyone here is qualified, or has a suitable reference, I'd really like to see the Manifold#History section fleshed out a little bit. Thanks! –Joke 03:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics also? They're a very large and active project, whereas we're scant on mathematicians. – Laura Scudder ☎ 03:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I overcame my fear of mathematicians and left a note over there. Thanks! –Joke 04:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

I couldn't remember exactly how this project was named (I find project names so hard to get right), so I created a little redirect at WP:WPHOS. Just a little FYI! --Fastfission 21:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Prize articles

I just finished an informal reveiw of all the Nobel Prize laurates in Physiology or Medicine. Many of the articles are very short stubs. I've made of list of my off-the-cuff assessments of each article on my subpage User:Sayeth/nobelprize. Please help improve these articles to make Wikipedia more complete. Sayeth 17:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just went to your talk, good summary. I may add that the status of Nobel laureates in Chemistry is pretty awful too - Kendall and Perutz have negligible stubs. --Dumarest 14:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Historical Geology

I suggest removing "Historical Geology" from "Articles in need of expansion or creation". I do not disagree that the article on Historical Geology can use some work, but it does not really fall under the purview of the "History of Science." Historical geology is actually a large branch of geology having to do with the origin and evolution of the Earth and life on the Earth. It is history on a grand scale but I think History of Earth Sciences would cover the topic in a human historic sense. Incidentally, I am teaching an undergraduate course "Historical Geology" this semester. Jay Gregg 20:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I've removed it from the list. – Laura Scudder ☎ 20:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Great. The only reason I included it was because someone had redirected the category for history of geology into historical geology some time ago, so I left it there in case historical geology meant something else to other people than what it meant to me. Also, basically the only history of geology content is in the "historical development" section of historical geology.--ragesoss 21:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Arabic vs. Islamic Science

A friend of mine shared his impressions with me about the WP history of science content in general, and some of the categorization more specifically; it's very insightful and (especially since most of us are focused on modern science) worth paying attention to, so I'll pass his comments along:

I'd argue for replacing the term
"Islamic science" with "Arabic science" given that Islam drove it in
the
same directions as Christianity and Judaism, and that Christians and
Jews were significant parties to the enterprise.  It's the common
language and imperial cosmopolitanism that matters most.  Unless, of
course, there is reason to label Scholastic and modern science as
"Christian", and to revive the notion of "Jewish science" that was used
in Germany in the 1930s and 40s.  It makes no sense to have one but not
the other two.

There is also a big gap in the medieval interchange between Latin
Europe
and Arabic Europe which fuelled Scholasticism.  This oversight is
widespread and often leads to mention of "the western world" without
recognising that the world of "the orient" extended further west than
the so-called western world did.

And I think that there's an over-emphasis on the Scientific Revolution
at the expense of early modern science.  This is partly due to the
difficulty caused by changing meanings of the word "science" and its
cognates, and how the history and philosophy of the category can be
stably approached.  I think that we all suffer that, though few seem to
find it very interesting.

Someone posted a question about how the Hindu numerical system was
imported to the Latin world: it went via Arabic.  One vector is Robert
of Ketton who learnt it while studying in Iberia (Cordoba, I think) and
imported it to England whence it was dispersed eastwards.

I think the suggestions about Islamic vs. Arabic science are particularly worth implementing.--ragesoss 22:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• JA: J.L. Berggren, in Episodes in the Mathematics of Medieval Islam (Springer 2003), has the following to say about his choice of terms:

In this book I have restricted the word "Arabic" to designate only the language, and I describe as "Arab" only one coming from the Arabian peninsula. Many who could properly consider themselves to be Arabs are excluded on the basis of my usage but the meaning of "Arab", even within the Arabic-speaking world, has shifted too much over the centuries for the word to be of much use to me. I prefer the designation "Islamic" for that civilization whose mathematical achievements I shall describe. For, although it was home to men and women of many differnt races and faiths, its essential features were defined by those who professed the Islamic belief that "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God". (Berggren, p. viii).

• JA: Jon Awbrey 03:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting; thanks! I wonder if that convention (or the reverse) is becoming more common... the few books I have dealing with it are a bit older, and they seem to use "Arabic science" and "Muslim science" interchangeably.--ragesoss 04:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There's some possibility of ambiguity in the term "Arabic science" since Arabic can also be used as an ethnicity, and a lot of science called "Islamic" science was of Persian origin. Also, "Islamic science" is also inaccurate. Many medieval Middle Eastern scientists were not Muslims. deeptrivia (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Was Arabic the common scientific language among Persians, Arabs, Andalusians, etc? If so, would it help to refer to Arabic-language science, with explanation of why we're using it in each article (a box?). A bit cumbersome, but possibly better than the inevitable edit wars as new readers/editors find each article. JackyR 13:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

For the Persians (correct me if I'm wrong), the language was Persian, I think even for the science/natural philosophy/etc.--ragesoss 17:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And a good number of Greek texts were translated first into Syriac and then into Arabic. – Laura Scudder ☎ 17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, History of science in the Middle Ages#The Middle Ages: Western World refers to "Christian philosophy", in the same breath as scholasticism. While religious labels do falsely suggesting exclusivity, it's also true that natural philosophy in non-Islamic Europe was heavily influenced by Christianity, both in its restriction and in its inspirations (the Franciscans and light, etc). By these lights, Christian/Islamic Science are not unreasonable terms. *sigh* Can't we just say "Middle-Eastern science"– it would be exactly as inaccurate as "Western science"...JackyR 22:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal

I've done a little work on the Portal:History of science, and I would love to get some feedback. I've included the biography sections from the science and the technology portals, and updated the selected article. Also, I added a link to the portal from Portal:Science; I'd like thoughts on the image there. I also replaced the messy code with the standarized template form being used on most of the other portals.--ragesoss 06:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, pretty good. I like the theory behind it and the layout. --XenoNeon (converse) 19:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

History of Technology

Should the HS project templates go on Hist of Technology articles (Industrial Rev stuff, optical, mathematical and surveying instruments, etc)? JackyR 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's appropriate, until there exists a separate history of technology project.--ragesoss 16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, most definitely! There are many omissions on pioneering engineering achievements, and others need revision and enlargement. The Iron Bridge entry is a case in point, because much more is known now in 2006, than the article would indicate. Peterlewis 22:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

:-D JackyR 13:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I also consider that a hisotry of technology project is needed. Unlike today, the development of new technology was not driven by science. In metallurgy as recently as 1950, the practice (as known to artisans) was still ahead of academic theory. That is probably exceptional, but probably applies at earlier dates in ohter industries. Peterkingiron 15:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully there will eventually be enough editors on many more specific subjects that we'll need separate projects. But historians of science often also have an interest in history of technology, and vice versa. Being part of the same project does not imply that they aren't separate things; it's just convenient.--ragesoss 22:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If we have separate projects, they will need to be well interlinked - the possibilities for duplication are scary. But yes, a "Hist of Tech" project (sub-project of Hist of Sci, dare I suggest?) would be brilliant. JackyR 23:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope we don't fall into the trap of thinking that the history of technology is a sub-set of the history of science, and worse there is even a subject called the 'History of scienceandtechnology' We should also not overlook the fact that the writings called History of Technology feguently discuss only the impact of technology on society, and not the histories of the technics themselves. A number of us writing on this in the UK in the 1980's coined the term 'Technical history' specifically for writings about the evolution of what the Victorians called the Useful Arts, in other words the 'how' of manufacture. Apwoolrich 07:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Why not is Technology not based on Science?--Darrendeng 08:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

MIA complex, second Forman thesis, etc.

I think we should have an articles on military funding of science (if there isn't one already that I'm not aware of) that addresses the formation of the Military-Industrial-Academic complex (Military-industrial complex doesn't cut it, and probably ought to have a separate article anyway) and the results of the massive Cold War funding of science (and the whole "applied" vs. "basic" thing). Having just reread Paul Forman's "Behind quantum electronics: National security as basis for physical research", I'm reminded of what an interesting topic it is, but I'm not sure what to call it.--ragesoss 03:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You might need two articles here: one on the current US set-up, or possibly US/USSR Cold War scientific competitiveness; and the other on this phenomenom through history (and really not US-based). Call it something like Science for military purposes, or Military motivations for science? Not something I know much about, I'm afraid, tho obviously it would include the Longitude Prize.

Btw, I noticed the obvious comment is missing from ENIAC - that one reason there are so many competing "first computer" designs is because they occurred during a War and were military secrets. Will fix this. JackyR 16:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Military funding of science? Cold War funding of science? Actually a general article on Funding of science would be great, too. Another good article in this respect is Ian Hacking's bit on nuclear weapons funding in Social Construction of What, and of course Kevles' reply to Forman in HSPS ("Cold War, Hot Physics" or something like that). --Fastfission 21:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, funding of science could be the basis for a whole series. So much to write, so little time. Kevles is likely to be my advisor, so I should probably curb my enthusiasm about Forman, eh? But I think I read Forman a little more sympathetically than he does; I agree with most of his argument from "Cold War, Hot Physics", and but I don't think it engages that

effectively with Forman. Forman has a more nuanced view than the 'perverse departure from some true basic physics' thesis that Kevles pins on him. I'll have to check out that Hacking... I always look for an excuse to read philosophy.--ragesoss 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll hold back what I think about Kevles. ;-) Anyway, if you start any of these (I think Military funding of science would be a good start, just because it has been talked about so much), I'll be happy to contribute with what I can. --Fastfission 04:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Funding of science would be a great series. I don't have the books to do any articles from scratch, but will start throwing down stuff which might be useful at User:JackyR/Funding of science. Meanwhile, the articles listed in this template may be useful. JackyR 17:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, we really should have an article on Paul Forman, describing both of his famous theses and the general responses to them. --Fastfission 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Military funding of science

I've converted a term paper into Military funding of science, and I'd like help improving it. In particular, it's solely focused on the United States after WWII, so it needs some more material for an international balance there. But there's plenty that could be improved througout. Also, it needs images, and wikilinks.--ragesoss 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration for an article on scientific priority?

I'm interested in writing a little article on scientific priority (or priority in science, if you wish), which discusses historical issues with determining scientific priority and some of the ways in which historians talk about priority. I'll admit that part of the reason I want to do this is because I want something to point to whenever people start showing up with their little priority pushing obsessions, trying to elevate some unknown fellow into the discoverer of natural selection or energy equivalence or whatever it may be. The page would discuss some of the main historical approaches to priority and do well to emphasize that historians don't think a simple "just the facts and dates, ma'am" works very well; that the character/identity of the scientific claim in dispute is often itself disputed by the dispute (if that makes sense); and some of the reasons people like to try and make different priority disputes (the politics of it). I'm happy to write up a lot of this when I get the time, but assistance would be great. I'd especially like to use a few well-known examples, and input into these would be most helpful. Here's a short list of the ones I was thinking of including, and the issue I thought they illustrated:

• The "discovery of oxygen" (Priestly v. Scheele v. Lavoisier) (discussed by Kuhn in Structure) – does it matter if the scientist understands what they have supposedly discovered?
• Darwin v. Wallace – is it an issue of joint-priority, or does priority really rest with the person who worked on it first (but didn't publish)?
• Darwin v. Patrick Matthew and other "pre-discoverers" (discussed by Bowler in Evolution: The History of an Idea) – how much elaboration or development of a theory does one have to do to gain priority?
• Hooke v. Huygens and the balance spring watch (Rob Iliffe wrote an article on this in 1992 – if anyone wants a copy of it, leave me a note) – Are two sides of a priority dispute talking about the same thing?
• Einstein v. Hilbert/Poincaré – What are the essential aspects of a theory which discern it from previous theories?
• Teller v. Ulam (gone about at some length in Richard Rhodes' Dark Sun; also discussed in Hugh Gusterson's "Death of the Authors of Death", which I'm also happy to send anyone who wants it) – In what way do personal motivations play into decisions of priority? and In what way to the institutions of scientific research (in this case, secrecy) impede resolutions of priority disputes?
• The "re-discovery" of Mendel's laws in 1900 (discussed in Bowler, Mendelian Revolution) – why assigning a previous priority can be helpful to scientists at the time (why Correns started insisting that Mendel had priority over De Vries), and how much of the present is read into the priority of the past (how much did the 20th century biologists "read into" Mendel's papers what they were themselves concerned with, different from Mendel's own context and interests in the material?).

Those are what come to mind when thinking about this off the top of my head. A few of these can also be easily used for the discussion of why people often dig up priority disputes (the Creationists love the Darwin ones because they want to show that Darwin was a fraud anyway; the anti-Einsteinians love the Einstein one for the same reason) and some of the ironies often involved (if Darwin's theory itself is wrong, who cares who came up with it first?). Any additional thoughts would be appreciated, about additional issues to include (or reasons not to include any of the above), or anything I might be missing for one reason or another. And again, if anybody wants any of the articles above for the purposes of assistance in this glorious task, just let me know: fastfission@gmail.com --Fastfission 23:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Calculus controversy: Newton v. Leibniz, and even Newton v. Leibniz calculus controversy. Joy... JackyR 23:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• D'oh! Completely forgot that one! Such a big one too. --Fastfission 23:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• First law of thermodynamics and its independent formulation by about 12 (literally) different people between 1830 and 1850.
• Tycho Brahe and Ursus (a case of actual stealing one person's ideas by another).
• For technology, the complicated international legal dispute of Nikola Tesla v. Guglielmo Marconi for radio, and some of Galileo's instrument disputes.
• Maybe the double helix; not exactly priority, but the closely related issue of credit.
• Ernest Lawrence makes an interesting example for artificial radioactivity in that he was producing it in his cyclotrons long before the Europeans announced its discovery, but had never let his counters run after the beam turned off, so he never knew; like with several other discoveries, he was able to reproduce the results immediately but didn't have any basis for a priority claim.

--ragesoss 00:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Importance of priority might include the "hero" model of science, very prevalent in some cultures: misunderstood genius defies the powerful to be proven right in the end. Hero model encouraged by Nobel prizes. This model fails to value collaborative institutional science, and I seem to remember is explicit in some UK funding decisions. Contrast with reputed Japanese model for commercial tech research - research, test production, feedback from shopfloor, more research: contributions from all levels, no "heroic" designer. Don't know about publs on all this (must exist, surely?).

Priority important for patents, of course. Just been dealing with this (and effect of good PR) at ENIAC. JackyR 01:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I would include also, as a contrast, some discussion of inventions or discovery that were and are totally uncontested. The separate condenser of James Watt's steam engine is surely one of these. Newcomen's engine had stagnated for about 50 years before this improvement was made. I don't know of any other claimants at all.

I think an article along these line is very worthwhile. There are a number of wikipedia articles that try a little too hard to assign classical discoveries and inventions to relative unknowns, denigrating the guys who really carried them through to something other than an idle idea. Much to my aggravation...DonSiano 01:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Leibniz and this project

I gather that this project wishes to encompass Gottfried Leibniz. That's fine and proper, but let me warn you all out there that that entry's discussion of Leibniz's scientific and technological accomplishments needs work. Much of what you will find in section 4 of that entry is breathless and hagiographic, written by eccentrics who think that Leibniz was the precursor of relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. This is overblown. Ditto for the entry's description of Leibniz the inventor. The problem here is that the vast part of Leibniz scholarship treats of his philosophy. Leibniz the religious, legal, and political thinker comes second. The mathematician and theoretical physicist comes third. Serious scholarly interest in the remainder of Leibniz's scientific and technological accomplishments is fairly slight to date, perhaps because much of Leibniz's writings on those subjects remains unpublished. In particular, I know of no book comparing and contrasting Leibniz's thinking about mechanics and energy (e.g., the vis viva), with that of Huygens, Hooke, and Newton.202.36.179.65 17:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You put the problems with that article very nicely; I think the approach of members of this project has been thus far to sit back and wait until the anonymous edits settle down before trying to tackle the clean-up job.

Ballad of Gresham College

Question from JackyR (moved from main page):

• q:Ballad of Gresham College (dunno why that's blue - ça n'existe pas) Can someone with access to ISIS have a look at: "The Ballad of Gresham College", Dorothy Stimson, Isis, 18 (1932), 103-17.

1. Is the 1663 ballad vaguely interesting or worth referencing (put in Wikiquote)?
2. If yes, and you don't fancy scanning it yourself, p/copy and snail mail to me and I'll try out my new scanner/OCR software.

It looks pretty cool to me, although I had never heard of it before. It's on JSTOR, so it's available as PDF or TIFF (if you have JSTOR access).--ragesoss 18:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for putting that req in the wrong place. I don't have easy access to anything , sometimes not even my local city library, as I have ME. So I'm not in work/academia with subscriptions to journals. To put the lid on it, I can't even unpack my books until I've finished rebuilding the house around me – kinda slow-going when I'm sick – which is why my contribs are so hopelessly seat-of-the-pants. On the plus side, when I'm well I can get to Canterbury Cathedral archives and the special collections at University of Kent, and I have postal borrowing rights from Cambridge University Library (yet to find that useful). The long and the short of which is, cd you put the Ballad of GC on Wikiquote yrself, or email it to me at (DELETED FOR FEAR OF SPAM BOTS!!) JackyR 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Howzat?! Needs proofing and lots of linking before it can become protected (Wikisource is not as Wikipedia...). JackyR 00:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

History of science overview

I've added a "topics" box to the History of Science Portal, which is intended to be a jumping off point for the central history of science articles (many of which don't yet exist). Please, modify it as you all see fit to encompass the most important topics in the history of science, and give some feedback about what should or should not be included.--ragesoss 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Julian Schwinger

Can someone have a look at Julian Schwinger, maybe someone who has some idea what source theory is? Right now, it sounds like his greatest contributions to physics were being a cold fusion guy and having a lot of students with Nobel prizes. –Joke 03:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As it says in the first paragraph, he was one of the developers of quantum electrodynamics. This was probably his greatest achievement and what he got the Nobel for, although he has always been overshadowed by his lifelong (friend and) rival Feynman. There should probably be more about QED in the article, although because Feynman came up with a more user-friendly formalism (Feynman diagrams), most subsequent treatments of QED are irreducibly Feynman-centric. Schwinger's treatment was much more mathematically austere (as I understand it), and possibly more rigorous (who knows?), so it's harder to popularize. (I never heard of source theory.) · rodii · 03:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm, the article on Freeman Dyson is crap too. Why does nobody care to write about scientists' seminal work? –Joke 04:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Molecular Biology

I came to "History of Molecular Biology" from the main page, where there is a prominent link. I think it is a very strange article, and it is hard to know where to start in fixing it. So for starters, I would just flag it as needing help. It is weak on facts, and very long on historical mumbo-jumbo. Beadle and Tatum did not demonstrate the existence of a "precise" relationship between genes and proteins. Jacob and Monod did not discover messenger RNA. Contemporaries would not have agreed that Avery "discovered that genes are made up of DNA." And it is hard to know what this is supposed to mean: "The development of molecular biology was not just the fruit of some sort of intrinsic "necessity" in the history of ideas, but was a characteristically historical phenomenon, with all of its unknowns, imponderables and contingencies." For a historian that statement may be profound, but speaking as a scientist I find it obvious, even banal. A good place to start would be with Judson's 'Eighth Day of Creation," and for earlier context probably Jacob's "The Logic of Life." Is there anybody out there who has read these books recently? Telliott 00:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. The article is a very early work in progress (which is why it was linked from the main page, because it was created recently), so it still has a long way to go. If you feel strongly about particular details, at this early point in the article's life, I would recommend you simply change them. I plan on turning my attention to that article eventually (while re-reading the Morange and Fruton references, in particular), but that probably won't be for a while.--ragesoss 01:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Telliott, be bold --arkuat (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ockham's Razor in Timeline of scientific discoveries

In Timeline of scientific discoveries theres is :

13?? - William of Ockham: Occam's Razor

but according Ockham's Razor some similar ideas was long before Ockham and definition was introduced not by ockam...??? See Roger Ariew's dissertation of 1976, Ockham's Razor... --AndriuZ 22:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And it's not exactly a scientific discovery anyway. It should probably be removed (perhaphs in an act of invoking it?).--ragesoss 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it's rather "discovery in science", also it is important to track the first use of it. So we have few options: a) leave, but to mention, that priciple was named later (who?) b) move (not remove) to later years? ... more ideas? --AndriuZ 12:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Gresham Profs, please

I'm putting up the lists of all Gresham Professors over the years. I've tried out a few formats for these at User:JackyR/sandbox, as well as an unformatted list at Gresham Professors of Astronomy. The individual lectures, where available, are often of interest to Historians of Science, but perhaps less so to anyone else and will require some maintenance to keep up to date. Could folk let me know what you prefer? JackyR 16:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 03:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

For those of you who use userboxes, a userbox for this project is now available.--ragesoss 22:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

{{User WikiProject History of Science}}

This user is a participant in WikiProject
History of Science.

History of Astronomy

Wikipedia coverage of this topic is patchy and I would like to see it become more systematic. Greek astronomy in the History of astronomy is a good example: a couple of names are given but no attempt has been made to make sense of the Greeks in general. I have started an article on Greek astronomy, which could still use help. Similar topical articles need to be created for Middle Ages, Babylonian, etc., that could draw on good info already in Wikipedia. Let me know if you'd like to co-ordinate something.

BTW thanks for the userbox, ragesoss! Maestlin 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What sort of data are you looking for in the category "history of astronomy"? I added the 19th century telescope maker Howard Grubb to this category and it was removed. The reason I put it there is that you will often see telescopes described as the "Grubb 28-inch" or whatever size. Whilst Grubb Parsons Ltd is still a company to this day Sir Howard is obviously not! As he perfected the periscope I would think he would belong in "the history of science" as well. Please let me know as I'm likely to add further articles so would like to get it right first time if poss!. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the history of astronomy category because typically such broad categories should only include topics in the history of astronomy, not individuals. I didn't know quite what to do since Grubb is a figure in the history of astronomy but not actually an astronomer (a subcategory of history of astronomy). Maybe astronomer would be an appropriate category for him anyway, or maybe we can add back the history of astronomy category.--ragesoss 07:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand the problems with categories having been a dba! However he's not noted as astronomer - even an amateur one - his dad Thomas was a keen amateur and I'm intending to add an article on him as he founded the Grubb company. I'm also planning to add Grubb Parsons Ltd as they made the INT and are important figures in the professional astronomy world. Just for background I did astrophysics at uni, demonstrated the 28-inch at greenwich to the public for a summer job and my husband was an astronomer at the RGO and manchester uni for quite a few years. He's used the INT and the AAT as well as others so hopefully we've got plenty to add between us. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 08:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we ought to create a new category for instrument makers; I'm sure it would eventually fill out quite nicely. Welcome, by the way; I look forward to seeing what you and your husband add to the project.--ragesoss 14:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes please to cat for instrument makers! Btw, over at Commons there are separate cats for Scientific Instruments and Scientific Equipment, [1] without any noticeable criteria for either. Anybody got opinions on this?

I took the liberty of putting Brugg under Category:Astronomy people, which is for non-astronomers. It gives benefactors as an example but does not limit it. This question highlights a problem in the History of astronomy category: the inadequate subcategories. There are already many history of astronomy related articles on Wikipedia and this category is begging to be populated. A category for Chinese astronomy already exists. Can this be cross-listed as a subcategory for History of astronomy? What about Muslim astronomers and other cultural categories for astronomers that tend to be historical? What about astronomy books? I have a few subcategories to suggest:

• Historians of astronomy
• Astronomy by period, or similar, with sub-subcategories for astronomers in each period
  • Ancient astronomy
  • Medieval astronomy
  • Renaissance astronomy or early modern astronomy or astronomy in the Scientific Revolution
  • 18th century astronomy
  • 19th century astronomy
• Astronomy by culture, instead of organizing by period (or use both)

Or we could take a cue from the history of mathematics people and categorize astronomers by century. As I said, there are lots of articles already that should be associated with history of astronomy, but right now you need to know where to look.

I took a look at the instruments/equipment categories. My guess is that there are no criteria. Maestlin 17:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see the difference between instruments and equipment myself - but I think the categorizing astronomy/astronomers by time period is a good idea. The instrument makers would be a perfect category for Sir Howard Grubb and his father so I'll keep my eye out for it - maybe this could be done by time period too. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 19:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How about starting with astronomers, something like: Ancient astronomers (up to 500 AD), Medieval astronomers (500-1400), Renaissance astronomers (1400-1600), then by century. Where is the right place to make a formal proposal? Maestlin 15:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

William of Ockham, Fact vs. Myth

JA: I posted the following comment on the William of Ockham talk page, but will copy it here, too, in hopes of getting some help from History, Latin, and Medieval Philosophy buffs. Regards, Jon Awbrey 11:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Since this article has been placed under the aegis of the History of Science, here are some problems that I notice right off with respect to its historical accuracy.

Ockham is considered one of the greatest logicians of all time. One important contribution that he made to modern science and modern intellectual culture was through the principle of parsimony in explanation and theory building that came to be known as Ockham's razor, which states that one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible number of causes, factors, or variables.

JA: The first sentence is an example of "peacock phrasing", as further discussed under WP:Weasel. Ockham of course looms large enough to rank as a mythical figure these days, but in the interests of historical accuracy it is all the more necessary to distinguish the things that Ockham actually wrote from the things that are anachronistically attributed to him. The rest of the first paragraph fails to do that.

JA: To some extent we can get by on translations, but it takes a better reader of Latin than I to do an expert job of this, and so I will look up the appropriate tag to place on the article. Jon Awbrey 11:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul Ehrenfest

There is a discussion at Talk:Paul_Ehrenfest whether to include circumstances about his death. This is a question about what is relevant in a wikipedia biography and what is a private tragedy that does not belong here. I don't think this is an easy question and I was wondering if someone here would like to look at it. Zarniwoot 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

History of astrology

I noticed a number of dubious claims in the history of astrology article, particularly those concerning the Rg Veda. I suggest that someone flag this article for scrutiny. Thanks. Zeusnoos 18:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Since there were no takers on this topic, I removed this section. However, I hope that someone here, who is more knowledgeable about star lore and astrology/astronomy in the Vedas and archaeoastronomy, will replace it with less dubious information. (My speciality is limited to ancient Greek to Byzantine period). Zeusnoos 14:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Le Sage's theory of gravitation

Anyone care to come to this page and try to help me to sort things out? I have a mainstream but anonymous editor who keeps panning the current article (which I have worked on with a pro-Le Sage gravitation person), but cannot get him to state specifically what is wrong. He seems to feel that calling people names and compaining about our lack of credentials is somehow helpful. It would be nice to get other opinions on the state of the article, and on this odd anon. --EMS | Talk 14:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Women in science

As a female scientist I was surprised at how incomplete this particular article was, with whole sections missing any information. Also in terms of systematic bias, it's terrible too, as there is no mention as far as I can tell of anywhere outside Europe or the US. I'm going to have a quick look at it now, but it would be nice if someone would join me, who's been doing this stuff a bit longer. Terri G 17:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd really liked to have worked on it, but I'm kind of curious about how I could improve it.--XenoNeon (converse) 07:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now the article has some empty sections that are basically just headings and stub tags. Anything you put into those, even a list of names, would be an improvement. The article says essentially nothing about problems women might have faced participating in scientific work. Finally, it has lots of redlinks that could be made into stub articles. Maestlin 00:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, I remember when Linus Pauling got his second Nobel Prize, the news was that he was the first man ever to win two Nobels. True, in its way, but he was not the first person - that was a women, Madame Curie. --Dumarest 14:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Pre-experimental science

The title of this topic has several problems:

first, it seems to reflect a Whiggish approach to the history of science – it evaluates early sciences by whether they live up to the presumed standard of modern science.

secondly, it implicitly assumes that all modern science is experimental, a view that many theoretical physicists (among others) would question.

This article could either be deleted, or it should have a major historiographical / philosophical introduction on the role of experiment in the history of science. Then the examples should be revised to deal more objectively with the changing roles of experiment. SteveMcCluskey 18:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The title is definitely a problem, and renaming is probably the best solution (along with eventually expanding and improving it). The role of the article, in the current scheme of history of science overview articles, is to fill the spot before History of science in the Middle Ages, so chronology and integration into the traditions of Western thought, rather than any particular focus on experiment, is what the title should reflect. Any suggestions?--ragesoss 18:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your intent, and it could probably have been solved by another chronological topic – say "ancient science." However, the "pre-experimental" title seems to have led development in another direction, including discussions of issues as late as Galileo and the overthrow of the phlogiston theory. Some drastic editing may be necessary to sort things out.--SteveMcCluskey 19:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there are any editors heavily invested in that article, so you're free to take it in any direction if you want to work on it. Drastic editing is perfectly acceptable. Some thoughts to take or leave: It would be nice to have an Ancient science article that is more focused than History of science in early cultures, in which case this article could be renamed and refocused on the changing role of experiment in the history of science (maybe Experimental method or even merge it with History of scientific method, which could serve as a needed corrective to the overwhelmingly scientistic Scientific method).--ragesoss 19:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I finally got around to revising the Pre-Experimental science page; it's now reorganized and named History of science in Classical Antiquity. I think it now meshes pretty well with the History of science in early cultures page, from which I've removed the brief Greek science section. I've also changed the items in the History of Science template to reflect this change. --SteveMcCluskey 03:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Plato's Theory of Refraction (in Pre-Experimental Science)

The theory of refraction attributed here to Plato does not appear in his Timaeus, nor is it attributed to Plato in the mainstream literature on the history of optics. The account seems to fit the experiment described by Ptolemy in his optics, and most accounts see it as a case of typical Ptolemaic "data smoothing," in which measured data is smoothed in terms of Ptolemy's prior assumptions about the bending of light. This section (and the independent article on Plato's Theory of Refraction) should be deleted – or retitled as "Ptolemy's theory of refraction" and revised to reflect the historical literature on Ptolemy.--SteveMcCluskey 20:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you're the person best equipped to make the changes. Be bold! Another option would be incorporating the section into the existing article on Ptolemy if you think it would enhance coverage. Maestlin 17:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting the Portal to feature quality

I want to nominate Portal:History of science on Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates sometime soon. Please give suggestions on how it could be improved.--ragesoss 16:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Right now my browser is pushing the pictures for the "featured" items to the bottom of the screen. As a general question, I am curious how the "Did you know" and "featured" items are currently selected. Maestlin 20:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What browser do you use? Lots of that formatting stuff goes haywire in certain browsers (especially Safari); I'll track down someone who can figure out what's wrong.

I invoke my authority as The Only Person To Bother With It for the selected articles. If you want to add or change any of the featured items to come, go ahead. I set up an unfortunately byzantine system for the selected article, but it automatically updates when the time comes. I have every other week call up the content from the week before, so the article changes semi-weekly. For the pictures, a couple other editors have suggested pictures as well, and I change it manually every Friday and create the captions. The selected scientist and selected inventor are actually transcluded from the science and technology portals, respectively, so they don't get updated as often. The did you know has been pretty neglected; I'm the only one to mess with it so far.

If you have any ideas that you want to suggest (rather than simply implement yourself, which would be fine), here are the places:

• Articles:Portal talk:History of science/Article for suggestions and discussion, Portal:History of science/Article/2006 archive for the content line-up and links to empty future slots.
• Pictures:Portal talk:History of science/Picture
• Did you know: just add new ones to the top and bump the bottom ones to the Archive

--ragesoss 21:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Using Internet Explorer, it's doing that with the pictures for me, too. I wonder how long this problem has been going on. Cat anyone tell us how to make the images appear in the correct place on Portal:History of science?--ragesoss 21:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The browser I used today is humble old Internet Explorer 6. Dollars to doughnuts it is a popular choice for average readers, who are not computer-savvy and go with whatever is on the computer already. Thanks for the quick responses to my questions! Maestlin 21:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a whole lot of other portals have very similar issues; I'm amazed that such a major problem is so widespread. I've asked for help in a few places; hopefully it will come soon.--ragesoss 21:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed the problem, but I'm not exactly sure what the problem was. I noticed that Portal:War displayed properly and this one didn't, even when all the same formatting was used; the "box-header" template was significantly different, so I used that format, and that seemed to fix the issue.--ragesoss 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It displays correctly in my browser now. Looks good, too. Maestlin 19:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It got promoted today!--ragesoss 05:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Science Collaboration

I think the project has grown large enough to support a History of Science Collaboration ('of the Month' seems reasonable). If there is reasonable participation in voting for topics and the collaboration gets going successfully, it could be a very effective way to get new scholars involved (by contacting individuals with relevant expertise, and by spamming list-servs about each new collaboration topic). I think the most effective approach to gathering participants (whether already Wikipedians or not) will be to focus on broad topics and historiography, rather than biographies (but of course, biographies would not be disallowed). Some possibilities to start out might be:

• Sociology of science (currently a redirect to Science studies)
• Women in science
• Funding of science
• History of earth sciences or the like
• Science wars

Please share other suggestions, support for a collaboration, or doubts about the feasibility. I'll start putting together the framework for it, barring too much negative reaction.--ragesoss 23:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration page is up

I've created a page for selecting collaboration articles; please vote. {{CurrentHOSCOTM}}

Remote Viewing Timeline

Factful, or factfree? --GangofOne 23:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC) (Here I'm more interested discussing in the historical "facts", not the scientific "facts".)GangofOne 23:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia CD Selection

At present it is very noticable that there are very few history articles on the Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download. If any articles are reasonable quality, interesting to children aged 8-16 and free from porn, contraversy, "contested" images etc you are invited to mark them on the talk page with {{WPCD}} . Thanks for any help --BozMo talk 09:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Name a specific person" template discussion

I've started a discussion of a proposed template at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Disputes#"Name a specific person" Template needed. The template will deal with the frequent cases where an article has statements like "Democritus found fault with the philosophers around him..." without giving examples of those unnamed philosophers.

I've prepared a draft of the template, which will work very much like the present templates for or , asking an editor to "please insert specific name." I think participants in the History of Science project may be interested in commenting, but it would be most convenient if all reactions were posted at the original discussion page. --SteveMcCluskey 00:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Shared Nobel Prizes (putting fractions in pages)

Having just made a comment on the Marie Curie talk page about saying how much of a [[ Nobel Prize]] has been awarded to people, I thought I would bring up the issue here as well. Someone has pointed out that if someone shares a Nobel Prize they don't end up with all the prize money, but then thought to add this right at the top of the page without much information, cue a big discussion about how you can have 25% of a Nobel Prize etc. I had a quick look on other Nobel Prize winner pages and there doesn't seem to be a consensus even for those lucky few who've won more than one. This might be an issue with broader consequences, but I thought I'd bring up the issue here first.Terri G 18:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. You want to add info about who got how much money? That sounds tacky. In terms of honours, the recpients each get 100% of the honours: just because you and a buddy both got a prize this year doesn't diminish the fact that you got a prize, nor does it lessen the acheivement. This is not the Winter Olympics, where the skier who was 0.01 seconds slower on a 2 minute downhill slalom gets the second-class silver medal. linas 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize organization itself does clearly mark the fraction each recipient got of the prize. [2] – Laura Scudder ☎ 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Original documents for Principle of Least Action

The following is copied from my talk page, as a possible topic of general interest. linas 20:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Linas, it's Willow again. I added three of the original documents (along with their translations) in the development of the principle of least action to their respective Wikisources; see my userpage for more details (under "Inter-Wiki stuff"). They still need proofreading by others, but I think they're more-or-less OK for reading, and thought that you might enjoy them. It's strange and interesting how vehemently Euler defends Maupertuis' priority in 1752, when it is clear that Maupertuis asserts his principle in 1744 only for light (not matter) and does so with little justification. Maupertuis' one interesting argument is that space and time should be equivalent but, in the refraction of light, time is minimized (Fermat's principle) but not distance. On that basis alone, Maupertuis asserts that the principle of least action is more fundamental than Fermat's principle. Euler, on the other hand, is the first to assert the principle for material particles, and the first to note its requirement that speed be a function of position alone (i.e., that the particle's total energy be conserved). Euler's later misrepresentation of Maupertuis' achievements is really odd, and almost makes one wonder whether Euler was being blackmailed or trying to gain some professional benefit. But perhaps we're still missing some documents that might shed more light on the story. Willow 11:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to digest this slowly. At Accord des diferntes... you indicate "trouvé à Gallica", but there's no URL ... did you go to the library? Similar remarks apply to the other texts. Lovely picture of the knitter, by the way. linas 00:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, linas, I like the Bouguereau painting, too; there aren't so many flattering pictures of us knitters!

I translated the part of Maupertuis' 1746 article that concerns mechanics (the first two parts concern proofs of God's existence) and was dismayed to find several things. Maupertuis takes credit for having invented the principle of least action as a general principle, although it's clear that he proposed it only for light in 1744. He cites Euler's 1744 book and thanks him for his "beautiful application of my principle to planetary motion". Even worse, when Maupertuis tries to apply "his" principle to elastic and inelastic collisions, and to the equilibrium of a lever, he seems to mis-apply it. When you get a chance, could you please look over the latest article and see whether you agree? Perhaps I'm being unfair to Maupertuis. I confess, I'm even beginning to suspect that he didn't know any calculus (e.g., what an integral is); if so, it would be a strange quirk of history to credit him with a principle that relies so much on an integral. ;) Willow 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that perhaps you want to start thinking about writing an essay on this topic. I'm not sure where to put it: on some blog somewhere, where you can try to generate interest? At a minimum, you may want to post to Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science, and stir it up there. If you find your essay starts gaining length and heft, then publication is some journal of history starts becoming an option. Anyway, I shall try looking at the translations – but again, I ask, will I be able to find the Latin originals online? linas 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and s the question becomes, why did Euler go ballistic on the defense? linas 20:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here, linas. One great source on Maupertuis (and his relationship with Euler) is The Man Who Flattened the Earth by Mary Terrall; it puts his attempts to formulate and reformulate the principle of least action into historical perspective quite nicely. Some points from memory and a brief consultation of Terrall's book:

• "action" has had a number of different meanings, and in the context of Maupertuis was entwined with the concept of "vis viva" (the meaning of which was note entirely stable). The concept of "energy" had not yet been invented, and a number of different conservation laws were being thrown around; the difficulty was finding one that worked for both elastic and inelastic collisions, which Maupertuis's version was supposed to do.
• differential calculus was widely known by the mid-18th century, but very few mathematicians knew very much integral calculus (and those who did were not completely convinced of the validity of the versions they had worked out); it was basically still being invented. They found Newton's version extremely difficult to make workable (after all, he did most Principia geometrically). Newton and Leibniz did not create fully formed versions, and much of what makes calculus so useful was only being formalized during Maupertuis's time. Maupertuis did not know integral calculus, though he was aware of its potential; (which is part of the reason why is worked closely with some much better mathematicians than himself, such as Euler and Johann Bernoulli I).
• The principle of least action was not initially articulated in terms of calculus; as indicated by the theological aspirations of much of Maupertuis's work with it, it was, at that point, more philosophy than physico-mathematics. It was debated by both supporters and opponents as a metaphysical concept that had physical implications.
• Maupertuis's relationship with Euler was bound up with some very complicated international scientific (and military) politics as well as long-standing philosophical debates; Maupertuis was a Frenchman, but spent his later career at the Berlin Academy of Science, trying to build that institution (along with Euler). Terrall discusses a lot of this, but I can't piece it together without going back over her book pretty closely.

It's been a while since I took a close look at Terrall's book, but I highly recommend it if you want a starting place for doing some original research. She doesn't focus on the actual mathematics, but the book provides great context for technical history of mathematics/physics work.--ragesoss 21:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sage, thanks for the tip about Mary Terrall's book. I went to my local library and dipped into it a few weeks ago, but I haven't done more than skim the parts on the least action principle. Her book was helpful in establishing that Maupertuis' 1744 work was indeed published a few months ahead of Euler's appendix. However, as I recall, her book didn't shed much light on whether the Leibniz letter was genuine and why Euler seems to have misrepresented Maupertuis' contributions, although perhaps those are unanswerable questions. I agree with Prof. Terrall that the whole episode was really tiresome – too much posturing over who deserves what glory (yawn).

Thanks for confirming that Maupertuis did not know integral calculus; do you happen to have a reference? I thought as much from the way he was arguing, although I did remember that he had been trained by the elder Bernoulli, so I thought he must have picked up some integration.

Right now, I'm translating Maupertuis' second and last paper on the principle of least action, published in 1746. But the "actions" that Maupertuis gives in the third part seem ad hoc and inconsistent with our modern (and Euler's) definition of action. But maybe I'm not seeing something? If someone could look at that section, I'd appreciate it.

As an aside, Euler did publish the modern principle of least action in 1744, full-fledged in integral form, albeit applied only to a single particle under various types of forces. It was not the same as Hamilton's principle, however, since it determines only the path traveled, not the time parameterization of the path. I've begun some articles explaining the difference at Maupertuis' principle and Hamilton's principle, although they're still in draft form. I hope you enjoy them! Any suggestions are most welcome.  :) Willow 23:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, don't take my word for it that he didn't know any; Terrall mentions several times where he solves problems geometrically because he didn't know how to do it analytically via integrals (such as the deformation of the Earth as it spins), or deferred to other more sophisticated mathematicians. But he certainly had exposure to it, so what the exact limits of his calculus mastery were is probably best judged by the type of sources you're looking at. I jumped into this discussion because it was posted here, but clearly you know your way around the topic better than I assumed.

The main thing to keep in mind, IMHO, is to read historical texts like these as sympathetically as possible. It's much more likely that implicit background and definition were changing than outright errors and inconsistency within the text itself; it probably made sense to people at the time, even if they disagreed with it. I think the editorial comment at the top of your translation is inappropriate (except perhaps on the talk page); without deferring to experts, it's not our place to say things like "this is false" at the top. Instead, point out that he was working with a system of mechanics that we now consider wrong, and "his 'general principle of least action' differs from the modern one in such and such a way," rather than "Maupertuis does not understand the principle even now."

One possible interpretation: I think the reason contemporaries (such as d'Alembert) recognized Maupertuis as the inventor of the principle of least action is because they understood it primarily as a metaphysical statement about nature (or rather, Nature) seeking the shortest path, not a concise synthesis of mathematical laws of physcs as we define it today. That his definition of action turned out wrong didn't, in their minds, invalidate Maupertuis's work.

I think it's wonderful that you're translating these things; I hope you won't completely disregard the speculative theology parts. May the Wiki be with you --ragesoss 00:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sage, you're right, of course. I moved the notes to the talk page, and made them more precise, pointing out how Maupertuis' conceptions of the action and its minimization were changing. I'm not a historian, and have only an undergraduate's conception of the evolution of physics, so I'm way too quick to judge past theories in light of their modern counterparts. I guess I was also a little frustrated that Maupertuis took a false turn after Euler laid out the whole theory perfectly. Thanks very much for checking the articles and for helping me get the right perspective.

I thought long and hard about the "This is false", and I might like to keep the idea, although perhaps soften the tone. The metaphysical idea of "least action" was not original with Maupertuis, as his contemporary critics were fond of pointing out; but, as Maupertuis replied, his contribution was to define mathematically the "cost" to Nature of carrying out some effect. In 1744, Maupertuis states the general metaphysical principle but specifically limits his mathematical definition to light, not matter. It's possible that Maupertuis had conceived that the same mathematical definition might pertain to material particles, but there's no trace of that in the article. Therefore, it is false to assert that Maupertuis proposed the general principle in the 1744 article; the general metaphysical principle had been proposed earlier, whereas Maupertuis' mathematical principle was not general. // Bleh :p I hate this stuff, all this fretting over priority; but on the other hand, I want to get it as accurate and precise as possible for the readers of Wikipedia. So it's got to be done.

On a happier note, I'll be glad to add the rest of the article, which is really interesting. Maupertuis reviews many of the historical arguments for God's existence, some of which are still around today in the "Intelligent Design" debate. Maupertuis gives a amazingly prescient statement of the principle of natural selection, which I think you'll like. Interestingly, Maupertuis seems to scorn those who base their proofs of God's existence on quirks of the natural world, such as the skin of the rhinoceros or (borrowing a modern ID example) the assembly of the flagellum; he seems to feel that such proofs are demeaning to God. His own proof builds on the universal physical laws that govern motion. Talk to you soon, Willow 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just a little update. I finished the English translation of Maupertuis' 1746 article, and I've typed in roughly 70% of the original article in French. Click on the double arrow in the left-hand column to see them both, matched up side-by-side. The biological and physics-equations parts are done, so you can read about Maupertuis' statement of natural selection. You may find typos and mis-translations (I've found a few myself) in this first draft, but I hope to iron them out relatively soon; suggestions are always welcome! Willow 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, the original French text of Maupertuis' 1746 article has been typed in. A big favor: if anyone knows French & English and has a spare moment, please check both articles for typos and/or mis-translations. The similarity of the f and s letters in 1746, which make words such as font and sont indistinguishable, may well have caused some mistakes. The two-column format (click on the double arrow in the left-hand column) may help in proof-reading. Thank you very, very much! :) Willow 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC

I have put G. Ledyard Stebbins on FAC, comments and criticisms would be appreciated.--Peta 00:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The deplorable state of academia-related articles on Wikipedia

I just ranted a bit at Talk:University about the state of that article, but the fact is that almost all articles relating to academic institutions and their history are awful on Wikipedia. Take a look at college, academic degree, Doctor of Philosophy (and there are many more). What these articles lack most is a historical perspective and a sense of proportions, in order not to give a ridiculous amount of weight to whatever happens to be the favourite POV or interest of the latest drive-by editor. Is this something this project would be interested in doing anything about? up+land 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography

Let us know if you happen to pick an article on a person and we'll alert our members! plange 06:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Copy it to STS Wiki!

As you're working on an article, won't you please think of copying it to STS Wiki? STS Wiki isn't trying to compete with Wikipedia – the site is really intended for people with interests in STS that go beyond those of a general encyclopedia's readership. But that's the cool thing. Our new Wikipedia Project involves moving Wikipedia pages to STS Wiki, improving them, and then selectively posting the improvements to Wikipedia. Think synergy, not duplication!

STS Wiki's licensing has been reconceptualized to encourage two-way transfers between STS Wiki and Wikipedia. Basically, any text imported to STS Wiki from Wikipedia, *including derivative versions,* will be licensed by the GDFL. This will facilitate moving improved material back to Wikipedia.

Because STS Wiki is focused on STS professionals rather than the general public, we expect that articles imported from Wikipedia will be expanded to suit the needs of our audience, perhaps with a level of detail that would not be appropriate here.

So, it seems to me that you have everything to gain by copying your work to STS Wiki You can set up your watchlist on STS Wiki to see if the material has been edited; take a look... if you like what you see, copy it back here.

Let me mention, too, that STS Wiki is planning to launch a major internationalization initiative. People trying to teach STS in non-English-speaking countries have a dreadful time finding useful material. Funneling history of science-related material into STS Wiki in an organized and coherent way establishes an equally organized and coherent base for translation.

STS Wiki is located at http://www.stswiki.org. You are cordially invited to visit and contribute! Bryan 22:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bryan. This could be a great way to do a sort of external peer review, and may be an extra hook to get other professionals to take this (and your site) more seriously.--ragesoss 00:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Metrology Wikiproject

I was surprised to see that there wasn't a project for metrology and measurements. I thought I'd propose one here, since metrology could be considered an area within History of science, not to mention the fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology is inactive. Note that while I'm happy to support and participate in this project, there is little chance that I'd be the one to initate it or stick with it for an extended period of time. mwazzap 07:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to add suggestions and to do items related to the history of metrology here. I doubt that there would be enough activity to sustain a metrology project, considering that even as broad a topic as technology (among many others) is inactive.--ragesoss 00:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright. mwazzap 08:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible Disruptive Editing on Scientific Revolution

Knowledgeable editors are needed to look at this discussion as part of the procedure for speedily omitting Disruptive Editing in the article on the Scientific Revolution.

Thanks for your help --SteveMcCluskey 19:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Counter-Earth and Antichthon

User:Mrwuggs is proposing to merge Counter-Earth and Antichthon together. Previously, it appears he merged both into the Antichthon article. This would be wrong, since the Counter-Earth article is not mainly involved with the Antichthon concept of antiquity. 132.205.44.134 02:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

New WikiProject list in physics

Please, take a look at the newly started Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Worklist of central experiments and give feedback on the historical importance of any listed or missing experiment. This is the start of an effort to create, improve, and polish a high-class set of articles about central experiments in physics. Thanks for your time! Awolf002 11:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

HELP! Suggestions needed for student Wikipedia assignments

I will soon be assigning a Wikipedia research project to the undergraduate students in the course in which I am the teaching assistant, History of Modern Science in Society. The scope is essentially science since the scientific revolution, I am looking for possible topics for the students to research. These topics should be: a) not present or poorly enough covered on WP that a typical undergraduate will be able to improve it drastically through (secondary source) research, without having to master a huge body of literature to get the basics rights; b) preferably with some connections beyond the internal, intellectual development of a field of science, and c) preferably not biographical. I'm thinking of things like important centers of scientific activity and their histories, the historical roles of specific ideologies or philosophies in science, science-related social or political movements, etc. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.--ragesoss 01:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As I complained above, articles around here on education and academia are usually rather crappy. Articles like university or Doctor of Philosophy tend not to reflect their actual subject but rather the personal knowledge or POV of the latest persons to edit the article. How about the 19th century history of the Humboldtian University of Berlin and the rise and spread of the research doctorate? (I would suggest starting from scratch, not from the current Doctor of Philosophy or doctorate pages.) The article on Wilhelm von Humboldt would need improvement too, but since you said "preferably not biographical", I am not going to suggest that...

If your students are American (which I assume most are), but show themselves able to write in such a way as to make this fact not obvious, you should give them some extra cookies. up+land 04:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The history section of university also stood out to me as a good choice; the Humboldt university article is an excellent suggestion, especially since they've had a lecture on Humboldt. (There are a small number of biographies I'm considering, Humboldt and Ernst Haeckel among them.) The doctorate articles might be a bit trickier; I agree that they poor now, but they encompass quite a lot, probably too much for undergraduates to get a hold of for this relatively limited assignment. I'll keep a few cookies on hand, though they may go to waste.--ragesoss 07:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Another couple of suggestions: the articles on the University of Leiden and the University of Padua. (I would suggest Bologna, but you probably can't ignore the medieval history of you want to improve that article, and that would be outside the scope of your course. However, there were a number of female doctors and professors in Bologna as early as the 18th and early 19th century. I'm not sure how to make that into a Wikipedia article without being biographical, but it might be interesting for anyone interested in women's history and gender issues.) up+land 07:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for peer review of Cyclol

Hi, I've been slowly drafting an article about the cyclol hypothesis, the first well-defined model of globular proteins. The theory is mainly of historical interest, since it was shown to be incorrect within a few years. Anyway, the article has reached the stage where I'm toying with the idea of submitting it as a featured article candidate and I'd really appreciate your suggestions and comments before I do that. Thanks muchly! :) Willow 17:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

NEW ROSALIND FRANKLIN Portrait Uploaded

We have uploaded a newly painted portrait of Rosalind Franklin onto http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosalind_Franklin_DNA.jpg. We have made this new artwork available in the public domain and would like to link it to Rosalind Franklin pages, DNA History pages. If someone can give us a hand to do this we would be most grateful. We work in the art/science arena, and use our art to celebrate Frankln's achievements. Thank you very much. 10th November 2006

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Eastern contributions to science are blown out of proportion

I mentioned this over on the main "history of science" discussion page, but I seriously think that there is too much emphasis on Eastern contributions to science. I do a lot of reading on the history of science in my spare time, and just about every trustworthy source I read contradicts many of the "facts" I have read on Wikipedia. First of all, the matter of Chinese "science" has been studied by so many scholars, to the point where hardly any credible researcher has really been able to prove that the Chinese really worked with any science in the same sense that Westerners worked with it. The Chinese developed remarkable technology but only for practical purposes. Westerners, on the other hand, tried to figure out the how and why behind the way things work, and as a result of this, they, unlike the Chinese, were really the only people to ever develop science as we now understand it as a subject.

Many of the current claims of the so-called advanced ancient Indian science are rather specious and when people try to equate their science with that of the Greeks, it only begs the question as to why it was not Indians instead of Westerners who created the modern world. Indians may have proposed things that we can remotely call "atomic theories" early on, but in any case, they were never able to separate their "science" away from superstition and religion and once again, like the Chinese, it was mainly used for practical purposes. The Greeks, and later other Westerners, were really to a great degree the only people in the world (or at least they were the first) to secularize science and they were also the first (and only) to actually study science just for the sake of studying it. It is for this reason that Westerners were the true creators of what we can really call "modern science". The Indians DID manage to advance math a little further than the Greeks before it came back to Europe (which is where it was modernized), but we don't need to start telling fibs about how they were the first to develop Calculus and rockets.

Islamic science is greatly overestimated on Wikipedia in many different articles, I have noticed. First of all, we need to recognize that much of Islamic science was derived from the Greeks, while much of Islamic math was derived from Greece, Persia, and India. Except in a few areas, we really can't say that Islam did much that was original. Second of all, it seems that there is some conspiracy going on among some Wikipedians (or it could just be one Wikipedian) to bring forth these false claims about how "Europeans are always trying to claim Islamic science as their own doing". I have seen some cases in some Wikipedia articles on the histories of different sciences, where statements as false as "Muslims were the true creators of the scientific method" are expressed. It really frustrates me that Wikipedia has let such revisionist statements go through on its website. I agree that there was once a time when Islam wasn't given the credit it deserved in Western history books, but it seems that now we are going in the complete opposite direction by giving Islam credit for discoveries that were really either Greek or post-Renaissance European.

On top of all of this, it really doesn't make any sense to me that Wikipedia decided to give so much space to each of the above pre-scientific civilizations while devoting hardly a single paragraph to Ancient Greece, the civilization that by itself formed so much of the foundation of our modern science. After the Greek civilization, there really wasn't much progress done until the European Renaissance. Is what I am saying Eurocentric? No, of course not. I acknowledge that non-Western civilizations made important contributions early on. However, nobody, after examining actual facts can deny that over 80% of human progress in science has been accomplished by the West, and it was also the West, and only the West, that developed what we can safely refer to as "modern science". I am only asking that Wikipedia start presenting the facts as they really are, instead of worrying about making sure every ethnic group is equally represented. Cftiger 19:13 27 November 2006

Although I sympathize, to some extent, with your concerns about nationalists trying to rewrite the history of a wide range of subjects to emphasize the achievements of their ancestors -- what I like to call the "How The Irish Saved Civilization" syndrome -- we ahould also remember that historians have to recount the contributions of a wide range of early civilizations. In those accounts it does little good to say that Indian philosophers developed modern physical concepts, when upon close examination, we find substantial differences between the ideas of medieval India and those of modern science. To credit these scholars for getting the "same idea" first overlooks the originality of the Indian (or Arab, or Greek) contributions.

I would caution you, however, that in writing the history of science we are not writing the history of "modern science," we are writing a history of the various investigations into nature that were carried out in different times and places. This diversity is an important element of history.

Finally, you've raised the question of what has been said about Ancient Greece. You may find your question answered in the article History of science in Classical Antiquity. --SteveMcCluskey 18:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A host of new and newly expanded articles

Students in my class recently completed their term paper assignments, which involved writing for Wikipedia. Most could use copy-editing, wikification, and/or images. These were the articles that were created or greatly expanded:

• Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA
• Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
• Embryo drawings
• History of biotechnology
• History of geology
• History of model organisms
• Nature (journal)
• History of European research universities
• Humboldtian science
• Nature study
• Positivism
• Romanticism in science
• X Club

--ragesoss 04:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Darwin FAC

Feel welcome to comment: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Darwin. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)