Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a discussion page. If you're new to Wikipedia but would like to comment about this project or Wikipedia in general, simply click "edit this page" at the top or one of the "[edit]" links below. Then type your message, add in "~~~~" to generate a timestamp, and click "Save page".

Archive 1 (January 2006 - October 2006)

Shortcut:
WT:WPHOS


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

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

[edit] Charles Darwin FAC

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Rating history of science articles

The project template, {{HistSci}}, now accommodates article rating. Please take advantage of this and assign ratings of quality and importance to the history of science articles you care about; this will help the editorial team that selects articles for stable versions like Wikipedia 1.0.--ragesoss 21:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the plan is to start actually deciding what will go into Version 0.7 very shortly. With that in mind I've started aggressively tagging and rating. I'm not particularly qualified to do this outside of physics, so I'd be thrilled if others joined in the fun. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Medal - help needed

Hi there. I've been expanding and double-checking Royal Medal - a list of recipients of the Royal Medals awarded by the Royal Society - specifically the pre-1930 recipients. There are still quite a few redlinks there, and many of the articles don't mention the award. Anyone want to help out over there? Carcharoth 18:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the study of global warming

A suggestion for a collaboration of the week or something. I know very little about it, but I'd love to see an article addressing the history of understanding of global warming and climate change. Very little is mentioned in the global warming article itself, and it is a hot topic (no pun intended). —Pengo 13:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Islamic science

It has been proposed that Category:Islamic science is to be merged into Category:Islam and science. This seems like an unwise idea to me, but your input is requested at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 15#Category:Islamic science. —Ruud 18:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alchemy FAR Review

Alchemy has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] Galileo Galilei FAR

Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Science: Topics of top level importance

It seems to me that understanding Ptolemaic geocentrism, Coppernican heliocentrism and the way in which we moved from one to the other are among the most important things that anyone studying history of science should know about. Accordingly I have added 2 of these to the project and rated all three as top level importance. I'm not sure whether this is kosher since I have also edited some of these articles. Perhaps someone could review.

For the record, I would also rate the following in the same way:

  • Darwinian evolution
  • unification of electricity and magnetism
  • transition from Netwonian gravity to relativity
  • quantum theory and the standard model
  • the double helix

I have not yet looked the corresponding articles to check whether they are included in the project and how they are rated.

(My 2 bits worth) Rjm at sleepers 10:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific fundamentalism

The article on Scientific fundamentalism is currently at AfD and seems likely to be deleted unless an expert can improve it. If anyone here has relevant expertise, please do join the debate. Espresso Addict 01:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As you say, it's likely to be deleted. I'm not aware of any sources that support the assertions in the article. Rjm at sleepers 05:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 19th century scientist stubs

I recently created Ramsay Heatley Traquair as part of an ongoing effort to turn the redlinks at Talk:Royal Medal blue (or at least the magenta colour of stubs depending on your settings). I'm also dating the point at which the links turn blue, so please have a look and if you are interested, create a stub or two. Carcharoth 11:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of people known as father or mother of something

Please help us to restore this article at Deletion Review: Aug 13, 2007. I didn’t even know this happened, it was closed at 14 keeps and 11 deletes; with admins reopening and closing the article on an alternating basis, e.g. see the deletion log history. Thank: --Sadi Carnot 16:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone’s help in getting this restored. The article is now called people known as the founder, father, or mother of something, it has a “reason” column, is being ordered by “subject”, and only important world-view people are being included. Note also that the terms founder of, father of, and mother of link here; if you edit related historical articles, please link these to this article. Thanks and come and help build this fun article. --Sadi Carnot 17:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks really good. I suggest asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics to help with the maths section. The "Education" section is misnamed - all those should go under "arts subjects". But the science ones look good, and the reasons for moving the one moved to the talk page also look good. Carcharoth 21:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice entomology timelines

I just found some very nice entomology timeline articles, and have assessed them and put the WikiProject tag on them. See Timeline of entomology - prior to 1800, Timeline of entomology - 1800-1850, Timeline of entomology - 1850-1900 and Timeline of entomology - post 1900. Carcharoth 14:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inactive?

I've just removed your project from Template:Announcements/Current collaborations but are you reactivated? If so, you should remove the inactive tag and reinstate yourselves. (You could try reducing the number of votes a nomination needs, or just select an article, if you're having difficulties getting enough people to vote.) DrKiernan 11:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How long?

How long does a collaboration of the month last? Should we be getting to Greek mathematics (which has four votes) yet? SmaleDuffin 17:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You can start the Greek mathematics collaboration for this month if you like. I haven't been maintaining because other things seemed more pressing, but I'd be glad to see someone else take it up.--ragesoss 18:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration with journals

Hi. This week Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals has selected Astronomische Nachrichten (aka Astronomical Notes) as our CotW. I've already done a fair amount on the history, but maybe members of this project would like to join in and add some more and check what has been done already? Thanks. Carcharoth 11:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration proposal

We have received at WP:TIMETRACE a collaboration proposal with WP Hisyory of Science. We will be glad in doing so. As we have not found your cooperation banner, do you mind if we make one for you so we can include your project in our main page as cooperative project? Daoken 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the molecule

Cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry.

There has been some concern of WP:SYN at this article. While claims in the article are reasonably factual and referenced, there is some question about whether the overall story is too original and incorporates too many topics that are just tangentially related, especially regarding recent history. Also, is "the history of the molecule" a good topic for an article by its own, or should it be incorporated into other topics such as history of chemistry? Please comment at Talk:History of the molecule. --Itub 16:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] collaboration of the history projects

Hi, I'm newly appointed coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject History. I was coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject Military History before. My scope is to improve the cooperation among the different history projects andf use the synergy of a common infrastructure to improve article quality. One idea would be to merge small project into a larger wikiproject history with a common infrastructure and the small projects continuing independently as task forces of this project. What are your suggestions? Greetings Wandalstouring 15:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for input re Science Super-Categories

There is a CFD discussion underway regarding the relationship between, and possible merging of, two Categories: Category:Physical sciences and Category:Natural sciences. Thus far the discussion has attracted very few comments (I just discovered it myself), so I am going to request that it be relisted. Two editors suggested asking for input from this Project, but as far as I can see there was no follow-through on that -- until now. So please give this some thought, and then share your thoughts at the CFD linked above. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Now relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_15#Category:Physical_sciences. --Bduke (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have just made a significant alternative proposal. Please take a look and add your comments to this important discussion. Cgingold (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Science Collaboration of the Month

So, I decided it was time to try to resurrect the collaboration of the month. Thus, the current collaboration is now Greek mathematics, which has not received its share of attention. Please pitch in to improve our coverage of this importance topic. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeoastronomy

Hi all, this is a request for comments on the Archaeoastronomy article which is listed under this and a few other WikiProjects. It used to be a good article, then it was reassessed. It's been re-written. Suggestions for improvements to regain GA status and move on further are extremely welcome.

In particular you may want to examine the article for POV. There is an argument put forward that current article is biased in a way that the previous version was not. You may want to see the Talk Page for more on that. Sometimes an outsider's view can bring a fresh perspective on such arguments.

Thanks, Alunsalt (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC at Archaeoastronomy

The discussion mentioned above has developed into a formal Rfc. Further comments are welcome.

Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's now at NOR/N

The discussion has now moved further to the No original research noticeboard. Any light that could be shed on this problem would be appreciated.

SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums

Would it be worth adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums to related wikiprojects? It's a new project but has obvious links with this one in improving the coverage of science museums etc.— Rod talk 10:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Science in Medieval Western Europe

I have created a request for comment in the article Science in Medieval Western Europe. Any comments are appreciated.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Gould collaboration on Wikisource

English ornithologist and researcher of Australian animals John Gould has been chosen as Wikisource:Collaboration of the Week. Please contribute. —Pengo 04:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useful biographical resource

I recently came across the Biographical Database of the British Chemical Community, 1880-1970, from the Open University. I see that it is used in several articles already, but as it has details on "some 4860 chemists", we could use it a lot more. Could someone please list the page somewhere where others will be able to find and use it. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sidrak and Bokkus

Should this article be part of your project? regards Aleichem (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of scientific publications of Albert Einstein

Hi all,

I'm about to nominate List of scientific publications of Albert Einstein as a Featured List candidate, but I'd welcome any of your input(s) before I do. As you might notice, it's been a ton of work, so please be gentle in your criticisms! :) Willow (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now nominated it as a Featured List. Your input there would be welcome; follow the link! :) Willow (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured List for this WikiProject!

Hi all,

The list of scientific publications by Albert Einstein has been nominated as a Featured List. Please go there and, if you think it's worthy, support it! Willow (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biographical infoboxes for scientists

Greetings from the Arts Project. I'm looking for information about the acceptance (or otherwise) of biographical infoboxes for scientists. Has this been discussed here in the past? Are infoboxes now encouraged for all biographical articles? I've looked in the archive but not found anything. (Rest assured I have no wish to express any opinion on their use here - I am just trying to gather information). Best regards and thanks. --Kleinzach 02:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue has come up explicitly with this WikiProject. Some editors who work on scientists don't like them, and at the least resist attempts to make them mandatory. I'm not a fan of them, but I find them tolerable.--ragesoss (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. There are a lot of science projects. I wonder if you (or anybody else?) might know any particular ones where the issue has come up. --Kleinzach 03:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a special infobox for scientists {{Infobox scientist}} that is used in thousands of articles. I don't know if there is a written guideline anywhere explicitly encouraging its use, but in fact it is very widely used. This infobox is basically an expanded version of the basic biographical infobox with some additional fields of interest to scientists. --Itub (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition 1914-17

This article has carried a History of Science project template for some time. The article has recently been developed and promoted to Featured status but it lacks both quality and importance ratings within the project. Perhaps someone should look at it? Brianboulton (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It will automatically be FA quality if it is a featured article. JFW | T@lk 08:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein, Einstein, Einstein!

The list of scientific publications by Albert Einstein is a candidate for a Featured List, and we could use YOUR input! :) Please review the list and go there to voice your support or opposition. It probably won't take much of your time; thank you very much! :) Willow (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centrifugal force

I've now started a section on the history of the development of the modern conception of centrifugal force in that article. I am by no means an expert in the history of science, and I'm unsure about how the references I've cited hold together: could an expert please review the material I have added so far? There appears to be significant work on this topic by Domenico Bertoloni Meli (for example, [1], [2]), however, most of the interesting papers on this subject are behind a paywall and inaccessible to me. -- The Anome (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)