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 1 Request for peer review of Cyclol 2 NEW ROSALIND FRANKLIN Portrait Uploaded 3 Stablepedia 4 Eastern contributions to science are blown out of proportion 5 A host of new and newly expanded articles 6 Charles Darwin FAC 7 Wikipedia Day Awards 8 Rating history of science articles 9 Royal Medal - help needed 10 History of the study of global warming 11 Category:Islamic science 12 Alchemy FAR Review 13 Galileo Galilei FAR 14 History of Science: Topics of top level importance 15 Scientific fundamentalism 16 19th century scientist stubs 17 List of people known as father or mother of something 18 Nice entomology timelines 19 Inactive? 20 How long? 21 Collaboration with journals 22 Collaboration proposal 23 History of the molecule 24 collaboration of the history projects 25 Request for input re Science Super-Categories 26 History of Science Collaboration of the Month 27 Archaeoastronomy 27.1 RfC at Archaeoastronomy 27.2 It's now at NOR/N 28 Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums 29 RFC: Science in Medieval Western Europe 30 John Gould collaboration on Wikisource 31 Useful biographical resource 32 Sidrak and Bokkus 33 List of scientific publications of Albert Einstein 34 Featured List for this WikiProject! 35 Biographical infoboxes for scientists 36 Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition 1914-17 37 Einstein, Einstein, Einstein! 38 Centrifugal force 39 William Speirs Bruce and Scottish National Antarctic Expedition 40 1345 41 Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 42 Articles flagged for cleanup 43 History of timekeeping devices reassessment 44 Peer review request 45 New policy proposal and draft help 46 Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for History of science 47 Richard Laming 48 Principia Mathematica needs additional cites 49 Cold fusion 50 Wilhelm Prinz 51 Newton 52 History of evolutionary thought nominated for main page 53 New article (?) history of cell membrane theory 54 Luther Burbank's contributions to plant breeding 55 Article cluster 56 Andreas Vesalius 57 Richard Milner, historian of science and singer 58 Infobox Scientist: Religion 59 Coordinators' working group 60 Request for help from WP:MEASURE 61 Page related to "History of chemical industry" 62 CFD for Category:Astronomical historians 63 Article alerts 64 Science and Religion. Repeated instances of conflict? 65 "the Creator's laws" in Inception of Darwin's theory: WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV 66 Portal:Scientific method 67 Gas Law pages 68 Joseph Priestley lead image 69 Albert Einstein 70 Consensus Please 71 Matthew Boulton at FAC, please help 72 Fertilisation of Orchids at FAC, please help 73 History of the Periodic table 74 History of interest and research for snowflake 75 Rfc at Talk:Celestial spheres 76 Using calligraphic names in place of pictures for medieval writers in Arabic, unless historically and aesthetically significant pictures can be found 77 Did you know.... 78 Frederick Gregory/Fred Gregory

[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:

• 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)

[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)

[edit] William Speirs Bruce and Scottish National Antarctic Expedition

I'd like to suggest these two articles for inclusion in the History of Science project. Both are recent GAs; Bruce is currently on peer review and will shortly go to FAC. Bruce led the SNAE, which among other achievements set up the firat permanent meteorological station in the Antarctic region in 1903-04; it is still operational. Brianboulton (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1345

An admin moved the summary version of this article to 1345 (summary) from the main 1345 spot. This article is in the scope of this project. Commentary is needed on whether summaries in the main year articles should be encouraged or not. Discussion is here. Wrad (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 969 articles are assigned to this project, of which 260, or 26.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of timekeeping devices reassessment

The History of timekeeping devices article (the Wikipedia's featured article as I write this) has apparently been rated as "mid-importance" by the History of Science WikiProject. Another editor (IP 87.175.219.227) expressed concern on the article's talk page that this was a gross underestimate of the importance of the article. I agree with them. This article is among the most important history of science articles possible. I couldn't quickly find a place to propose reassessment so I wrote here so the members of the project can discuss this matter further and hopefully correct such an oversight. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think changing it to "High" importance would be fine. Certainly, those assessments are no exact science, and editors who feel articles are mis-rated should feel free to change the ratings, especially if there is consensus among several editors.--ragesoss (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

Hi, I'm gradually improving an article in the history of celestial mechanics — Newton's theorem of revolving orbits — with the intention of bringing it to WP:GA or FA. If you could go to the peer review here, that would be wonderful and much appreciated. Thank you! :) Willow (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New policy proposal and draft help

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for History of science

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Laming

Per chance, does anybody here happen to have access to an Annals of Science archive? There's a promising 1969 article by W. V. Farrar on Richard Laming that, unfortunately, I am unable to access (without forking over $28). I was hoping against hope that a kindly person here might be able to see if there is more detail that could be added to the article? Otherwise, it has proven to be awful slim pickings on the web. Thank you!—RJH (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:WRE might prove useful. JFW | T@lk 05:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't aware of that resource. User ragesoss very kindly helped me view the article.—RJH (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Principia Mathematica needs additional cites

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Newton's Principia) is in very serious need of additional cites (so tagged since May 2008.) -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cold fusion

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody check out the string of recent edits to Monroe Doctrine? Thanks, Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wilhelm Prinz

I have been trying, with only limited success, to find biographical information on Wilhelm Prinz (1857-August 1, 1910), a German-Belgian astronomer who was the eponym for Prinz (crater) on the Moon. He was fairly well published (see for example NASA ADS.) I've been able to determine he may have been a professor of physical geology and mineral sciences in Belgium. He may also have worked at the royal observatory of Brussels and was noted for his selenography. Here is a sample of his publications, in no particular order:

• "Annuaire de l'Observatoire royale de Bruxelles", 1891
• "L'éruption du Vésuve", 1906[3]
• "Les Cristallisations des Grottes de Belgique", 1908
• "Quelques remarques générales à propos de l’essai de carte tectonique de la Belgique", 1904
• "Analyse de la boue tombée en Belgique le 22 février 1903", 1903
• "L'état de l'intérieur de la Terre", 1902
• "Etudes sur des coupes de Diatomees observees dans des lames minces de la roche de Nykjobing", 1880
• "Étude de la structure des éclairs par la photographie", 1888
• "Le tremblement de terre d'Andidjan", 1902
• "Observations d'éclairs", 1905
• "Les oxydes de titane et autres produits d'alteration de quelques roches du Brabant suivi de remarques sur le dynamo-métamorphisme", 1907
• "L'atlas photographique de la Lune de Lick Observatory", 1896
• "Der photographische Mond-Atlas der Pariser Sternwarte", 1896
• "Agrandissements de Photographies Lunaires", 1894
• "L'eruption de la montange Pelee", 1902
• "Sur les similitudes que présentent les cartes terrestres et planetaires"

Might anybody have heard of this man? Do you know where I might find more information? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newton

I have nominated Isaac Newton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of evolutionary thought nominated for main page

History of evolutionary thought has now been nominated to appear on the main page February 12 (which is the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth). If you wish to support this nomination please visit Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Since this nomination technically has only 2 points, it can use as many votes as it can get. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New article (?) history of cell membrane theory

I've recently written a modest sized piece (~1000 word, 20 reference) on the history of the study of the cell membrane. My original intent was to put it in the "cell membrane" article, but I now feel that maybe it's too long and specialized for that. I'm trying to decide whether to make it a new article or to include it under another history article, perhaps history of molecular biology. Any thoughts? --MDougM (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say create a separate article, as most related articles would just need a summary of that much text to be properly balanced with other topics.--ragesoss (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Luther Burbank's contributions to plant breeding

During the past few days, a bitter controversy erupted in the Russian Wikipedia over the Russian version of the article on Luther Burbank. Last fall it was reworked on the basis of some pamphlets from 1930s and 1940s (mostly pro-Lysenkoist) in a way which clearly brings in an imbalanced over-optimistic attitude towards Burbank. Now it undergoes an extensive revision which is accompanied by a conflict between neo-lysenkoists and Burbank-sceptics. I am posting my question here because I am afraid that the Burbank's article discussion page is a rather quiet place, while here I hope to find an extensive community which could help us in this matter.

The most part of editors involved are located in Russia and Ukraine and are cut off the most important book sources (so far, I failed to locate both Howard's (1945) Luther Burbank, a Victim of Hero Worship and Dreyer's (1993) A Gardener Touched With Genius in the Russian libraries). The list of reliable journal sources (which are easier to acess due to JSTOR and other online database options) I managed to compile (see below) is tantalisingly short and does not cover certain aspects of Burbank's activities in sufficient detail. Most importantly (at least for now), it is not at all clear how much did Burbank really contribute in terms of still commercially available crops or ornamental plants. The impressions I've got from contemporary reviews of Howard's book is that the successful cultivars of considerable importance were rare, even though the total number of varieties was claimed to be huge (from 800 to 1200+ depending on the source). Here in Russia I still have found no way to resolve these discrepancies on my own, so I humbly appeal to the History of Science project members for help with references (preferably journals) or any other advice.

To make things clear, as a former biologist turned historian of biology (I was not a geneticist but taxonomist and deal now mostly with the history of 18c natural history, so Burbank is off my usual routes) I am a bit sceptical towards Burbank as a plant scientist but I am open-mnded enough to accept evidence supporting his importance as a practical plant-breeder.

Articles I've found somehow relevant:

Book reviews

• Zirkle. review: Selected Works by Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin. Isis, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Apr., 1951), pp. 80-81.
• Kimmelman. review: A Gardener Touched with Genius: The Life of Luther Burbank by Peter Dreyer. Isis, Vol. 77, No. 4 (Dec., 1986), pp. 728-729.
• Jones. review: Luther Burbank, A Victim of Hero Worship by Walter L. Howard. The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 63, No. 3 (Sep., 1946), pp. 238-239.
• Thone. Nature Ramblings: Harmful Hero-Worship. The Science News-Letter, Vol. 49, No. 20 (May 18, 1946), p. 317.

Some contemporary sources

• anonym. Propose Patents on Plants. The Science News-Letter, Vol. 17, No. 472 (Apr. 26, 1930), p. 258.
• Howard. Luther Burbank. Science, New Series, Vol. 87, No. 2250 (Feb. 11, 1938), p. 139.
• Rossman. The Plant Breeder Becomes an Inventor. The Science News-Letter, Vol. 18, No. 506 (Dec. 20, 1930), pp. 394-395.

Recent historical papers

• Bugos and Kevles. Plants as Intellectual Property ~ American Practice, Law, and Policy in World Context. Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 7, Science after '40 (1992), pp. 74-104.301768.pdf
• Cooke. From Science to Practice, or Practice to Science: Chickens and Eggs in Raymond Pearl's Agricultural Breeding Research, 1907-1916. Isis, Vol. 88, No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 62-86.
• Kingsland. The Battling Botanist: Daniel Trembly MacDougal, Mutation Theory, and the Rise of Experimental Evolutionary Biology in America, 1900-1912. Isis, Vol. 82, No. 3 (Sep., 1991), pp. 479-509.
• Pandora. Knowledge Held in Common: Tales of Luther Burbank and Science in the American Vernacular. Isis, Vol. 92, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 484-516.
• Wrinch. Science and Politics in the U.S.S.R. The Genetics Debate. World Politics, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Jul., 1951), pp. 486-519.

Thanks in advance, Alexei Kouprianov (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Daniel Kevles (coauthor of the Osiris piece you note) has been working more on Burbank recently, although I'm not sure if it's published yet. I would try to contact Kevles and/or Sharon Kingsland and/or Katherine Pandora via email; all three are still active researchers (and friendly people) and can probably point you to more definitive sources for the questions you're worried about, if such sources exist.--ragesoss (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, one issue that muddies the waters (as I recall, but don't take my word for it) is that plant breeders in the late 19th and early 20th century were always trying to claim to have created the next great thing, and what was commercially significant was as much a product of marketing as anything else. Consequently, when improved varieties did appear, they would be appropriated under different names by different breeders. Furthermore, the market life of any cultivar was short, because once it was out there others could try to produce it as well, so there was strong incentive to denigrate past cultivars in favor of new ones, so that even if the new ones were no better it paid to market them as if they were. Another source on Burbank you might consult is Philip Pauly's book, Biologist and the Promise of American Life (Princeton University Press, 2000), although Burbank appears only briefly.--ragesoss (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article cluster

Perhaps some here can look over some of the work done on the cluster of articles that has been worked on by User:Macdonald-ross - including Edward Blyth that might be of interest for the upcoming Darwin Day coverage. Shyamal (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Shyamal refers to the group:

• William Charles Wells (1757-1817) First clear statement of natural selection
• Sir William Lawrence, 1st Baronet (1783-1867) Hard inheritance + specific rejection of soft inheritance
• James Cowles Prichard (1786-1848) The primitive unity of the human species and its origin in Africa
• Patrick Matthew (1790-1874) Statement of natural selection
• Edward Blyth (1810-1873) Aspects of natural selection

Each got some part of the mechanism of evolution correct. And there are a number of things they have in common. One is that of the three who picked up on natural selection, all talked about artificial selection; and three talked of aspects of human evolution. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. Unfortunately, articles going up on the Main Page for Darwin Day will have to be new ones created or expanded in the days immediately preceding (see Wikipedia:Did you know/Darwin Day 2009), but if you're planning on starting any related biographies soon, you might consider timing it with DYK in mind for February 12.--ragesoss (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas Vesalius

Though I am not part of this wikiproject, I am hoping you guys would help me in improving the Andreas Vesalius article. It was assessed as a B quality article, but it is really not deserving of it. It sites no sources, and was generally poorly written, and error filled. I have fixed most of the errors, but really, it needs a rewrite, with sources. EvangelionTesttype (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Milner, historian of science and singer

I've just created a new stub article titled Richard Milner (historian). It needs work. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Scientist: Religion

You might want to look at the debate that is going on in Template Talk about the religion field in Infobox Scientist.

There are some editors who would like to remove religion completely, because of their own strong personal feelings against the use of all ethnic and religious categories.[4] This view failed to gain a consensus, so they are trying to put restrictions on how it can be used, which would have the result of substituting "see main text" for religion in many cases.

In fact, Infobox Scientist doesn't include a "Religion " field any more. According to [5], "Religion" was changed to "Religious Stance" on 8 December 2007 without any mention in the Edit box or any discussion in the Talk page. There was some objection in the Talk page afterwards but nothing came of it. So the change was made by an individual editor on his own initiative without consensus. Presumably somebody with Admin access could change it back again.

So if you think the "Religion" field belongs in Infobox Scientist, or doesn't belong, now's the time to weigh in.

(I'm cross-posting this to WikiProject History of Science and WikiProject Religion.) Nbauman (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help from WP:MEASURE

I've been doing some article assessment at WikiProject Measurement recently and I came across the article Apothecaries' system (not one of mine) which seems pretty good. For the time being, I've rated it as A-class on our project quality scale, but I would welcome further comments so I have opened a peer review here. If there are editors with any knowledge or interest in the subject, I'd be grateful if they could read through the article and tell us if there is anything important which should be in there but which isn't at the moment. Cheers! Physchim62 (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Page related to "History of chemical industry"

In Italian wikipedia an article related to "History of chemical industry" (in Italian language "it:Storia dell'industria chimica) has been promoted to "featured article". My question is: there is an article on English wikipedia related to the history of chemical industry? If not, maybe I can translated the article in English, but I need some help to do it. If else the article exist, I will add a link to the Italian one and "viceversa", and then I will compare the two article to expand them. --Aushulz (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CFD for Category:Astronomical historians

A discussion is under way to determine the best name for Category:Astronomical historians. Your input would be appreciated! Cgingold (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:14, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Science and Religion. Repeated instances of conflict?

I've been objecting to an affirmation on the Religion article. It says that there were "repeated instances of conflict" in the history of Science and Religion. In the discussion I argued that this notion of repeated conflict is representative of the 19th century "conflict thesis" and that it is no longer held by historians of science. I provided contemporary quotations criticizing the warfare model and claiming that instances of conflict were the exception rather than the rule... However, at least one editor still thinks I am probably POV pushing... So I'm here asking for input from knowledgeable editors on the historical relationship between science and religion. They will either lessen the concerns from the editor I mentioned above or they will show me that I may be somehow misinterpreting the scholarly literature I read on the topic. If you are interested go to Talk:Religion#Science, Religion and Conflict. Thanks! --Leinad-Z (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "the Creator's laws" in Inception of Darwin's theory: WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV

Our article Inception of Darwin's theory makes several mentions of "the Creator's laws" (and/or similar language) and of Darwin's putative ideas about same. I believe that there are WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV concerns here.
Any such language which is not a quote is IMHO a WP:NPOV problem.
All instances which are exact quotes should have exact cites, to avoid WP:VERIFY problems. Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not undersanding the issue. At the time (which was very early in his career) the Creator's laws was what he thought he was looking for. Remeber he had been educated in a tradition of natural theology. This is a historical article and should reflect the attitudes of the participents at the time of the events being discussed, not modern attitudes or (importantly in this case) even the attitudes that the participants might have developed in later years. I don't see how accurately representing a historical viewpoint of a person who is a subject of a historical article can be considered an NPOV issue unless you have a source that indicates that this was not in fact the persons actual attitude. The are VERIFY issues in this article because a few of the quotations do not cite sources and that should be fixed, but I don't see any NPOV issues. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Example, from the Intro: -- "Reading about Malthus and natural law led him to apply to his search for the Creator's laws Malthusian logic of social thinking of struggle for survival with no handouts" (no cite apparent). -- Wikipedia is saying flatly here that Darwin was looking for "the Creator's laws". If he was, then we should cite this to a specific source. If he wasn't, then it's editor's POV and we should remove it.
Example -- "He was convinced by Paley's Natural Theology which set out the Teleological argument that complexity of "design" in nature proved God's role as Creator, and by the views of Paley and John Herschel that creation was by laws which science could discover, not by intermittent miracles." Let's cite that.
Example -- "Darwin was elected to the Council of the Society .... for Darwin it meant joining the respectable élite of eminent geologists developing a science dealing with the age of the earth and the Days of Creation." Cite?
Example -- "Lyell was convinced that animals were also driven to spread their territory by overpopulation, but Darwin went further in applying to his search for the Creator's laws the Whig social thinking of struggle for survival with no handouts." Cite?
- I do by the way believe that Darwin, in his earlier career at least, probably did think of himself as "looking for the Creator's laws", and I do think that cites can be produced for many of the items I'm questioning. But I do want to see those cites. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

These IP posts are duplicates of posts at Talk:Inception of Darwin's theory#"Creator": WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV concerns, best to keep the discussion there. . dave souza, talk 21:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Scientific method

Portal:Scientific method has been listed for deletion. Please comment here —G716 <^T·_C> 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gas Law pages

There is a proposed merger of historical gas laws (e.g. Charles's Law, Boyle's Law), which are special cases of the ideal gas equation pV=nRT into the Gas laws page. Please discuss this merger here at the Physics WP talk page, so that the discussion is all in one place. A.C. Norman (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Priestley lead image

I have implemented an Infobox Scientist in the lead of the Joseph Priestley article, effectively right-aligning the much-disputed placement of the image and left my rationales on Talk:Joseph Priestley. Because I strenuously disagree with the alleged consensus about violating stable guidelines about image placement as well as precedent across a wide body of other articles, I have offered to open an RfC for more editors' involvement. Other editors' input and feedback would be appreciated here. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Einstein

...is at peer review. Help get it back to FA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus Please

In the article Physics of the Impossible a single editor removed material that I believe, very much enhanced this article. The other editor’s view is that the removed material was off topic. My view is that it is very much on topic.

The current article is here: (current)

The version which I restored is at my sub page here: (restored)

Everything that was removed is related to the book. This is because, as the author writes: “The material in this book ranges over many fields and disciplines, as well as the work of many outstanding scientists.” There is a two and one half page list of the individuals, “who have graciously given their time for lengthy interviews, consultations, and interesting, stimulating conversations.” Most on this list happen to be scientists. I listed only the first 22 individuals and these are scientists. In addition, I linked their names to their biography on Wikipedia. I also listed each scientist’s fields of specialties. Many on the list in the article have more than one field of specialty (view here), and hence this reflects the breadth of knowledge contained in this book. If you look at this section in the restored article you will see what I mean.

In addition, before this material was removed by the one editor, the article was much more interactive. It was also more in line with the intent of Wikipedia that that the readers (as well as the editors) have a satisfying experience with Wikipedia. One aspect of this more satisfying experience is being able to access the knowledge that is available at Wikipedia on the sciences, and, perhaps, the mathematics. So, I linked not only the names on the list, but also many of their scientific disciplines to the respective Wikipedia article. Accessing this knowledge supports the following WikiProjects and their respective portals: (there are more I am sure)

• WikiProject Astronomy
• WikiProject Books
• WikiProject Physics
• WikiProject Space
• WikiProject History of Science
• WikiProject Science
• WikiProject Mathematics
• WikiProject Technology
• WikiProject Computing
• WikiProject Computer Science
• WikiProject Engineering

Also, there were graphics that were removed which support the article and the concepts in the book. I believe these should be restored as well. These are on the restored article page, at my sub page. The captions of the graphics show that the book is grounded in real science. If you scroll through the restored article you will see the variety of graphics. I believe these enhance the article aesthetically, as well as help to give a clearer picture of the concepts contained in the book and the article.

Lastly, there were external links that were removed which reflect the concepts in the book. These external links were removed as though they were not relevant. For example, I will list some of the external links, and then the page number in the book, to which each link is related:

• Solar sails: pp. 152, 158 - 159, 166, 172…
• Space elevators: pp. 165 – 169
• Black holes: 156, 232, 235 – 236…
• Travel at the speed of light: 159 – 161, 163 – 165, 169 – 170…

Unfortunately the external links that were removed are going to have to be restored one at a time, because they cannot be cut and pasted back from the revision history without some distortion. I think these external links should also, be restored to the article.

I think the bottom line is, let common sense decide. Even Wikipedia guidelines say that they are just guidelines, not letter of the law.

I would appreciate a consensus on whether or not to keep the removed material. Please place your comments here: Consensus please. This is on the talk page of Physics of the Impossible.

Thanks for your time Ti-30X (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Boulton at FAC, please help

Since Matthew Boulton is a Featured Article Candidate, and is supported by this Wikiproject, I'd be grateful if members could review and comment on the candidacy, to be found here. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fertilisation of Orchids at FAC, please help

An article on Charles Darwin's 1862 book Fertilisation of Orchids has gone through GA and seems to have stalled a bit at FAC where it was nominated on 7 July, any reviews and comments here will be much appreciated. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 21:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Periodic table

Hey mates! I'm currently working on the History section of Periodic table, though I might work on History of the periodic table afterwards/simultaneously/whatever. Help and input are more than welcome! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] History of interest and research for snowflake

Not a great example of an article but listed under this Wikiproject. Can anyone sort this out? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc at Talk:Celestial spheres

A request for comment on a large amount of disputed content in the article Celestial spheres, a B-grade article of mid-importance within the scope of WikiProject History of Science, is under way here. Anyone who can usefully contribute to the discussion, please do so.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Using calligraphic names in place of pictures for medieval writers in Arabic, unless historically and aesthetically significant pictures can be found

A general proposal: in articles for medieval writers from the arabic cultural area, instead of using pictures with dubious historical and aesthetical credentials writers' names in Arabic calligraphy can be used as visual enhancers, unless historically and aesthetically significant pictures can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlaspasifik (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know....

..that "24 Nov 2009 – On the Origin of Species was featured on the main page"? Despite the tense, that still gives a week to think of articles to feature in WP:DYK that day, but as far as I know we're not as well organised as for Wikipedia:Did you know/Darwin Day 2009. I've been working intermittently on User:Dave souza/Great Hippocampus Question, which in the best tradition of Darwin has grown rather large but is making slow progress. It's also my intention to greatly expand William Snow Harris to suit, so intend to press on with both this week. Any other ideas? . . dave souza, talk 14:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick Gregory/Fred Gregory

Not the astronaut. A biography article in need to be written. Can anybody do better than excerp http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fgregory/vitae.htm and google around?

His book Scientific Materialism in Nineteenth Century Germany seems to be the English language standard text on the topic, it already given as reference in some aericles. Also (hint, hint) soon to be excellent article on dewiki de:Materialismusstreit has no counterpart here.

---Pjacobi (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)