# Talk:Robert Hooke

Ball's attribution of this aphorism to Clairaut is questionable as it appears rather more likely to be Mme du Chastelet's own work (since she has carefully credited all the other parts of her book to their respective authors). But until it is challenged by later academic research we must accept it at face value as it would violate Wikipedia policy WP:No original research to assert a different attribution. Consequently, Ball is cited  in the concluding sentence of the section on Gravitation.
The full quotation is in section IX of 

Marquise du Chastellet, ed. (1759). "Exposition abregée du systême du monde, et explication des principaux phénomenes astronomiques tirée des Principes de M. Newton" [Abridged explanation of the world system and an explanation of the principal astronomical phenomena drawn from the Principia of Mr Newton]. Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle. Vol. 2. Paris: Desaint et Saillant.
though the introduction (Avertissement) in Volume 1 of Mme du Chastelet's translation merely says that the Exposition is drawn in the main from the works of Clairaut or from the notebooks that he had previously given in the form of lessons to her. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I may have been too hard on Ball: I suspect he had his own doubts because he cites Du Chastelet and Stephen Peter Rigaud to attribute the aphorism to Clairaut. The former does not attribute the remark, it was Rigaud (in Rigaud, Stephen P (1838). Historical Essay on the First Publication of Sir Isaac Newton's Principia. Oxford University Press.) at p. 66. The plot thickens! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I looked up Inwood (2003) page 241 and 247, the book says that Hooke took the secretary's duty on 13 September 1677 and was appointed as Society's Joint Secretary on 19 December 1677. The current Wikipedia page states that these events happened in 1667. Could anybody please correct it? --Edmvnd Hallius (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Edmvnd Hallius:, thank you for spotting this error. I confirm your analysis and I have corrected the article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

change: A memorial window existed at St Helen's Church, Bishopsgate, London, but it was a formulaic rendering rather than a n accurate likeness.[176] The window was destroyed in the 1993 Bishopsgate bombing.
to: A memorial window existed at St Helen's Church, Bishopsgate, London, but it was a formulaic rendering rather than an accurate likeness.[176] The window was destroyed in the 1993 Bishopsgate bombing.
simple error of having a space between the 'a' and 'n' of 'an' 31.205.35.7 (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Well spotted, thank you. Why not create an account and you will be able to make corrections directly. This article is protected because it was a favourite vandalism target for bored students.  --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so look, there's this painting, right? It might be Robert Hooke, the "Portrait of a Mathematician" by Mary Beale. Griffing thinks it is because there are multiple pieces of evidence that align with known facts about Hooke. The man in the painting has features that match descriptions of Hooke provided by people who knew him, such as a "sharp ingenious Look", a "thin" nose, and "lank brown hair". Additionally, the background of the painting could be a depiction of Lowther Castle and its church. Hooke was involved in the renovation of the Lowther Castle church. BUT, and this is a big but, the strongest evidence - a diagram that matches one from Hooke's unpublished work, The Laws of Circular Motion - is missing in the pictures we have. It's too blurry to tell. Griffing (2020b) acknowledges that this is the most important clue! So, if we wanna put this picture on Hooke's Wikipedia page, we gotta be upfront that we're not 100% sure it's him. Maybe add a question mark or something to show it's still up for debate.
Depicting it in black and white will emphasize this is a nice fill-in, but not the de-facto painting of Robert Hooke. 2A02:A210:8AB:1F00:9840:F89F:2D5C:71C6 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The caption says that the identifications are conjectural –  educated guesses in other words. But it doesn't explicitly say that the subject is unknown, so I will do that now. As for your B&W idea, I know if no such convention. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)