# Talk:Royal Society

Even though the article refers to the Encylopedia Brittanica, it does not seem to be true.
According to the article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Sciences_Leopoldina
, this society seems to be older - if we agree that 1652 was before 1660.
Maybe, the statement should be changed. What do you think?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotwie (talk • contribs) 09:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC) 

It could be that it only became German Academy of Sciences (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften) in February 2008. The Royal Society article very clearly specifies that it is the oldest "national scientific institution in the world".
The article you link to very clearly states: "In November 2007, German science minister Annette Schavan announced the renaming of the Leopoldina to "German Academy of Sciences" (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften), and said that "due to its international prestige, the Leopoldina is predestined to represent Germany within the circle of international academies." Karsten Jedlitschka says that the Academy was named the first national science Academy in Germany in February of 2008."--ServeDotty (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Also: "Founded on January 1, 1652, based on academic models in Italy, it was originally named the Academia Naturae Curiosorum until 1687 when Emperor Leopold I raised it to an academy and named it after himself". Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Heinrich Oldenburg, the First Secretary of the Royal Society, was of course German (from Bremen), and who, according to the Royal Society's own records - and to the later delight of the Paris scientific circles - was inspired by his time spent at the Montmor Academy and Paris' "salons" of philosophical debate, to help establish something similar back in England. The individuals Chapelain, Thevenot, Cassini, Du Hamel, Fontenelle all wrote about this, mostly disparately, and often decades later. Not to mentioned the historian Colbert. Only one counter-argument is offered, that of Hooke's, which essentially amounts to "we all hated Oldenburg anyways!". Hooke writes: "I will not say, that Mr Oldenburg did rather inspire the French to follow the English, or, at least, did help them, and hinder us. But ’tis well known who were the principal men that began and promoted that design, both in this city and in Oxford ; and that a long while before Mr Oldensburg came into England. And not only these Philosophick Meetings were before Mr Oldenburg came from Paris; but the Society itself was begun before he came hither; and those who then knew Mr Oldenburg, Understood well enough how little he himself knew of philosophic matters.’  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh and there's much more.
1530 - "Establishment of Collège Royal (now Collège de France) was established by King Francis I of France, modeled after the Collegium Trilingue in Louvain, at the urging of Guillaume Budé, for the advancement of learning by providing free lectures to the public on, among other subjects, philosophy, mathematics, and medicine."
1551 - Founding of the Collegio Romano as a Jesuit university, many of whose teachers and students were active scientists during the Scientific Revolution.
1603 - The Accademia dei Lincei (Academy of Lynxes) founded in Rome as a scientific society.
1620 - Johann Valentin Andreae proposes a model scientific society with scientific work as a collective enterprise
1626 - Francis Bacon’s "New Atlantis" describes a fictionalized institution for collaborative scientific research.
1630 - Founding of the Bureau d’Adresse in France, a national clearinghouse for information, goods, and services in Paris that offered weekly conferences to the public on scientific issues. [emphasis mine].
1653 - First meetings of the Montmor Academy in Paris, an early French scientific society, named after its meeting place, the home of H.L. Habert de Montmor.
1657 - Founding of the Accademia del Cimento (Academy of Experiments) in Florence, an early scientific society, founded by students of Galileo, Giovanni Alfonso Borelli and Vincenzo Viviani.
1662 - Establishment, by royal charter, of the Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge, the oldest of today’s (i.e. still extant) scientific societies, and the appointment of Robert Hooke (1635–1702) as Curator of Experiments, charged with conducting experiments at the Society’s weekly meetings
Source: Applebaum, W. (ed). (2000). Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution: From Copernicus to Newton, Routledge, NY. (p. xxii)
- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
It remains the oldest national scientific academy, founded and chartered by the king. Unlike say the Collège de France, it has stayed with its original role, and indeed played a significant role in establishing the idea of a national academy of the sciences, now found in most countries.  Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
It would've been nice if you'd actually read my objections to using this phraseology, even better if you addressed them. They are:
(1) It is an anachronism to talk about a "national" anything in mid-17th century Europe, the 'Academia Naturae Curiosorum' is clearly identical in purpose and scope, but there was no German "nation" in 1652. Schweinfurt was an Imperial city of the Holy Roman Empire. Nevertheless, it is still proudly touted by Germans as "the oldest permanently existing natural-scientific academy in the world" - note the absence of the word "national". A similar problem of historical anachronism arises in the case of the Accademia dei Lincei. Founded in the Papal States in 1603, so, clearly an earlier "national scientific academy" than the Royal Society, right? Hang on though, do the Papal States still even exist? In a manner of speaking... but does it matter? More puzzlingly, were they a nation? They were certainly a State, but a nation?
(2) Considering this, and all the historical details I have cited above, isn't it a kind of petty - if not misleading, I mean we're talking about a gap of a whole great big six years between the found of the English Royal Society and the French one - point-scoring, nationalistic-type factoid/trivia question? Surely it doesn't belong at the very beginning of the lede of an encyclopedia article?
Just my 2 cents, no hard feelings. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The Academy of Lynxes disappeared between 1650 and the 19th century. I don't know about the others, but I think what we are discussing here is the oldest continuously existing scientific academy. As for the lead, the article for the Leopoldina does say it has a claim to be the oldest. I don't see why that is a problem. It is an interesting fact about it. LastDodo (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Lets do some more. The Collège de France, Bureau d’Adresse and Collegio Romano are not scientific societies any more than the Royal College of Physicians is. Johann Valentin Andreae and Francis Bacon's proposals were just proposals. The Montmor Academy and the Accademia del Cimento, did not make it to the end of the 17th century. As for Henry Oldenburg, even if he had set up the society entirely by himself, there had been no Invisible College, and he had got the entire idea from Europe, that would not change this debate, as we are not debating who or why, but when. That leaves only the Leopoldina, which was temporarily dissolved after WWII by the GDR.
After World War II, Halle became part of East Germany. During this time, the German Democratic Republic shut down all societies, leading the members of the Leopoldina to meet unofficially and in private. Efforts were made to reestablish the Academy, however. An edition of Goethe's 'The Works of Science' began to be edited under the Academy's name in 1947, and lectures started again in 1948. However, the Academy was not officially reopened until 1952.
That certainly gives the RS a claim to be the oldest continuously existing scientific society in the world. LastDodo (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
With the above in mind, I propose adding a sentence to the lead similar to the one in the Leopoldina article. Copy pasting and altering, it would read something like 'The Royal Society has a claim to be the oldest continuously existing learned society in the world. The validity of the claim depends in part on how certain definitional and historical questions are answered.' Thoughts? LastDodo (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
No response, so here is my proposed first paragraph, with a note adapted from the Leopoldina page.
The Royal Society, formally The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, is a learned society and the United Kingdom's national academy of sciences.  The society fulfils a number of roles: promoting science and its benefits, recognising excellence in science, supporting outstanding science, providing scientific advice for policy, fostering international and global co-operation, education and public engagement. Founded on 28 November 1660, it was granted a royal charter by King Charles II as The Royal Society. LastDodo (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I can agree with this, except "national" should be added (this is the claim in the refs), and "The validity of the claim depends in part on how certain definitional and historical questions are answered." should also be in the note (and ideally less Germanicly-worded). As you or someone says above, we really don't want much on this in the lead. England was certainly a nation in the 1660s, and France and the Netherlands. Germany, Austria & the Papal States aren't really considered nations at this date by historians. Tough, but there we are. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I have to say I'm largely in agreement with EnglightenmentNow1792, I'm not sure what that adds. If the Royal Society has a claim to be the oldest cotinuously existing learned society in the world, then it obviously also has a claim to being the oldest continuously existing national learned society in the world, as the latter is a subset of the former. LastDodo (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Alright, with no further pushback, I rewrote the lead as suggested above. LastDodo (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
EnglightenmentNow1792, I see you have added the modifier 'of a nationwide' scope to the claim to be the oldest continuously existing learned society, without discussing it here. So let us discuss it. That makes the claim somewhat weaker and more specific. Do you disagree it has a claim to be the oldest continuously existing learned society in the world? As you rightly pointed out to Johnbod, 'It is an anachronism to talk about a "national" anything in mid-17th century Europe'. LastDodo (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

No, that was nonsense, as I pointed out to him. Better imo to stick with the "weaker" but more certain claim, which I think is what the RS itself claims (they have redone their web-site yet again & I can't see any such claim now on a quick look), than go done the rabbit hole of what a non-national science academy might be. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. EnlightenmentNow1792 made the change, and you are now defending it? So you are both on the same page in thinking the claim should only be that it has a claim to be the oldest continuously existing learned society of a nationwide scope? It seems to me that unless you think it doesn't have a claim to being the oldest continuously existing learned society - period - then that is the what we should put in. And leave out any notion of 'national'. LastDodo (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
That the claim has been made is true, so I felt uncomfortable deleting that sourced claim - even though, yes, I believe it to be anachronistic. I felt it was a compromise - unsatisfactory to both parties, but palatable.
If you insist on either/or, then I must insist again that anachronistic claims made by primary sources with an obvious CoI, are better off left out. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Which source are you referring to? On the RS website it makes the claim it is the oldest 'scientific academy in continuous existence' though I suppose that would not be considered reliable on this matter? And putting sources aside for a second, do either of you (or anyone else) personally think the RS does not have a claim to being the oldest? LastDodo (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. Primary sources, particularly self-published ones, (i.e., someone's website about themselves, or a business's website) are generally not acceptable sources for use in contested claims.
Does it have a claim? Sure, lots of Scotch Whiskys and Irish Whiskeys have a claim to being the oldest in their respective polities, but secondary RSs would be needed to adjudicate the merit of said competing claims.
And as the RS listed above state, there are older such societies in Europe. It's just that the polities in which they were founded, no longer exist. (arguably, the same is true for the UK, but that's another debate) EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
There are no older continuously existing societies of the same type to my knowledge. And I see you are literally now editing this without discussion as we speak. Perhaps you can tell me why you haven't also edited the Leopoldina article in the same way. All I am asking is this one gets the same treatment. LastDodo (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
What you know is irrelevant (it also happens to be wrong in this particular case, but that doesn't matter). It's what the RS tell us, that matters. You've just gone and added your own personal opinion (No Original Research is a core WP policy) and supported it with a source which absolutely, positively does not meet WP standards. I'm not going to edit war. But please read WP:RS and WP:OR.
Quoting: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."
WP:SCHOLARSHIP
Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
WP:NOR
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

So now, thanks to your recent edits LastDodo, this "Good Article" (see Green circle in the top corner) now has two glaring examples of OR and poor sourcing to support said OR. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Let's keep our hair on and be productive. I don't want to edit war either. I waited quite along time before adding the claim after getting no pushback for it on this Talkpage. I ask again why is it that the equivalent claim in the Leopoldina article is fine, but this one isn't? Is that original research? And if the Physics World article is so terribly inadequate, why is it that a book by an academic historian is not good enough? How about your very own Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution? Would that be good enough? LastDodo (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
the Physics World website is what we call a "self-published source", akin to a blog. This ought to be obvious to you from the way in which the "article" (remember, with self-published sources, there is not necessarily and not usually any editorial control or fact-checking process, so an "article" self-published on a random website is no more a RS than an article on Wikipedia itself) is presented: "PUBLISHING OPINION AND REVIEWS Web life: Trailblazing 02 Mar 2010".
As I'm sure you are aware, many claims are made all over the world from various orgs claiming to be "the oldest...[x]" where x is university (there's something like half a dozen claimants in the NE United States to the title of oldest university in North America), football/rugby club, Whiskey, benevolent society, etc.
Inserting such a "claim" into the lede of an article is fine, as long as it reliably sourced and is not WP:UNDUE. For example, some group of pineapple aficionados from Corrientes may lay claim to have the oldest pineapple appreciation society in the world, but you wouldn't include that in the lede in the article on Corrientes (or pineapples) unless you could show - through the citation of multiple RSs - that the city was famous for that. If you just found that factoid somewhere, it would be WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. (I just totally made that up btw)
So, unless you can provide an array of reliable secondary sources that support your contention that the UK's Royal Society has a "claim" to being the "the world's oldest continuously existing learned society" - and those sources mention this claim not in passing, but in such a way as to not breach WP:UNDUE - in other words, this fact is cited as significant, then it has no place in the lede.
At any rate, allow me to save you from wasting your time: you won't find such an array of sources, because they don't exist, due to the fact that such a narrowly-defined claim (both "continuously-existing" and "national" - what does "national" mean? Is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a nation? Even if you argue that it is today, it can't have been in 1660, as it didn't exist, much like "Germany" didn't exist in 1652) - even if it has ever been made by a RS, which I sincerely doubt - would be obviously specious, given the fact that the historical record shows the undisputed fact that the Collège de France was founded in the Latin Quarter (look up why that Quartier bears that name) in Paris in 1530.
- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
You keep going on and on about 'national' even though I never included 'national'. It was you that added 'of a national scope'. Such an addition would not only be exceptionally hard to defend, as you point out, it would also weaken the accolade, arguably to the point that it would not be worth including. Now, I note you've written a great deal there, but I still don't see an answer to my question as to why this all applies to the Royal Society but not to the article on the Leopoldina. Perhaps you can enlightenment me. It is also predated by the College de France, and it also only cites one source - the Leopoldina itself! Yet there the claim is, right in the lede. If I delete it can I rely on you coming to my defense on the Talkpage? Perhaps you can also advise as to why the College de France is not mentioned as amongst the oldest Learned societies or why it doesn't even appear on wikipedia's List of learned societies. Quite an omission don't you think! LastDodo (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea what's on the Leopoldina or Learned societies article or the List of learned societies page. I've never edited them. Only this one. If you see faults in any articles, you are encouraged, by all means, to go ahead and be bold, and improve them. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I am not suggesting there are faults (but you knew that already). I point them out because if you are right about the College de France, all three of those articles must be wrong as they are (but again, you understand that already, hence the evasion), suggesting that you are not right. Now, the Leopoldina article is what started this very section off, you you probably should have checked it out, as if you had, you would have seen the claim 'The Leopoldina has a claim to be the oldest continuously existing learned society in the world. The validity of the claim depends in part on how certain definitional and historical questions are answered.' It was the basis for the similar claim here. There is no reason for you to be one iota less exercised about that claim than the one here. Are you? LastDodo (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
No evasion, just unconcerned ala WP:WHATABOUT. Upon further examination, at your prompting, I agree vis a vis the Leopoldina article, it is also WP:OR unsupported by any WP:RS. The "List of" page is of course poorly sourced and incomplete, as most (if not all) such articles are, and as the first line reads: "This is a partial list of learned societies, grouped by country." [emphasis mine].
Removing unsourced claim/s according to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The first UK-wide national Young Academy – a network of early career researchers and professionals – was launched in June 2022 and is being run under the auspices of the Royal Society. The initiative, as part of an interdisciplinary collaboration with the Academy of Medical Sciences, British Academy, Learned Society of Wales, Royal Academy of Engineering, Royal Irish Academy, Royal Society of Edinburgh, and the Royal Society, aspires to connect emerging leaders with different knowledge and expertise, and include their voices in local and global policy discussions. 194.81.217.65 (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the above information. Wikipedia relies on reliable, secondary sources to verify its information. Therefore, I will not be added this information at this time. If you would like this information to be added, please supply a source that talks about this (that is secondary and independent). Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: You reverted my move of One flaw was that there was not enough space for the office staff, which was then approximately eighty. When, for example, the Society organised the British contribution to the International Geophysical Year in 1954, additional facilities had to be found for the staff outside Burlington House from the beginning of the "20th century" subtopic to the end of the "19th century" subtopic, presumably because of the year 1954. I object on two grounds:

The statement is out of context and obviously a continuation of the last paragraph in the "19th century" subtopic. This is where it used to be.
It's out of chronological order with the rest of the subtopic.
I'm taking the liberty of restructuring a bit. What do you think?
Also, the history tells about where the Society is housed, but not much about what it's done. That's too ambitious a project for me to tackle right now, but it needs doing. For example, it should tell what the RS actually contributed to the International Geophysical Year, not just that it had to find larger quarters. (That bit got left out in my attempt to improve the narrative's flow.) YoPienso (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Fine with that. As you first "reason" explains, you were splitting a topic. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Good! Happy editing. YoPienso (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)