Talk:List of multiple discoveries

message: * Kolmogorov Complexity, also known as "Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity", descriptive complexity, etc., of an object such as a piece of text is a measure of the computational resources needed to specify the object. The concept was independently introduced by Andrey Kolmogorov, Ray Solomonoff and Gregory Chaitin in the late 1960s.
Use the history chapters in the book "Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and its Applications" by Li & Vitanyi for this check
--- Martin Hühne 16:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I would go along with that. Nihil novi (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: It is not traditionally scientific, but it is informational, and you could just broaden the scope of the article to include America and Australia. Rhetth (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Antarctic would go there nicely, being discovered by two different expeditions within three days (and by at least one more within the next several months). For that matter (though somewhat unrelatedly), where's the telephone? --82.179.218.11 (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Where sources warrant, please consider making additions.  Nihil novi (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There are two articles: multiple discovery and list of multiple discoveries. If we want to have both (which I support), then I think multiple discovery should contain most of the content about what it is (and probably the quote) and list of multiple discoveries should just be a small intro and the list. What do you guys think? Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support at least adding some of the "List of multiple discoveries" descriptive content to "Multiple discovery," if not necessarily removing it from "List of multiple discoveries." Nihil novi (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Nihil novi (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. There is one problem with having the same content on both pages, different people will contribute to each page, and they may end up diverging from each other or splitting the useful content between two pages. It seems to me that there is a clear divide between an article which talks about what multiple discoveries are and a page which lists examples. For example, List of martial arts has a short one sentence WP:lead and then just lists the types. It links to martial arts for readers who want more information. What do you think. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Many list articles do have introductions.  The one in "List of multiple discoveries" is short, as it is.  I would concentrate, instead, on exapanding the text of "Multiple discovery," and later make what adjustments might be desirable to the "List of multiple discoveries."  Nihil novi (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move portion to [[multiple discovery]] 

message: The wikipedia entry on ribozyme discusses the simultaneous discovery by Cech (Colorado) and Altman (Yale) using different approaches. Catalytic RNA was an unexpected finding, something they were not looking for and it required rigorous proof that there was no contaminating protein enzyme.  They shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery. Add to Main Article?AdderUser (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion.  I've placed an entry about the discovery of ribozymes.  Please make whatever additions or corrections to the entry that you may deem appropriate.  Nihil novi (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add [[ribozyme]]? 

message: I will try to add more detail later, but just to get the ball rolling:
1. The INCORRECT structure and discovery of ferrocene, q.v. for references, was reported independently by Pauson (ref 4) and Tremaine (ref 5). The CORRECT structure, post-publication, was realized independently by Robert Burns Woodward, by Geoffrey Wilkinson and by Ernst Otto Fischer (see ref 6) and possibly others, including Dunitz and Doering (pre-publication!). 
Addendum: Ferrocene is an interesting case. Pauson's and Tremaine's independent work was itself a multiple: they both reacted Cp anion with an iron salt, they both obtained orange crystals and they both published what turned out to be an incorrect (Cp-sigma iron) structure. Immediately upon publication (Pauson's paper came out first), many chemists realized that the sigma-bound structure was probably incorrect and that the pi-bonded complex was more likely. Woodward, Wilkinson and Fischer were in academic positions and able to pursue that insight which opened up a whole new field of chemistry research on metallocenes. They each pursued different lines of research and they each won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work. Ferrocene is a multiple-multiple!
2. The synthesis of the first topologically non-planar molecule was reported in back-to-back papers: 
SYNTHESIS OF THE 1ST TOPOLOGICALLY NON-PLANAR MOLECULE, SIMMONS HE; MAGGIO JE, TETRAHEDRON LETTERS, 1981, 22(4), 287-290 and THREEFOLD TRANS-ANNULAR EPOXIDE CYCLIZATION - SYNTHESIS OF A HETEROCYCLIC C17-HEXAQUINANE, PAQUETTE LA; VAZEUX M, TETRAHEDRON LETTERS, 1981, 22(4), 291-294. 
3. Graph Theory was developed or discovered independently by Euler and Cayley to find solutions to completely different problems (Euler: mapping and Cayley: the enumeration of isomeric chemical structures), although a century apart. 
4. NMR of liquids and solids: Working independently, Bloch (with water) and Purcell (with paraffin) were trying to extend Rabi's earlier work on NMR. However, no one knew quite exactly where to look in the RF for the resonance signals. Somehow, each group figured it out within a couple of weeks of each other and the rest is history. 
Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are very experimental discoveries.  3 is math / theory.  2 might be a little too specialized although it ties in with 3. Please also see the Multiple discovery talk page. AdderUser (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you will add these items to the list, with appropriate references where feasible.  Nihil novi (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferrocene, Non-planar molecules, graph theory, NMR  

message: Quoted directly from the Wikipedia page on phosphocreatine: "The discovery of phosphocreatine was reported by Grace and Philip Eggleton of the University of Cambridge and separately by Cyrus Fiske and Yellapragada Subbarow of the Harvard Medical School in 1927."
I think that could be added to the main page. (If so, copy the references from the phosphocreatine entry, also.)AdderUser (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds legitimate.  Would you like to try your hand, entering this in the list?  Thanks!  Nihil novi (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent Multiple Discovery of [[Phosphocreatine]] 

message: For brevity, see Mevastatin.  Quoting from Talk on Statins:
Akira Endo published the structure of ML-236B in 1976 but a British group published the exact same compound from another source, named it "compactin" and also published it in 1976. The British group mentions anti-fungal properties with no mention of HMG-CoA Reductase inhibition. See:
"Crystal and Molecular Structure of Compactin, a New Antifungal Metabolite from Penicillium brevicompactum." Alian G. Brown, Terry C. Smale, Trevor J. King, Rainer Hasenkamp and Ronald H. Thompson. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1, 1976, 1165-1170. DOI: 10.1039/P19760001165 
I think this qualifies as a mulltiple but would need a little editing for inclusion on the main page. AdderUser (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds legitimate.  Try your hand?  Nihil novi (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Independent Discovery of [[Statin]], [[Mevastatin]]  or [[HMG-CoA Reductase]] inhibitors 

message: Why aren't Jack Kilby's and Robert Noyce's simultaneous discovery/invention of integrated circuits mentioned on this page? Seems like a pretty big deal to me. Perhaps that's an "invention" though and not a scientific "discovery"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.135.96 (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thank you.  Nihil novi (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simultaneous Invention of Integrated Circuits? 

message: I am actually very surprised that the overwhelming list of images on this page has not been addressed on the talk page. I thought for sure someone would have commented on it. Looks like I'll be the first. I don't think it is visually appealing to have all the images on this page. The images far surpass even the reference list.  We need to remove a substantial amount of them. I don't want to be the one responsible for deciding which images to keep and which to remove. However, if nobody comes forth to remove the images or doesn't care if I do then I will move forward in this process. Let me know if you disagree, I would be more than happy to talk about it. Let me hear your thoughts. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point of having any images on this page. It creates a situation where one of the discoverers of a particular thing may get a picture, but the other not. If one is famous and the other not, that compounds the unfairness. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Thomas Robert Malthus put forward this idea in 1798 and Hong Liangji put forward the idea in 1793  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrantgeek (talk • contribs) 22:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide credible sources.  If they bear out what you say, please add this item to the List.  Nihil novi (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add [[Malthusian catastrophe]]? 

message: The current most recent item in the "21st century" section reads:
"In 2016 it was suggested that the anomalous acceleration effect on satellites with RF power amplifiers that eventually led to EmDrive was actually observed by Roger Shawyer in 1997 and later explained by Dr. Mike McCulloch, as well as a third researcher working for DARPA in the US. As this researcher has not yet come forward due to his research being classified, we may not know for sure."
"EmDrive" itself seems to be a questionable concept.  And one of the experts named, "Dr. Mike McCulloch", appears to have been a Scottish footballer who died in 1973 — 24 years before Shawyer allegedly made his observation!  
Elucidation of this item would be appreciated.
Nihil novi (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable item in "21st century" section 

message: The bullet point regarding CRISPR/Cas9 editing in humans is not only politically controversial (possibly politically motivated), but also factually incorrect. I believe the listing should be removed in this article. 
Prima facie, this point should not exist, as the usage of CRISPR/Cas9 to edit human genomes is not a discovery, but rather an application of a previously developed methodology to human cells. The first characterization of bacterial immunity systems via CRISPR is a notable discovery, as well as the application of engineered gRNAs to use CRISPR/Cas9 to edit genomes was also a notable discovery. However, the application of this technology may be anthropogenically interesting, but certainly not scientifically exceptional, as the first applications of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing techniques were also reported in 2013 for bacteria, baker's yeast, fruit flies, zebra fish, mice, and humans. 
This section should also at the least be cleaned up due to a further factual error: Gene editing certainly existed prior to the usage of the CRISPR/Cas9 system to edit genomes. See the page on Genome_editing. The wording also suggests that the technique of gene editing was not born until applied to humans. This is also patently false. 
Finally, this entry is too political - it's inclusion into this list may be politically motivated, given pending litigation regarding patent validity in a case between the UC Berkeley (Jennifer Doudna) and the Broad Institute (Fei Zhang and George Church). Given a 2012 publication demonstrating that CRISPR/Cas9 could be used as a genetic engineering tool, a patent was filed to protect CRISPR/Cas9 usage in all genome engineering applications. Amidst private communications between Jennifer Doudna and Fei Zhang and George Church, the Broad Institute filed a separate claim for patenting the usage of CRISPR/Cas9 to edit eukaryotic genomes. Regardless of details, litigation into the matter continues through appeals (as of 2017/08/14). Regardless, the interest of the stakeholders here are incompatible, and the existence of this entry favors one over the other. Doudna (and her fellow stake-holder Emmanuelle Charpentier) are litigating to possess sole credit for CRISPR/Cas9 gene engineering, while Zhang and Church are litigating to share credit. As such, Wikipedia is being abused (possibly unwittingly) as a platform legitimatizing one side in regards to an ongoing controversy. 
In conclusion, 
1) the application of CRISPR/Cas9 to humans is not a significant or notable discovery
2) the section is poorly edited and contains factual errors
3) there may be ulterior, political motives for the addition for CRISPR/CAS9 editing onto this page
and as such, the section on CRISPR/Cas9 editing in humans should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onionlee1990 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections regarding CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of multiple discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004001150/http://epic.awi.de/Publications/Polarforsch2005_1_3.pdf to http://epic.awi.de/Publications/Polarforsch2005_1_3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140127183200/http://www.nmr.unsw.edu.au/usercorner/nmrhistory.htm to http://www.nmr.unsw.edu.au/usercorner/nmrhistory.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070804131454/https://www.eatcs.org/activities/awards/goedel1995.html to http://www.eatcs.org/activities/awards/goedel1995.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've done a minor cleanup pass on this, but one thing I notice is that there are a large number of redundant/duplicate citations. A citation that is inline in its entirety (appearing in "References") should not be duplicated in its entirety again in the lower "Bibliography" section. If a source needs to be cited more than once at different pages, give the full citation only once, in "Bibliography", and use  to refer to it multiple times at different pages. If a source is only at the same page (or page range) multiple times, then keep its details in one  and refer to it again later as , instead of putting it in "Bibliography". Lots of the citations are also untemplated and wildly inconsitent with the rest of the citations, and this is not okay per WP:CITESTYLE. (Using templated citations is not required, but consistently formatted citations are, and the obvious way to do that in an article with mostly templated citations is to template the remainder of them, since making them consistent with the templated citations without using the templates would be much more tedious and error-prone than just templating them.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant citations 

message: This article has a really excessive number of right-alined images which simply stack up and make the page have a pile of images extending well below the bottom of the article. This needs to be resolved by staggering images left and right, and probably by removing some we don't really need.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that we don't need  of the images. They don't add any value to the article. If we absolutely had to have some images, I would suggest displaying them in pairs (or larger groups if applicable) showing two people who discovered the same thing, with an appropriate caption ("Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace both came up with the idea of evolution through natural selection"). Mitch Ames (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I prefer illustration more than you do, so I would not go for deletion of all images as a first and only step. My go-to approach for things like this is to address the objective problem (images marching away into the sunset at the bottom of the page) before taking on subjective-preference matters like whether any images at all are appropriate. I.e., do a minimal fix first instead of a radical change. But, yes, pairs with sensible captions would make a lot of sense and be more encyclopedically useful. It might also fix the "marching" problem on its own, so good idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Image mess