Talk:Robert Hooke

message: The article is a bit confused as it stands. In one place in the Oxford section, it says [with citation] that H secured a chorister's place at CC, but elsewhere in that section we have . So what? The DNB entry for H doesn't even mention Wadham. Delete? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem solved by rewording so that the emphasis is on Wilkins and the Oxford Philosophical Club rather than the College. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wadham? 

message: There is a possible typo under the section "Personality and disputes" , in the second paragraph, last sentence. 
The whole paragraph reads as follows, with emphasis on the potential typo: 
"On the other hand, as the Royal Society's curator of experiments, Hooke was tasked to demonstrate many ideas sent in to the Society. Some evidence suggests that Hooke subsequently assumed credit for some of these ideas.[citation needed] Yet in this period of immense scientific progress, numerous ideas were developed in multiple places roughly simultaneously. Immensely busy, Hook let many of his own ideas remain undeveloped, although others he patented."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazi109 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , thank you for spotting it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2023 

message: Two important citations appear to fail verification, so would someone please check 
as I can't believe they were added to the article in bad faith. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I shall delete these assertions. Inwood writes "the oft-repeated claim that Hooke invented the anchor escapement originated in William Derham's The artificial clock-maker (1696), not with Hooke, and is now regarded as untrue."   --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Sully and Derham

message: Is this WP:original research
I can't find any commentators that use the term "blunder"? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have decided to be bold and just delete it. It reads to me as too close to WP:OR and it is too incidental to the topic in any case do we really want to take space to relitigate the Hooke-Newton dispute? At best, it is a separate article but more practically it is one for specialist books: it is not encyclopedic, IMO. Anyone care to defend it?--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Blunder?

message: I can't find any source for this assertion:  [capilliary action]  I can neither find such a journal nor the phrase "the fluidity of gravity" anywhere that is not a copy of this article. The British Library online catalogue doesn't go back before 1885 but maybe someone more familiar with the BL could find something? Anyway, as I don't see that it is essential to the narrative, I have deleted it rather than leave so obvious an invitation for a  tag. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Micrography Observ. (journal)

message: Has anyone got Out of the Shadow of a Giant: Hooke, Halley and the Birth of British Science? It is cited but no page number is given. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gribbin and Gribbin 

message: In anyone has access through their University to 
* , 
would they clarify which institution awarded him the doctorate, please? (Last sentence of Royal Society section). Was it a medical doctorate? (in the old sense of the word physic). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Further research reveals that it was awarded by Doctors' Commons, a contemporary lawyers association. It has nothing to do with medicine (or Physics). It is mentioned in the ODNB 1885 edition but not in the current edition. It may be an honorary degree? Given the lack of any supporting information, it seems to me to be WP:UNDUE. I propose that we follow Oxford's lead and drop it too. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, Gribbin & Gribbin (2017, p 214) say that it was Oxford that awarded the Doctorate on the "advice" of John Tillotson (Archbishop of Canterbury) at an unspecified date between March 1690 and December 1692 [corresponding to a missing volume of Hooke's diary]. From the commendation quoted, it is clearly an honorary degree. I still consider it incidental but it is mentioned in footnote  as an explanation of the "SRS, MD" honorifics.  --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor of Physic 

message: I have finished work on a full-scale spring-clean of the article. I have provided citations for the many assertions, deleted some dubious and uncited ones (after searching for evidence)  and verified (or not) the citations that were there. I have also cleared out or summarised the tangential material. Some of the rewording is fairly extensive. The big risk is wp:righting great wrongs in the Hooke/Newton dispute so I hope that I have maintained NPOV.
I think that it now GA standard and have added it to the "Physics and astronomy" queue for review. We shall see if it makes the cut. No doubt it could be improved further in the meantime, so please do so.
 you peer reviewed it in April 2013. If you have the time and inclination, your comments on this version would be most welcome. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well done! It is nicely coherent and flowing. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: Suggestions welcome! My very threadbare list just has 
* No authenticated portrait of Robert Hooke exists. This situation has sometimes been attributed to the heated conflicts between Hooke and Newton, although his biographer Allan Chapman rejects as a myth the claims that Newton or his acolytes had deliberately destroyed his portrait.
Anyone else? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible DYK hooks 

message: 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 
*  
though the introduction () in Volume1 of Mme du Chastelet's translation merely says that the  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)
replies: text: 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 ) at p. 66. The plot thickens! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  A truth that is glimpsed and a truth that is demonstrated