Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science/Archive 1

message: Quick question: would articles on historians of science (like current HSS President Michael Sokal) count as a History of Science article, or articles on historians? Xuanwu 23:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly not the final authority on this, but I would consider such articles as history of science.  The way it is now, :Category:Historians of science is a subcategory of :Category:Historiography of science, which is a subcategory of :Category:History of science.  But I'm the one who created the historiography of science category, and Buridan has suggested on Category talk:History of science that my recategorization may be objectionable to some.--ragesoss 00:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They'd be both! But if it came down to categorization: "historians of science" is a subcategory of "historians", I'd imagine, though in real, disciplinary terms of course such a hierarchy is somewhat misleading (as not all historians of science have strict historical training). --Fastfission 15:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. (I meant, in addition to historians as well; I forgot to mention that).--ragesoss 16:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article on Historiography of science. --arkuat (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions, Discussion, etc.

message: The biography of the week would be a very easy way increase the profile of this WikiProject; currently the biography project seems to have very little participation, despite high visibility.  There aren't any nominations with more than 2 votes, so they haven't changed the COTW article for several weeks.  With only a little bit of participation we could nominate and determine the next biography collaboration.  I suggest Theodosius Dobzhansky, Lise Meitner or Mendeleev, or we could revitalize the Louis Pasteur nomination.--ragesoss 11:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography  COTW

message: Fastfission's mention of the need for diagrams reminded me that this has also been recently discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics.  Unfortunately, the pre-existing mechanism for this, Wikipedia:Requested images, is very underused.  We can either try to encourage more use of WP:RI or create our own internal image request section or subpage.  I don't know which would work best. – Laura Scudder ☎ 20:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image requests

message: There doesn't seem to be a History of Mathematics Wikiproject, so I thought I'd drop a note here. If anyone here is qualified, or has a suitable reference, I'd really like to see the Manifold#History section fleshed out a little bit. Thanks! –Joke 03:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics also?  They're a very large and active project, whereas we're scant on mathematicians. – Laura Scudder ☎ 03:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: I couldn't remember exactly how this project was named (I find project names so hard to get right), so I created a little redirect at WP:WPHOS. Just a little FYI! --Fastfission 21:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: I just finished an informal reveiw of all the Nobel Prize laurates in Physiology or Medicine. Many of the articles are very short stubs. I've made of list of my off-the-cuff assessments of each article on my subpage User:Sayeth/nobelprize. Please help improve these articles to make Wikipedia more complete. Sayeth 17:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just went to your talk, good summary. I may add that the status of Nobel laureates in Chemistry is pretty awful too - Kendall and Perutz have negligible stubs. --Dumarest 14:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel Prize articles 

message: I suggest removing "Historical Geology" from "Articles in need of expansion or creation".  I do not disagree that the article on Historical Geology can use some work, but it does not really fall under the purview of the "History of Science."  Historical geology is actually a large branch of geology having to do with the origin and evolution of the Earth and life on the Earth.  It is history on a grand scale but  I think History of Earth Sciences would cover the topic in a human historic sense.  Incidentally, I am teaching an undergraduate course "Historical Geology" this semester. Jay Gregg 20:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you.  I've removed it from the list. – Laura Scudder ☎ 20:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  The only reason I included it was because someone had redirected the category for history of geology into historical geology some time ago, so I left it there in case historical geology meant something else to other people than what it meant to me.  Also, basically the only history of geology content is in the "historical development" section of historical geology.--ragesoss 21:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Geology 

message: A friend of mine shared his impressions with me about the WP history of science content in general, and some of the categorization more specifically; it's very insightful and (especially since most of us are focused on modern science) worth paying attention to, so I'll pass his comments along:
I'd argue for replacing the term
"Islamic science" with "Arabic science" given that Islam drove it in
the
same directions as Christianity and Judaism, and that Christians and
Jews were significant parties to the enterprise.  It's the common
language and imperial cosmopolitanism that matters most.  Unless, of
course, there is reason to label Scholastic and modern science as
"Christian", and to revive the notion of "Jewish science" that was used
in Germany in the 1930s and 40s.  It makes no sense to have one but not
the other two.
There is also a big gap in the medieval interchange between Latin
Europe
and Arabic Europe which fuelled Scholasticism.  This oversight is
widespread and often leads to mention of "the western world" without
recognising that the world of "the orient" extended further west than
the so-called western world did.
And I think that there's an over-emphasis on the Scientific Revolution
at the expense of early modern science.  This is partly due to the
difficulty caused by changing meanings of the word "science" and its
cognates, and how the history and philosophy of the category can be
stably approached.  I think that we all suffer that, though few seem to
find it very interesting.
Someone posted a question about how the Hindu numerical system was
imported to the Latin world: it went via Arabic.  One vector is Robert
of Ketton who learnt it while studying in Iberia (Cordoba, I think) and
imported it to England whence it was dispersed eastwards.
I think the suggestions about Islamic vs. Arabic science are particularly worth implementing.--ragesoss 22:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting; thanks!  I wonder if that convention (or the reverse) is becoming more common... the few books I have dealing with it are a bit older, and they seem to use "Arabic science" and "Muslim science" interchangeably.--ragesoss 04:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's some possibility of ambiguity in the term "Arabic science" since Arabic can also be used as an ethnicity, and a lot of science called "Islamic" science was of Persian origin. Also, "Islamic science" is also inaccurate. Many medieval Middle Eastern scientists were not Muslims. deeptrivia (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was Arabic the common scientific language among Persians, Arabs, Andalusians, etc? If so, would it help to refer to Arabic-language science, with explanation of why we're using it in each article (a box?). A bit cumbersome, but possibly better than the inevitable edit wars as new readers/editors find each article. JackyR 13:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the Persians (correct me if I'm wrong), the language was Persian, I think even for the science/natural philosophy/etc.--ragesoss 17:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And a good number of Greek texts were translated first into Syriac and then into Arabic. – Laura Scudder ☎ 17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic vs. Islamic Science

message: I've done a little work on the Portal:History of science, and I would love to get some feedback.  I've included the biography sections from the science and the technology portals, and updated the selected article.  Also, I added a link to the portal from Portal:Science; I'd like thoughts on the image there.  I also replaced the messy code with the standarized template form being used on most of the other portals.--ragesoss 06:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, pretty good. I like the theory behind it and the layout. --XenoNeon (converse) 19:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal

message: Should the HS project templates go on Hist of Technology articles (Industrial Rev stuff, optical, mathematical and surveying instruments, etc)? JackyR 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's appropriate, until there exists a separate history of technology project.--ragesoss 16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -D  JackyR 13:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hopefully there will eventually be enough editors on many more specific subjects that we'll need separate projects.  But historians of science often also have an interest in history of technology, and vice versa.  Being part of the same project does not imply that they aren't separate things; it's just convenient.--ragesoss 22:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have separate projects, they will need to be well interlinked - the possibilities for duplication are scary. But yes, a "Hist of Tech" project (sub-project of Hist of Sci, dare I suggest?) would be brilliant. JackyR 23:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Technology 

message: I've converted a term paper into Military funding of science, and I'd like help improving it.  In particular, it's solely focused on the United States after WWII, so it needs some more material for an international balance there.  But there's plenty that could be improved througout.  Also, it needs images, and wikilinks.--ragesoss 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Military funding of science]]

message: Question from JackyR (moved from main page):
* q:Ballad of Gresham College (dunno why that's blue - ça n'existe pas) Can someone with access to ISIS have a look at: "The Ballad of Gresham College", Dorothy Stimson, Isis, 18 (1932), 103-17.
:# Is the 1663 ballad vaguely interesting or worth referencing (put in Wikiquote)?
:# If yes, and you don't fancy scanning it yourself, p/copy and snail mail to me and I'll try out my new scanner/OCR software.
::It looks pretty cool to me, although I had never heard of it before.  It's on JSTOR, so it's available as PDF or TIFF (if you have JSTOR access).--ragesoss 18:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for putting that req in the wrong place. I don't have easy access to anything , sometimes not even my local city library, as I have ME. So I'm not in work/academia with subscriptions to journals. To put the lid on it, I can't even unpack my books until I've finished rebuilding the house around me – kinda slow-going when I'm sick – which is why my contribs are so hopelessly seat-of-the-pants. On the plus side, when I'm well I can get to Canterbury Cathedral archives and the special collections at University of Kent, and I have postal borrowing rights from Cambridge University Library (yet to find that useful). The long and the short of which is, cd you put the Ballad of GC on Wikiquote yrself, or email it to me at (DELETED FOR FEAR OF SPAM BOTS!!) JackyR 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Howzat?! Needs proofing and lots of linking before it can become protected (Wikisource is not as Wikipedia...). JackyR 00:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ballad of Gresham College

message: I've added a "topics" box to the History of Science Portal, which is intended to be a jumping off point for the central history of science articles (many of which don't yet exist).  Please, modify it as you all see fit to encompass the most important topics in the history of science, and give some feedback about what should or should not be included.--ragesoss 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of science overview

message: Can someone have a look at Julian Schwinger, maybe someone who has some idea what source theory is? Right now, it sounds like his greatest contributions to physics were being a cold fusion guy and having a lot of students with Nobel prizes. –Joke 03:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it says in the first paragraph, he was one of the developers of quantum electrodynamics. This was probably his greatest achievement and what he got the Nobel for, although he has always been overshadowed by his lifelong (friend and) rival Feynman. There should probably be more about QED in the article, although because Feynman came up with a more user-friendly formalism (Feynman diagrams), most subsequent treatments of QED are irreducibly Feynman-centric. Schwinger's treatment was much more mathematically austere (as I understand it), and possibly more rigorous (who knows?), so it's harder to popularize. (I never heard of source theory.)  ·  rodii  ·  03:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julian Schwinger 

message: I came to "History of Molecular Biology" from the main page, where there is a prominent link.  I think it is a very strange article, and it is hard to know where to start in fixing it.  So for starters, I would just flag it as needing help.  It is weak on facts, and very long on historical mumbo-jumbo.  Beadle and Tatum did not demonstrate the existence of a "precise" relationship between genes and proteins.  Jacob and Monod did not discover messenger RNA.  Contemporaries would not have agreed that Avery "discovered that genes are made up of DNA."  And it is hard to know what this is supposed to mean:  "The development of molecular biology was not just the fruit of some sort of intrinsic "necessity" in the history of ideas, but was a characteristically historical phenomenon, with all of its unknowns, imponderables and contingencies."  For a historian that statement may be profound, but speaking as a scientist I find it obvious, even banal.  A good place to start would be with Judson's 'Eighth Day of Creation," and for earlier context probably Jacob's "The Logic of Life."  Is there anybody out there who has read these books recently?  Telliott 00:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your suggestions.  The article is a very early work in progress (which is why it was linked from the main page, because it was created recently), so it still has a long way to go.  If you feel strongly about particular details, at this early point in the article's life, I would recommend you simply change them.  I plan on turning my attention to that article eventually (while re-reading the Morange and Fruton references, in particular), but that probably won't be for a while.--ragesoss 01:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Telliott, be bold --arkuat (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of molecular biology|Molecular Biology]] 

message: In Timeline of scientific discoveries theres is :
 13?? - William of Ockham: Occam's Razor
but according Ockham's Razor some similar ideas was long before Ockham and definition was introduced not by ockam...???  See Roger Ariew's dissertation of 1976, Ockham's Razor... --AndriuZ 22:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's not exactly a scientific discovery anyway.  It should probably be removed (perhaphs in an act of invoking it?).--ragesoss 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, it's rather "discovery in science", also it is important to track the first use of it. So we have few options: a) leave, but to mention, that priciple was named later (who?) b) move (not remove) to later years? ... more ideas? --AndriuZ 12:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ockham's Razor in Timeline of scientific discoveries 

message: I'm putting up the lists of all Gresham Professors over the years. I've tried out a few formats for these at User:JackyR/sandbox, as well as an unformatted list at Gresham Professors of Astronomy. The individual lectures, where available, are often of interest to Historians of Science, but perhaps less so to anyone else and will require some maintenance to keep up to date. Could folk let me know what you prefer? JackyR 16:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Gresham Profs, please 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 03:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: For those of you who use userboxes, a userbox for this project is now available.--ragesoss 22:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: JA: I posted the following comment on the William of Ockham talk page, but will copy it here, too, in hopes of getting some help from History, Latin, and Medieval Philosophy buffs.  Regards, Jon Awbrey 11:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: William of Ockham, Fact vs. Myth

message: There is a discussion at Talk:Paul_Ehrenfest whether to include circumstances about his death. This is a question about what is relevant in a wikipedia biography and what is a private tragedy that does not belong here. I don't think this is an easy question and I was wondering if someone here would like to look at it. Zarniwoot 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Ehrenfest 

message: I noticed a number of dubious claims in the history of astrology article, particularly those concerning the Rg Veda.  I suggest that someone flag this article for scrutiny.  Thanks.  Zeusnoos 18:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there were no takers on this topic, I removed this section.  However, I hope that someone here, who is more knowledgeable about star lore and astrology/astronomy in the Vedas and archaeoastronomy, will replace it with less dubious information.  (My speciality is limited to ancient Greek to Byzantine period). Zeusnoos 14:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of astrology 

message: Anyone care to come to this page and try to help me to sort things out?  I have a mainstream but anonymous editor who keeps panning the current article (which I have worked on with a pro-Le Sage gravitation person), but cannot get him to state specifically what is wrong. He seems to feel that calling people names and compaining about our lack of credentials is somehow helpful.  It would be nice to get other opinions on the state of the article, and on this odd anon. --EMS | Talk 14:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Le Sage's theory of gravitation]] 

message: As a female scientist I was surprised at how incomplete this particular article was, with whole sections missing any information.  Also in terms of systematic bias, it's terrible too, as there is no mention as far as I can tell of anywhere outside Europe or the US.  I'm going to have a quick look at it now, but it would be nice if someone would join me, who's been doing this stuff a bit longer. Terri G 17:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really liked to have worked on it, but I'm kind of curious about how I could improve it.--XenoNeon (converse) 07:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now the article has some empty sections that are basically just headings and stub tags. Anything you put into those, even a list of names, would be an improvement. The article says essentially nothing about problems women might have faced participating in scientific work. Finally, it has lots of redlinks that could be made into stub articles. Maestlin 00:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note, I remember when Linus Pauling got his second Nobel Prize, the news was that he was the first man ever to win two Nobels. True, in its way, but he was not the first person - that was a women, Madame Curie. --Dumarest 14:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Women in science]] 

message: The title of this topic has several problems:
: first, it seems to reflect a Whiggish approach to the history of scienceit evaluates early sciences by whether they live up to the presumed standard of modern science.
: secondly, it implicitly assumes that all modern science is experimental, a view that many theoretical physicists (among others) would question.
This article could either be deleted, or it should have a major historiographical / philosophical introduction on the role of experiment in the history of science.  Then the examples should be revised to deal more objectively with the changing roles of experiment. SteveMcCluskey 18:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is definitely a problem, and renaming is probably the best solution (along with eventually expanding and improving it).  The role of the article, in the current scheme of history of science overview articles, is to fill the spot before History of science in the Middle Ages, so chronology and integration into the traditions of Western thought, rather than any particular focus on experiment, is what the title should reflect.  Any suggestions?--ragesoss 18:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your intent, and it could probably have been solved by another chronological topicsay "ancient science."  However, the "pre-experimental" title seems to have led development in another direction, including discussions of issues as late as Galileo and the overthrow of the phlogiston theory.  Some drastic editing may be necessary to sort things out.--SteveMcCluskey 19:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there are any editors heavily invested in that article, so you're free to take it in any direction if you want to work on it.  Drastic editing is perfectly acceptable.  Some thoughts to take or leave: It would be nice to have an Ancient science article that is more focused than History of science in early cultures, in which case this article could be renamed and refocused on the changing role of experiment in the history of science (maybe Experimental method or even merge it with History of scientific method, which could serve as a needed corrective to the overwhelmingly scientistic Scientific method).--ragesoss 19:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I finally got around to revising the Pre-Experimental science page; it's now reorganized and named History of science in Classical Antiquity.  I think it now meshes pretty well with the History of science in early cultures page, from which I've removed the brief Greek science section.  I've also changed the items in the History of Science template to reflect this change.  --SteveMcCluskey 03:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-experimental science 

message: The theory of refraction attributed here to Plato does not appear in his Timaeus, nor is it attributed to Plato in the mainstream literature on the history of optics.  The account seems to fit the experiment described by Ptolemy in his optics, and most accounts see it as a case of typical Ptolemaic "data smoothing," in which measured data is smoothed in terms of Ptolemy's prior assumptions about the bending of light.
This section (and the independent article on Plato's Theory of Refraction) should be deletedor retitled as "Ptolemy's theory of refraction" and revised to reflect the historical literature on Ptolemy.--SteveMcCluskey 20:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you're the person best equipped to make the changes. Be bold! Another option would be incorporating the section into the existing article on Ptolemy if you think it would enhance coverage. Maestlin 17:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato's Theory of Refraction (in Pre-Experimental Science) 

message: I think the project has grown large enough to support a History of Science Collaboration ('of the Month' seems reasonable).  If there is reasonable participation in voting for topics and the collaboration gets going successfully, it could be a very effective way to get new scholars involved (by contacting individuals with relevant expertise, and by spamming list-servs about each new collaboration topic).  I think the most effective approach to gathering participants (whether already Wikipedians or not) will be to focus on broad topics and historiography, rather than biographies (but of course, biographies would not be disallowed).  Some possibilities to start out might be:
*Sociology of science (currently a redirect to Science studies)
*Women in science
*Funding of science
*History of earth sciences or the like
*Science wars
Please share other suggestions, support for a collaboration, or doubts about the feasibility.  I'll start putting together the framework for it, barring too much negative reaction.--ragesoss 23:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Science Collaboration

message: Factful, or factfree? --GangofOne 23:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Remote Viewing Timeline]]

message: At present it is very noticable that there are very few history articles on the Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download. If any articles are reasonable quality, interesting to children aged 8-16 and free from porn, contraversy, "contested" images etc you are invited to mark them on the talk page with  . Thanks for any  help --BozMo talk 09:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia CD Selection

message: I've started a discussion of a proposed template at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Disputes#"Name a specific person" Template needed.  The template will deal with the frequent cases where an article has statements like "Democritus found fault with the philosophers around him..." without giving examples of those unnamed philosophers.
I've prepared a draft of the template, which will work very much like the present templates for  or , asking an editor to "please insert specific name."  I think participants in the History of Science project may be interested in commenting, but it would be most convenient if all reactions were posted at the original discussion page. --SteveMcCluskey 00:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Name a specific person" template discussion 

message: Having just made a comment on the Marie Curie talk page about saying how much of a [[
Nobel Prize]] has been awarded to people, I thought I would bring up the issue here as well.  Someone has pointed out that if someone shares a Nobel Prize they don't end up with all the prize money, but then thought to add this right at the top of the page without much information, cue a big discussion about how you can have 25% of a Nobel Prize etc.  I had a quick look on other Nobel Prize winner pages and there doesn't seem to be a consensus even for those lucky few who've won more than one.  This might be an issue with broader consequences, but I thought I'd bring up the issue here first.Terri G 18:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the question. You want to add info about who got how much money? That sounds tacky. In terms of honours, the recpients each get 100% of the honours: just because you and a buddy both got a prize this year doesn't diminish the fact that you got a prize, nor does it lessen the acheivement. This is not the Winter Olympics, where the skier who was 0.01 seconds slower on a 2 minute downhill slalom gets the second-class silver medal. linas 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nobel Prize organization itself does clearly mark the fraction each recipient got of the prize.  – Laura Scudder ☎ 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shared Nobel Prizes (putting fractions in pages) 

message: I have put G. Ledyard Stebbins on FAC, comments and criticisms would be appreciated.--Peta 00:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: I just ranted a bit at Talk:University about the state of that article, but the fact is that almost all articles relating to academic institutions and their history are awful on Wikipedia. Take a look at college, academic degree, Doctor of Philosophy (and there are many more). What these articles lack most is a historical perspective and a sense of proportions, in order not to give a ridiculous amount of weight to whatever happens to be the favourite POV or interest of the latest drive-by editor. Is this something this project would be interested in doing anything about? up+land 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The deplorable state of academia-related articles on Wikipedia

message: Let us know if you happen to pick an article on a person and we'll alert our members! plange 06:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Biography 

message: As you're working on an article, won't you please think of copying it to STS Wiki?  STS Wiki isn't trying to compete with Wikipediathe site is really intended for people with interests in STS that go beyond those of a general encyclopedia's readership. But that's the cool thing. Our new Wikipedia Project involves moving Wikipedia pages to STS Wiki, improving them, and then selectively posting the improvements to Wikipedia. Think synergy, not duplication!
STS Wiki's licensing has been reconceptualized to encourage two-way transfers between STS Wiki and Wikipedia. Basically, any text imported to STS Wiki from Wikipedia, *including derivative versions,* will be licensed by the GDFL. This will facilitate moving improved material back to Wikipedia.
Because STS Wiki is focused on STS professionals rather than the general public, we expect that articles imported from Wikipedia will be expanded to suit the needs of our audience, perhaps with a level of detail that would not be appropriate here.
So, it seems to me that you have everything to gain by copying your work to STS Wiki  You can set up your watchlist on STS Wiki to see if the material has been edited; take a look... if you like what you see, copy it back here.
Let me mention, too, that STS Wiki is planning to launch a major internationalization initiative. People trying to teach STS in non-English-speaking countries have a dreadful time finding useful material.  Funneling history of science-related material into STS Wiki in an organized and coherent way establishes an equally organized and coherent base for translation.
STS Wiki is located at http://www.stswiki.org. You are cordially invited to visit and contribute!  Bryan 22:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Bryan.  This could be a great way to do a sort of external peer review, and may be an extra hook to get other professionals to take this (and your site) more seriously.--ragesoss 00:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy it  to STS Wiki! 

message: I was surprised to see that there wasn't a project for metrology and measurements. I thought I'd propose one here, since metrology could be considered an area within History of science, not to mention the fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology is inactive. Note that while I'm happy to support and participate in this project, there is little chance that I'd be the one to initate it or stick with it for an extended period of time. mwazzap 07:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're certainly welcome to add suggestions and to do items related to the history of metrology here.  I doubt that there would be enough activity to sustain a metrology project, considering that even as broad a topic as technology (among many others) is inactive.--ragesoss 00:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright. mwazzap 08:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Metrology]] Wikiproject

message: Knowledgeable editors are needed to look at this discussion as part of the procedure for speedily omitting Disruptive Editing in the article on the Scientific Revolution. 
Thanks for your help --SteveMcCluskey 19:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Disruptive Editing on Scientific Revolution 

message: User:Mrwuggs is proposing to merge Counter-Earth and Antichthon together. Previously, it appears he merged both into the Antichthon article. This would be wrong, since the Counter-Earth article is not mainly involved with the Antichthon concept of antiquity. 132.205.44.134 02:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Counter-Earth]] and [[Antichthon]] 

message: Albert Einstein is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Albert Einstein]]

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 23:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Please, take a look at the newly started Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Worklist of central experiments and give feedback on the historical importance of any listed or missing experiment. This is the start of an effort to create, improve, and polish a high-class set of articles about central experiments in physics. Thanks for your time! Awolf002 11:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WikiProject list in physics 

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for peer review of [[Cyclol]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eastern contributions to science are blown out of proportion 

message: 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)
thread_title: A host of new and newly expanded articles

message: Feel welcome to comment: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Darwin. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Darwin FAC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards