User talk:SteveMcCluskey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Question?

You recently commented on an edit that I made. I responded on my talk page, but I am not sure whether or not you are notified of this automatically. Is there a way to make this notification happen? Thanks!--Heyitspeter 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another hello

Welcome to Wikipedia! Are you the Steve McCluskey, author of Astronomies and Cultures in the Early Middle Ages? Wikipedia is badly in need of more editors with an interest in the history of pre-modern science. How did you decide to become an editor? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to--I won't be offended.

Another user and I are trying to come up with a solution to the problem of categorizing medieval astronomers and astrologers. The problems I see are as follows:

1. Some, but perhaps not all, historical actors distinguished between astronomy and astrology.
2. Some, but perhaps not all, people who fall in one category also fall in the other.
3. Secondary sources aren't always trustworthy on this matter.

Any thoughts you have on this matter are appreciated. You can read some of the comments on my talk page, through which you can also access the other user's talk page. Maestlin 17:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be here

Thanks for the kind welcomes. Yes I am that Steve McCluskey who does early astronomies.

As to how I came to the History of Science Project, I was looking over Alun Salt's new revisions of the Archaeoastronomy page, and wanted to see how (or whether) it was linked to History of Science. It seems to have some appropriate connections at present, but I may add a few more. BTW, Alun was quite rigorous in providing footnotes for all of his claims; I think it's a good idea and perhaps we should encourage it (at least by example) in the History of Science section. It suits Wikipedia's Verifiability policy and would help prevent things like the to do about "Plato's theory of Refraction." (The format is at Wikipedia:Footnotes)

As time allows this summer, I'll get around to reorganizing the section on "Pre-experimental" science into something like "Ancient Science." It will probably be an outline in need of details, but there are other people who can fill in the gaps.

--SteveMcCluskey 14:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ibn al-Shatir

Thanks for rewriting Ibn al-Shatir so quickly. I have been putting this off for a while, not wanting to take the time for the necessary review. Maestlin 18:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

atomism

I don't see any content on the website you listed. Which parts are copyvio? If you're sure, just delete the offending parts.--ragesoss 03:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• It is definitely a wierd page, but the text is white on white. I could only read it in IE when I selected part of the page, and it highlighted the text and made it legible. I'll delete the section but what should I do about the copyright warning on the atomism page and the notice on the Copyright Prolems page? --SteveMcCluskey 03:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If you delete the plagiarism, then you can just delete the copyvio template (which will automatically remove it from the possible copyvio category). The warnings about not editing and waiting for an admin are intended more for articles that are wholesale cut-and-paste jobs. The atomism page (as you've noted) is a weird creation; some of it (the Greek parts) is very old and rather bad. What little there is on Timaeus is actually what I added after I noticed the same problem you did. For the rest, some of it is from an undergraduate historiography paper I wrote many years ago (the referenced parts), which is not that great either. And it drops off around the most interesting period, the transition between atomism and atomic theory.

Thanks for all the work you've been doing lately.--ragesoss 14:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Going with the temp page is fine, too. And no, I'm not an admin.--ragesoss 14:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

---

• NPOV probably would require covering the normative content of atomism even though modern atomic theory apparently ignores the normative flaws in its own methods. Hence, I would suggest that Epicurus's statements of what 'atomism' is would be important for an NPOV encyclopedia even if the scientific method succeeds in suppressing serious normative discussions in modern life. --Rednblu 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the statement, but..

"Knowledge is a gift of God..", Let me say, rare would be the individual who could refute that, its elegantly expressed. I certainly can't refute it. A gift of god can hardly be ignored. Does the statement disambiguate Knowledge from Understanding, or are the two considered to be the same? Terryeo 16:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it's a 13th c. scholastic catch phrase, I would consider the author intended the standard scholastic understanding of scientia as demonstrative knowledge. --SteveMcCluskey 17:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

More discussion on WP:RS Talk re: Electronic mailing lists

A new proposal, minus the cautions, from user Doright has been added to our discussion. If you want to know what's behind this, review Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies, but only if your really want to know. 8-) --CTSWyneken 10:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Doright unilaterally inserted his text as follows, replacing the one we discussed. I reverted once, and he has now reverted it. I'm backing off to prevent an edit war. I would appreciate it if you would comment on this. The text he has inserted says:

Electronic mailing list archives

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a reliable entity or hosted by a reputable organization (e.g., H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, that confirms the identity of its contributors, they may not suffer from the above stated identity problem of Usenet. Therefore, they can be cited and carry the authority (if any) of the person being cited. As with all sources, it is incumbent upon the editor to ensure that the person being cited is notable. All citations must include the name of the person being cited, the message subject line, the archive or forum name and date.

--CTSWyneken 20:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Bede

Hi Steve, I was just wondering why all that material was deleted from Bede [1] - is it factually wrong? -- Stbalbach 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right; its wrong. None of the secondary sources I have on Bede's use of the Bible mention that he was involved in editing the Vulgate. The closest I can get is that the great Codex Amiatinus was made at the monastery of Jarrow. The discussion of Bede's translations into Anglo-Saxon is also overblown; I'm still working on sorting it out. Hope to finish soon. --SteveMcCluskey 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for your corrections to my Chronica Maiora comments in the Bede article. I didn't know the details; all I did know was that the Chronica deserved a mention and that no-one else had yet said anything on it. I still wonder if Bede's works are arranged in the proper order in that article. Bede himself might have preferred a chronological approach... -- Zimriel 17:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

awaiting your reply

Hi Steve, awaiting your reply [here]

Hey Steve, thanks for your courteous reply. Cheers, Doright 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

archaeoastronomy

Indeed, the astronomy is impeccable, but it's astronomy based on shoddy philology: It is philological nonsense to assume to find astronomical statements precise to the arc minute in ancient hymns. Once this assumption is made, straightforward astronomy can be used to arrive at nonsensical conclusion. See also my description at Image:Vedic_pleiades.png. dab (ᛏ) 13:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks; I think that was a software glitch in Wikipedia's imagemagick. The image is of course a thumbnail, and you have to click on it to see what it is about :) cheers, dab (ᛏ) 13:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

thank you again :) I bought Kak's book a couple of years ago in India as an obvious curiosity, for a chuckle; it's still sitting on my "crackpot" shelf, but I didn't expect it to haunt me on the Internet. It is simply incredible what people infected by that "measles of mankind" (nationalism) will put up with to get to believe in their version of history, and I am not just talking about Indians here. dab (ᛏ) 14:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

arXiv again

Hi there, maybe I'm too optimistic about the quality of stuff on preprint servers. The question is if preprints (possible only those that fit some credibility criterion) can be used as reliable sources or if we should wait until the paper has appeared in a refereed journal You opinion here would be appreciated. Cheers! Dr Zak 03:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

History of Mathematics References

Thanks for pointing that out to me. We can leave the History of Mathematics article as it is now (in three separate sections) —Mets501 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

antipodes

Hi Steve -- I think you are mistaken about the direction of the linguistic change in question. antipodes was a geographical term *originally*. It was later extended to refer to the inhabitants of the region: this happened already in Latin, and the term entered English in both senses. I wouldn't know that the secondary meaning is now again obsolete, I would tend to claim that antipodes remains the correct term even today. I recognize, however, that antipodean (as opposed to 'correct' antipodal; this has to do with the back formation of a singular antipode (as opposed to 'correct' antipous) from antipodes) already in 1913 Webster's is listed as the generic adjective (not referring to people in particular). [2] has "mainly humorous". dab (ᛏ) 20:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Flat Earth

Hi, Steve. My last edits in the article were made late in the evening; it's not impossible that I had screwed something up. I hope not. :-)

About the footnotes, my source was actually the citations of Ethical Atheist website (here). I thought that I could trust them here, especially because many citations were even arguably against their preferred view. In Portuguese (my language) there are ways to cite something like "<ref>''John Doe'' (...), cited by ''Author Jack'' in http://(...),,</ref>". But I don't know how to do that in English, so I did it the easier way.

My passage about Lactantius's heresy and lack of influence came from here. ( very interesting text!) This info also seemed to be more or less confirmed by his biography here in the Wikipedia. You said you think the passage is unnecessarily argumentative. Well, I find useful an attempt at describing the relevance of each writer in that list (A next step I was intending to do was to remark the importance of Saint John Chrysostom - a doctor of the church!). Anyway, maybe you're right and the text, (and maybe also future references to these author’s popularity), should be removed. For now, I'll leave that choice to you.

The source I just gave about Lacantius is part of an exhibit about the Shape of the Earth. And can be useful to further improve the Flat Earth article. For example: it mentions that people other than "Christian writers" also occasionally questioned the sphericity of the earth (as a consequence, our current intro is inaccurate). Latter, the exhibit also mentions the Globus cruciger as the representation of a spherical Earth, (not a spherical cosmos). … It has great hi-quality PD-art pictures too.

--Leinad ¬ »saudações! 20:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Leinad,

Thanks for the reply.

I'd normally respect something from the History of Science department at Oklahoma; they're quite respectable. Unfortunately, this is an exhibit for a class and doesn't provide any sources on Lactantius's biographical details. Since it doesn't seem crucial, I just would drop the detail about heresy.

The Globus cruciger has been standing up there with a {{fact}} template since I added on 4 May. I really was looking for someone to support the assertion that the globus represented the two halves of the cosmos rather than the spherical earth. Since no one provided texts for either position, I finally took advantage of the opportunity of providing a real ninth century illustration to remove the globus cruciger and the nondocumented text. I've always assumed the globus cruciger represented the spherical earth, and if there is a scholarly discussion of it somewhere, perhaps the globus cruciger can be restored. Otherwise, I'd just let it go.

I must rush, I have to do a stir-fry for dinner. --SteveMcCluskey 21:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I removed the reference to Lacantuis heresy and agree on leaving the Globus cruciger topic as it is for now... Also, I've just replied to your new comments on my talk page. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

Your edit for 16:26, 27 August 2006 indicates citation needed. On the publishing page, it indicates that no content lacking verifiable citations should remain on a page. To that end, if content is allowed to remain without citations, how can articles (including history of science of the middle ages) be viewed as reliable? I am a new user and need to understand the relative accuracy of wikipedia in general..Mrdundore 14:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, and welcome to Wikipedia. There are several options when an editor finds undocumented material in an article. If it seems to be easily fixed, it is generally considered good form to add a {{Citation needed}} template to the article, which allows the editor who added the material (or anyone else for that matter) to find an appropriate source. If the material is seriously wrong -- and especially if it defames an existing person -- policy calls for it to be removed promptly without warning.

As a reader, the {{Citation needed}} template is akin to a proceed with caution sign. --SteveMcCluskey 15:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

..

Sorry but

I'm going to have reverse you and remove the stub tag. I'm not sure you are understanding what the tag is for. It is not an attention tag or a cleanup tag or an expansion tag. It means that the page is short and barely long enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Well that is a full article. Does it need cleaning up or expansion or attention? Maybe, but then those tags should be used, not the stub tag. I added the attention tag for now. If you feel like the expansion tag or some other tag is more appopriate, be my guest, but the stub tags don't fit an article that long with no empty sections. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And btw, here is a list of the cleanup templates. Lots of them. Too many. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Revolution

Steve, I took a shot at it based on the sources sitting on my bookshelf. I'll keep an eye on further discussions... hopefully Logicus will not be too recalcitrant. Let me know if there is anything else you think I should mention (especially any questions that relate to the Dear or Shapin books). On a related note, it may be appropriate to have a separate article on Historiography of the Scientific Revolution. Maybe we can find someone to donate a graduate-level historiography essay for some starting material.--ragesoss 01:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve, you can view a critique of one sentence on my talk page --Ancheta Wis 03:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ragesoss, Thanks for your comments on the talk page. I'd appreciate it if you could work some of your comments on Shapin and Dear into the section which I entitled Significance of the "revolution". I had been planning to use something of that sort to replace the old last paragraph in that section, but when I became emeritus I planned to focus on early medieval science and packed away most of my books on the Scientific Revolution -- so many books, so few feet of bookshelves. --SteveMcCluskey 14:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I will try to get around to that as soon as possible. I like the outline you've proposed... it puts the recent critiques right up front, then proceeds to the actual significant historical transitions without worrying about whether it adds up to a revolution. And I'll keep an eye out for Logicus' original research. We needn't bring in the primary versus secondary distinction to establish that it is, in fact, OR... one definition from the policy is:

• "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source."

Obviously, since all his sources come from before the idea of The Scientific Revolution, his interpretation is (at the least) a new and unsourced synthesis.--ragesoss 04:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I acceded to your request on the anonymous user and will monitor the page for further action if needed. ragesoss and Steve, please feel free to request additional actions. --Ancheta Wis 23:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you could be a little patient and less abusive, I shall try and make some proposals here for resolving current situation. But might I suggest it would perhqps be more helpful

if you [potsed your proposed article here first. Logicus 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Greek science

Thanks Steve for expanding Wikipedia so much about Greek Science. About a year ago there were only few lines about it in the History of science in early cultures article. Ygmarchi 10:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dobbs and Jacob

Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs and Margaret C. Jacob (1995), Newton and the Culture of Newtonianism ISBN 1-57392-545-4

p. 9 "Newton was not a skeptic. On the contrary, he seems to have adopted a contemporary response to questions of valid knowledge called the doctrine of "the unity of Truth", a position that was in fact one answer to the problem of skepticism. Not only did Newton repect the idea that Truth was accessible to the human mind, but also he was very much inclined to accord to several systems of thought the right to claim access to some aspect of the Truth. For those who adopted this point of view, the many different systems they encountered tended to appear complementary rather than competitive. The assumption they made was that Truth did indeed exist somewhere beyond the apparently conflicting representations of it currently available. True knowledge was unitary, and its unity was guaranteed by the unity of the Deity. He being the source of all Truth. As a practical matter, those who followed this doctrine of the unity of Truth became quite eclectic, which is to say that each thinker selected parts of different systems and welded them into a new synthetic whole that seemed to him (or her) to be closer to Truth. That was certainly Newton's method, and in the course of his long life he marshaled the evidence from every source of evidence available to him: mathematics, experiment, observation, reason, the divine revelations in biblical texts, historical records, mythology, contemporary scientific texts, the tattered remnants of ancient philosophical wisdom, and the literature and practice of alchemy." [18, 84, 85]

p. 10 "One must realize, however, that in making selections from the various sources available to him Newton utilized a sophisticated balancing procedure that enabled him to make critical judgements about the validity of each. Perhaps the most important element in Newton's contribution to scientific method as it developed in subsequent centuries was the element of balance, for no single approach to knowledge ever proved to be effective in settling the knowledge crisis of the Renaissance and the early modern periods. Human senses are subject to error; so is human reason. So is the interpretation of revelation; so is the mathematico-deductive scientific method put forward by Descartes earlier in the century. Since every single approach to knowledge was subject to error, a more certain knowledge was to be obtained by utilizing each approach to correct the other; the senses to be rectified by reason, reason to be rectified by revelation, and so forth." [18]

"The self-correcting character of Newton's procedure constitutes the superiority of Newton's method over that of earlier natural philosophers, for others had certainly used the separate elements of inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, mathematics, experiment, and observation before him, and often in some combination. But Newton's method was not limited to the balancing of those approaches to knowledge that still constitute the elements of modern scientific methodology, nor has one any reason to assume that he would deliberately have limited himself to those familiar approaches even if he had been prescient enough to realize that those were all the future would consider important. Newton's goal was much broader than the goal of modern science. Modern science focuses on a knowledge of nature and only on that. In contrast, Newton's goal was a Truth that encompassed natural principles but also divine ones as well. He had a deep religious concern to establish the relationship between God and His creation (nature), and so he constantly searched for the boundaries between God and nature where divine and natural principles met and fused. As a result, Newton's balancing procedure included also the knowledge he had garnered from theology, revelation, alchemy, history, and the wise ancients." [18]

references: [18] B.J.T. Dobbs (1991), The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton's Thought Cambridge University Press

[84] Richard H. Popkin, ed. Millenarianism and Messianism in English Literature and Thought, 1650-1800. Clark Library Lectures, 1981-2. Publications from the Clark Library Professorship, UCLA, no. 10. Leiden: E.J. Brill 1988

[85] Arthur Quinn. The Confidence of British Philosophers: An Essay in Historical Narrative. Studies in the History of Christian Thought. 17 Ed. Heiko A. Oberman, in cooperation with Henry Chadwick, Edward A. Dowey, Jaroslav Pelikan, and E. David Willis. Leiden: E.J. Brill 1977

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancheta Wis (talk • contribs) 04:46, 1 October 2006

moving on

You said: "I think we should go ahead on this article without Logicus, and if he further disrupts the project by reverting our work, we should call for him to be banned from working on this article as a disruptive editor."

Sadly, I have to agree with you at this point... he seems unwilling to participate in a constructive way. However, I propose that we continue going systematically through the article, letting Logicus air his grievances if he wants to; it will at least give us incentive to strengthen and focus the language, as we've done for the background section. You and I probably have a different enough perspective that continued comparison of sources and working at a consensus between us will be beneficial (and I've enjoyed working with you thus far).

(Incidently, Iantresman isn't such a bad guy from what I can tell... at least he has respect for sources and recognizes that the topics he is interested are not widely accepted; he just disagrees about how such topics should be treated. And given the degree of scientism evinced by some editors, I partially sympathize with his concerns.) --ragesoss 21:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for me... I should be studying for orals, which don't include the scientific revolution. I've moved the improved background section into the article, and am starting a (very rought) draft for the next part of your outline. The longer you take to respond to it, the better that might be for both of us.--ragesoss 21:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Revolution

Thanks for the heads up, reverted back to anons version. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Maomé.jpg

I noticed that you changed the description on the linked image on September 29th. I was curious - did you translate from the website the image was originally released on? Captainktainer * Talk 20:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

YEs, I am curious too, I went looking on the site and couldn't find it.. can you point me in the right direction? --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

He explained it to me in this edit. Hope that helps. Captainktainer * Talk 18:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Newton's affinities

Thanks a bunch for your book suggestions! I have Newton's Principia (1687) and Opticks (1704) and there is a little bit there. I’ll check into the books you recommend. I also recently bought Trevor H. Levere’s 1971 book Affinity and Matter – Elements of Chemical Philosophy 1800-1865 and it has lot of Newton stuff in it as well as many other affinity theories. I'll add your suggestions to chemical affinity. Thanks again. --Sadi Carnot 12:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Aquinas or Kepler on universal inertia ?

Wakey, wakey ! Would be most grateful for your opinion on the query I have raised about this issue today in Scientific Revolution Talk, re claims in the Duhem weblink provided.Logicus 14:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work!

I have finally noticed the work that you did on Historiography and nationalism -- thank you ever so much! I started that article and then didn't do much with it. I was burnt out by dealing with Iranian nationalists and anti-Muslim bigots, and had to take a wiki-break for several months. I'd like to read that Geary book that you cited.

When I get a round tuit I would like to start work on a policy re identifying historical figures and entities (artifacts, books, people, empires, etc.) that would cut off all the stupid stupid debates about which current group gets to claim bragging rights over something or other. Things should be identified by tags that were relevant at the time. Various Abbasid scientists, mathematicians, poets, etc. could be described as Abbasids born in the Abbasid province of X -- not as Arabs, Persians, Iranians, Uzbekis, whatever. Someone like Rumi is classifiable in terms that were relevant to contemporaries; he completely evades modern classifications.

Various national projects are so strong on WP that it's going to be work of many people and many years to prune them back. Zora 19:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Kepler

Steve, I just finished and moved into mainspace my (draft) re-write of Johannes Kepler. I'd love to have your feedback, and if possible, your help improving it.--ragesoss 07:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

AElfric 04:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Ælfric Ælfric 23:00, 2 February 2007

Thank you for your comments. I am a new Wikipedia contributor. I have a Ph.D. in English literature. My website is www.carmenbutcher.com. I have published a few books in Old English, on Benedict of Nursia, on medieval women mystics, and in linguistics. I have published with Cambridge University Press, Heinle Thomson, Mercer University, and Paraclete Press, for example. I cut the bibliographies and tried to make my articles more appealing to a general audience. Thanks for the suggestions! I'm still learning how to do this! Best wishes, Carmen Butcher

Comments on RFC proposal

Hey there. Thanks for the added comments on the proposal I had done on RFC/User clerks; I actually withdrew the proposal several days ago when it became obvious on the Village Pump that the majority of people felt it was unnecessary. Nice to hear someone else liked it, though! Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Notification templates

I replied to your request here. I should at least have some drafts for discussion and revision ready later today. Ben 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The article and user conduct templates are up; links added here. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Ben 08:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, hello?   Steve?   <waves handkerchief>   Hello?     * crickets chirping *     -- Ben 17:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Khukri of the user-warnings project had suggested:"Just my tuppence worth but maybe trying to group them with the prefix rfc, and all the templates titles should be in lowerecase."   Okay. The long forms now also have lowercased shortcuts. Since the longstanding {{UsernameBlocked}} already had shortcut {{unb}}, I gave the others similar shortcuts (as close as I could get, since {{ucr}} and {{unc}} were already taken), and then also rfc-prefix forms with just three letters after the dash:

(edit view)

RFC-related templates and shortcuts:

Template	lowercase	rfc- prefix	short	rfc- prefix	Parameters, (req)uired or (opt)ional
{{ArticleDiscussion}}	{{articlediscussion}}	{{rfc-articlediscussion}}	{{artd}}	{{rfc-ard}}	article name (req)
{{ArticleResult}}	{{articleresult}}	{{rfc-articleresult}}	{{artr}}	{{rfc-arr}}	article name (req), outcome of RFC (opt)
{{UsernameConcern}}	{{usernameconcern}}	{{rfc-usernameconcern}}	{{uncon}}	{{rfc-unc}}	nature of objection (opt)
{{UsernameDiscussion}}	{{usernamediscussion}}	{{rfc-usernamediscussion}}	{{und}}	{{rfc-und}}	name issue in discussion (opt)
{{UsernameNotice}}	{{usernamenotice}}	{{rfc-usernamenotice}}	{{un}}	{{rfc-unn}}	RFC/NAME subject's name (req)
{{UsernameAllowed}}	{{usernameallowed}}	{{rfc-usernameallowed}}	{{una}}	{{rfc-una}}	archived RFC's "oldid=#" (opt)
{{UsernameBlocked}}	{{usernameblocked}}	{{rfc-usernameblocked}}	{{unb}}	{{rfc-unb}}	reason for block (opt)

All these templates (except {{UsernameBlocked}}) will automatically add your signature, unless you add the optional parameter sig=n.

That should save a bit of typing time. -- Ben 08:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Steve, here's {{subst:ucn|username}} for you. Enjoy! -- Ben 22:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Having done some tinkering, I'm actually feeling rather proud of {{ucn}} / {{ConductNotice}}, after all. I built in a bit of functionality that makes it a little more than just a short text-printing macro. When someone's already been the subject of one or more previous RFCs, the new RFC is supposed to have a number appended to the name. RFC#1 may be "John Doe", but after that come "John Doe 2", "John Doe 3", and so forth, which would put the burden on you to look up the current RFC's number and add that to the notice. Originally I made this an optional parameter: {{subst:ucn|John Doe|2}}, etc. But now, as long as the numbering is standard format (not in parentheses or Roman numerals or anything odd like that), and all the RFCs are still around to be counted, this template will look up the number for you and provide the correct link -- so all you have to provide is the username.   <wipes sweat from brow>   -- Ben 04:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Another new template: {{subst:un|username}} is to mention an RFC/NAME discussion to someone other than the named user, for instance to invite the blocking admin to discuss an existing username block. -- Ben 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikibug again

The bot is attempting to add date and category material to fact templates located within <ref> </ref> footnotes. It fails and leaves the date in the footnotes. See Scientific Revolution for examples --SteveMcCluskey 02:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a WikiMedia bug. Let me know of any you see and I'll fix them. Rich Farmbrough 09:21 9 February 2007 (UTC).

great work

		The Original Barnstar
		SteveMcCluskey, I present to you this barnstar in recognition of your excellent work on (among many other things) Celestial spheres.--ragesoss 18:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Mr. SteveMcCluskey,

I am very sorry to hear that my article concerning Galileo was not accepted. But I understand that “self-published sources” might not always be reliable. I worked on this study for 12 years and I translated it into English and Spanish (for the moment I only publish it in French). I have been selling it for 3 years. My first copy was sent to Vatican, to cardinal Paul Poupard, in November 2003. This book is sold in 100 bookshops : in France, Switzerland and Rome. Till this day, no one contradicted my semantic study. To conclude, If my book had been published by a Publisher - and if I understand well - you would have accepted it. And now, If someone else referred to my book, will or will not Wikipedia accept to publish an article concerning it ? My kind regards,

Joël Col 193.248.38.37 16:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Joël,

Thanks for your reply.

When I checked the web page of the publisher Autoédition Méguila, I found that the only book listed was your Entre Galilée et l'Église.... When a publisher only publishes one book, no matter how widely distributed, this is a clear case of self-publication in which "no one stands between the author and publication [and] the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review."^WP:SPS

In such cases, it really doesn't matter who cited the book in an article; by Wikipedia policy self-published books should not be cited by anyone.

A separate article about your book might be an acceptable topic, assuming the book met Wikipedia's standards of notability. In that case, of course, the article would have to discuss the published reception and critiques of the book by accepted scholars.

Sorry, SteveMcCluskey 17:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the notability criteria for publishing articles about books and found that "self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press is indicative, but not determinative of non-notability." It looks like your book would not make a good subject for an independent article. SteveMcCluskey 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 04:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Kepler article

I just want to congratulate you as one of the editors of the Johannes Kepler article. I was so impressed with it. It is one of the best articles I have seen come through FAC. Anyway, I wanted to ask your expert advice (horror of horrors on wikipedia). I would like to read some histories of the Scientific Revolution, what would you recommend? And, by the way, I would like to read some real histories, not some popularizations. I am a graduate student of English literature and I focus on eighteenth-century children's literature, but my interests are wide-ranging. Moreover, I have these vague ideas about doing a project about science education in the eighteenth century. Have you ever seen John Newbery's Tom Telescope series? It's kind of like Newton for kids; it's great. Anyway, I have Steven Shapin, but I was wondering what else you could recommend. Thanks so much. Awadewit 18:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 04:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hindutva Propaganda

Hi. I hope you're aware that there is an AFD going on for this page. You've made changes to a version established, after the AfD started, by people who voted to delete.(!) Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hindutva propaganda for an interesting timeline. I mention this only because interested parties want to see how the debate pans out, so it might be useful to let the page remain in its "preferred-by-those-voting-to-delete" state. There was some discussion of this paragraph earlier on my Talk page too. rudra 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

History of Mathematics

Thank you for your thought provoking comments.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is already an academic discipline called "History of Mathematics", which is taught in almost every university, and for which there are large numbers of textbooks, mostly titled "History of Mathematics", or some varient thereof. They are written for mathematicians, not for historians, and usually have a calculus prerequisite.

The area of study you are proposing, which could easily be called "History of Mathematics" if that term were not currently being used for the subject described above, needs a distinctive name of its own, since you are unlikely to change a tradition of long standing, and having two separate areas with the same name would be confusing to no purpose.

Since looking at mathematics from the "outside" is often called metamathematics, I suggest "History of Metamathematics" for the study of what the forms and subject matter of mathematics were in various cultures. Rick Norwood 22:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a comment to your draft page. Rick Norwood 13:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Boethius and the Quadrivium

You make it sound as if Boethius created/invented the quadrivium, as far as I understand it the use of the seven liberal arts,with the quadrivium, at the mediaevel university goes back to Boethius but the quadrivium itself goes back toArchytas. If you agree then I think you ought to make your statement somewhat clearer. However it would also mean that the Archytas article needs to be edited to include the fact that he defined the quadrivium.Thony C. 21:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Thony. I've been doing some reading of and about Boethius lately, and it does appear that he coined the word quadrivium (he actually used quadruvium) and applied it to the four mathematical arts arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. The source is De institutione arithmetica, 1.1. I don't think I was claiming that he was the first to study those four arts, but just to make it clear I've edited that sentence slightly.

SteveMcCluskey 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Steve you have perfectly understood my criticism. Boethius coined the term quadrivium to label a division of the mathematical sciences that had already existed for many centuries in Greek thought. Your change removes the possibilty of misunderstanding.Thony C. 10:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

revert on scientific research on enlightment

Please elaborate on your revert, you state that the section is not about alchemy, although the subject is enlightment, the philosofers stone and the holy grail (three very relevent subject connected to alchemy). The sources are indeed not independent, as they are means to express a view, it is not stated as a general accepted truth, it sources cleary state they are a certain point of view. This is indeed a controversial subject, so neutral sources will be very scarce. Please reconsider this edit Teardrop onthefire 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

We're going with Random Edits for study 2

Heya Steve. Just to let you know Study 2 settled on the Random Edits idea (which you supported). We're beginning to work out the procedure and structure of the study - I wanted to invite you in on the collaboration! (Notice new content on both the main Study 2 page and talkpage). Thanks for your help; its nice not being a team of just 3 anymore like it was for Study 1! :-) JoeSmack ^Talk 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like we have bot help too. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Hey Steve. I noticed you mentioned Stablepedia on Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions, i am the creator of Stablepedia, and i was wondering if you have any comments or feedback regarding it. Thanks in advance ! -- Sinan Taifour 19:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandal tagging

Hi there; Steve, I notice that you have recently given some vandals a one-and-only warning, for clear vandalism but vandalism which is not attacking, offensive or on userpages. The existence of the vandalism is quite clear, so you are not wrong, but I personally find it easier to block these editors if I can see a reasonable series of warnings on their page. I will block a user on first vandalism if their edit warrants it, but not all do, and a sequence of warnings ({{test1}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}} and {{test4}} make the point with significant force, prevent successful appeal to WP:AN/I, and are on record for future reference.--Anthony.bradbury 22:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 06:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hi Steve

I have a problem! If you go to my Sandbox you will see my work in progress, where I am expanding the mediaeval sections of the history of mathematics article. For some reason I have a blue dotted line box around one section of text 1400 - 1600 Algebra that I did not produce deliberately and that I can not get to go away! What did I do wrong and how do I correct it? Thony C. 20:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Foot Notes

Steve

As you will have seen my rewrite is progressing, slowly but progressing. Soon I shall be adding footnotes and I have a question for you. For the first paragraph of the section Early Middle Ages I wish to give as references Lindberg's Beginnings of Western Science, Borst's The Ordering of Time and your Astronomies and Cultures. Is it OK if I reference your book here? By which I mean do you think that this short paragraph reflects the views expressed in your book? If not what should I change to meet this requirement? For Bede I shall of course reference Faith WallisThony C. 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Indian Mathematics

Hi Steve, I thought I had left a post for you last week, but I guess I hadn't. I appreciated your comments in the RfC we had on the Indian Mathematics page in March, and I wanted to let you know that I have been revising the article (which had been in an abysmal state). You might want to take a look at it and offer some feedback. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Alhacen and Al-Kindi

Hey Steve. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I wasn't too sure about what other sources say on Alhacen's position on heliocentrism or Al-Kindi's position on gravity, besides what was written in Qadir's book. If there are other sources which suggest otherwise, then feel free to add their views to the articles. I'll have a look at them later and probably find out why Qadir's view might differ from theirs (it might have something to do with what manuscripts are being used). Jagged 85 10:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Citation Style

Hi Steve. I think you might be mistaken. I did cite the specific page numbers in the Latin translations of the 12th century article. Jagged 85 16:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

myths

Steve, I think your statement is well-formed and fairly gentle: it has the proper focus on history and sources, invites sourced dissent, and avoids dwelling on any implicit ideological motives behind this class of bias. I don't see any problem with it.--ragesoss 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick one about ellipse

Just wondering about these edits ( [3] ), especially why the book cited was an unreliable historical source- I understand that you didn't do it without any reason (lets face it, you're not new to this whole thing) it just confused me. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 16:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah right, certainly makes sense. Thank you for replying so promptly, and setting me straight. Let me know if you need a hand. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A Message for you in Indian Astronomy Talk Page.

Go there.VJha 12:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

History of physics

Hi,

A lot of material was added to History of physics and I just finished integrating it. Can I ask you to take a look and make sure everything checks out? JFD 08:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

template:who/Who?

Hey - just to quickly introduce myself, I am the creator of Template:Who? - and I saw that you were recently in a discussion involving it and Template:who. Recently (just after the discussion), a request came up to merge the said templates, and I thought that since you had been involved, you might want to comment on. I've actually recommended a wording change, but feel free to ignore that for now :-D. Again, I just thought I'd give you a heads up, hope to see you around soon! --danielfolsom 23:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Meru-centricism

Cf. Talk page of Indian Astronomy. This article ( Indian astronomy ) is highly misleading. There are factual errors as well. Restructuring is also needed. Please help in proper sourcing of unsourced statements in this article. - Vinay Jha 12:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Indian Astronomy

You are interested in History of Science Project. At your insistence, I added a well sourced section "Merucentric Astronomy in Indian astronomy. A user Bharatveer reverted without discussing. See 'Discuss Before Reverting' in Talk:Indian astronomy. Some important and correct statements were also reverted, and references deleted. Please ask this user to discuss before reverting. History may contain wrong or unclear ideas, but we should not delete history. -- Vinay Jha 11:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Common Knowlege

I was reading through the talk page of WP:CN and wanted to say that I enjoyed your comments. I was wondering if you would be interested in providing any hand-holding/encouragement/mentoring to a frustrated Princeton BA/London Business School MSc who believes in Wikipedia but is recently finding the level of discourse depressing.

Until recently I've had a pretty easy ride through Wikipedia - probably because I've chosen topics of low interest. But recently I've taken interest in improving the quality of coverage of Progressive/Reform/Liberal Judaism. Instead of contributing substantive material, I've found myself spending an inordinate amount of time dealing with one editor who (in my opinion of course) doesn't seem to understand how to structure an argument and asserts "first hand" knowledge when in fact he can be directly contradicted by credible sources that were within easy reach.

I realize Wikipedia is a big tent and editors have a wide range of academic training and scholarly maturity. One part of me thinks, "OK this is a challenge. Maybe this isn't just about the article. Maybe part of what I'm giving back here is my training in critical thinking. This is really no different than listening patiently to freshmen seminar students and helping them learn how to form a convincing argument for their ideas." The other part of me says. "Yikes! This topic really needs work and I don't have unlimited time. If I spend all my time arguing with people who are oblivious to their need to check their sources, then I won't have any time to research my own sources or make contributions of substance.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Egfrank 23:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fomenko

I'm really not sure what the best way to proceed is. Linkspam, though, can certainly be removed. Eventually, perhaps some action could be taken. If you want to try arbitration, or whatever, I'd be supportive, although I don't really have the time to take the lead on it. john k (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Aspirin

I'll do what I can with addressing your suggestions. I'm giving a lecture on the history of aspirin (or rather, the "biography" of aspirin) in the course I'm TAing this semester, "Magic Bullets and Wonder Pills: Making Drugs and Diseases in the 20th Century" (taught by Bruno Strasser). So I figure if I'm going to do all the work putting together the lecture, I might as well write it up for Wikipedia. Thanks!--ragesoss (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say...

Thanks a bunch for your addition to Definition of planet. I've been wanting to expand the mediaeval section for years, but haven't known where to look. :-) Serendi^podous 16:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your wonderful rework as made me conscious of something missing from the history section, and that is some elaboration on the recognition of Earth as a planet. How did the Copernicans' views of the universe change when they realised that Earth could be like the planets, and the planets could be like Earth? Do you know where I might find information on this? Serendi^podous 17:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Thought you should get one for your transformative edits to my favourite article. Thank you. :-) Serendipodous 20:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think you could have a look at Planet's (premature, I think) FAC page? There's a strange debate evolving over the precise way to read this peculiar entry in the Online Etymology Dictionary for "Earth", which appears to refer to Earth as a "planet" since 1400. This can't be right, can it? Planets wander. Planets move. The Earth wasn't recognised as moving until the time of Galileo. Serendi^podous 18:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have taken your advice on board, but I'm now a little uncertain as to what to do, since the early history section in Planet now appears to contradict what is said in Definition of planet. Is there a way to reconcile the two positions? Serendi^podous 09:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

coordinator election

The Wikiproject History is going to elect 3 coordinators. As a member you are invited to participate. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User degree/PhD 2

A tag has been placed on Template:User degree/PhD 2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you for invition

ya i have been makeing a lot of changes, and extravagent would be an understatemate for some of the claims being made, especially under islamic science, ie muslims formulated natural selection, started micrbiology, bacteriology, astrophysics, invented reciprocating piston engines and glasses, and well the list just goes on, whats next "islamic science" laid the foundations for quantum mechanics lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik (talk • contribs) 06:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Pan-american quartering

Could you remind me which paper you argued for pan-American quartering of the sky? I thought is would make a good example of one of the achievements of archaeoastronomy because it has both a cognitive and landscape aspect which you wouldn't really get without an archaeoastronomical perspective. I'm trying to avoid the Archaeoastronomy = Stonehenge (or possibly the Pyramids) cliché. Thanks. Alunsalt (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this is the paper I'm thinking of, and it seems to be missing from the Leicester library. I'll use "Observation in Hope Astronomy" 1990 instead, and try and expand it the help of the JHA article once Leicester opens up its periodicals section again in April. Alunsalt (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

SPS on Archaeoastronomy

I hope you have better things to do than read this over the Easter weekend. I didn't revert the odd claims that Kennewick man supported Fell's Ogham because I thought that it would just inflame him, but it seems to have made no difference. What I've done now is left a note regarding WP:SPS on breadh2o's talk page. I'll give him some time to see if he can make suitable changes. I'm not keen on simply counting the reverts as it's only going to push it into being more adversarial and it's not really a long term solution, especially if the article is to be GA. Alunsalt (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Archaeoastronomy

I agree that it would be a shame to try and put together a useful entry and then leave it to any wild ideas that come along. At the same time with things like the OCT and von Daniken being fairly well known it leaves a hole in the article if we ignore them. With OCT having its own entry I'd hope we can get by with a couple of sentences with wikilinks through to them without giving a lot of space to things which have nothing relevant to archaeoastronomy. I've also edited the Astrological Ages article so hopefully I've solved Terry McKinnell's problem.

Currently the section Breadh2o has added to the fringe archaeoastronomy section cites Stanford's Solutrean Hypothesis thing and Lemonick and Dorfmann's TIME piece on Kennewick Man. I've asked him on his talk page if he can explain the connection to archaeoastronomy to me, because right now it just looks like the remnant of another Galileo Gambit. With that kind of citation record it's tempting to take an automatically entrenched position against him so I'm trying not to, while at the same time avoiding Stockholm Syndrome. I thought it would take some heat out of the discussion if I slowed down my responses but I'm not sure if that will help either.

I'll be doing less again anyway. The reason I pushed on with the article was I had a lot of free time in small chunks while I waited to take people to and from hospital. Now I have longer periods of time I'd like to finally finish the thesis. I've been offered a free trip to the Polisario-held sector of Western Sahara when I finish to survey material there. It's not Hawaii but it's a start. :) Alunsalt (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll admit I'm baffled. It looks like he's now undermining his own RFC, just like the anonymous editor did. How many people in Denver have a keen interest in 19th metrology and my website? Like he said it's a big city. I'm staggered at his posts on WP:NORN as well. I'm loathe to correct the History section while the RFC is up as it would just look like WP:POINT. However, I think it's pretty clear it's WP:DE. Any ideas? Alun Salt (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than an indefinite ban across the site site, a ban on the Archaeoastronomy entry may be better. If he is interested in contributing to Wikipedia it gives him plenty of space to work in, and if he is a monomaniac then the problem is solved. It's a new 24 hour period so I could just revert again and see if he goes over 3RR, but I think that's against the spirit of the rule and isn't going to calm him down.

To put something positive in, I was thinking about the Methodology section after Wandalstouring's comments. The reason I wrote it the way I did was to avoid the Green/Brown/Blue clichés, but they don't seem to have disappeared. Would re-writing that section as Green/Brown/Blue/Hybrid make more sense? For instance the Green section would give more space to Thom's studies with a bit at the end with Ruggles' and MacKie's reassessments, then throw in some brief mentions of Magli's work and the Hoskin/Belmonte papers which still follow in this tradition to some extent. I don't know so much about Brown. If I write it up it's more likely to be South American material. Teotihuacan might be a better place for the example. I know the Hopi would be another example but I was thinking Medieval Churches would be a good example of a modern hybrid methodology and I think breadh2o might ask why two McCluskey examples are being used. For Blue I wondered if it would be a good idea asking User:RayNorris if he could contribute a section. It would give a hook to hang a more visible link to his Australian Aboriginal entries on.

If we clean up the History and Fringe sections when the new Methodology goes in then at least there's something extra going in, rather than just a battle over deletions. As for Fringe maybe a line or two that it's popularly associated with Pyramidology and put a direct link through to his PDF? It'd help clear up any COI or Wikispam issues and give a nod to his POV. Alun Salt (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd leave it a while before adding anything more to the talk page. I'm bored with the whole archaeological conspiracy idea. If archaeologists were as he describes them then, if he's right about Celtic diffusion being obvious, surely someone would have stolen the idea and passed it off as his own? Given his feelings of injustice, I'm wondering if this was never about creating an archaeoastronomy article, but a means for him to demand attention from people. I've put what I think is a summary of the relevant points on the Fringe Archaeoastronomy beneath his RfC. I'll wait and see if I've got understood him correctly rather than just provoke him with another edit, especially while the RfC is active.

I'm not bothering responding to the other accusations. He seems curiously blind to the fact I've gone out to look for more citations to help his cause or tried to diffuse his off-wiki canvassing rather than pointedly asking who the article is being 'hijacked' from. Responding will just feed the troll. Ignoring it will also annoy him, but at least will take up less screen space. :) Alun Salt (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't work it out. It has to be that having the argument on archaeoastronomy, and nowhere else, is important. I've put together something in my sandbox. I've tried to do it without mocking him, but I can't help feeling I should be wearing some sort of sinister cloak as part of secret cabal. I think it'll need some expanding with edits from the article too. I'd like to avoid feeding his martyr complex, but I'm not sure that's possible. Alun Salt (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Time for an RfC?

I was sketching out ideas for improving the methodology section, but I can't see the point if Breadh2o is going to keep disrupting the article. Is it time for an RfC on the user? I'm putting something together in my sandbox, but it'll take a while as i can't help thinking I could be using the time to do something useful instead. I'm tempted to wait for the Google Knol site to be opened up, or just stick a wiki on my own webserver and edit there. Alun Salt (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point he needs to be reverted when he adds unacceptable content. If he edit-wars, and violates 3RR, he's blocked. I was also about to bring it up on AN/I. If the group as it is can't handle him, we'll post there and get more eyes on it. He's POV pushing and refusing to engage in dialogue. He's on his way to getting blocked if he keeps it up. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

After looking at his User page and contribs, I decided to post to AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#When is a SPA a SPA, and using User page to attack other editors - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've removed the draft RfC from my sandbox, seeing as its gone to AN/I. Alun Salt (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts to the latest AN/I. I've suggested the ban could be lifted if Breadh2o reforms. Given his past history I don't think that's likely, but thought it best to emphasise that his disruptive editing is having an effect on being able get the article reviewed, rather than simply wanting to silence him. I'll try and get a few more books out of the library on Thu, including the Asian Archaeoastronomy one and hopefully by the weekend I'll have enough for a new draft to go up. With copy-editing etc that should be well on the way to be peer-reviewable. I don't know if FA in time for the solstice would be a feasible target if the article is stable. Alun Salt (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Science in the Middle Ages

Since you're someone who has taken an interest in this article, I'd like your take on what seems to be a problem. Mcorazao (talk · contribs) has created what's essentially a cut-and-paste copy-and-paste content fork by copying a subtantial portion of its content (actually, it appears to be some older version of the section "The Middle Ages: Western Europe") to a new title, Science in Medieval Western Europe. I don't know whether he's planning to do more to either article (he hasn't edited either for a day and a half), and he hasn't actually deleted any content from Science in the Middle Ages; but what we have now is a new article consisting of substantially the same content as an existing one. I haven't been entirely happy with some of Mcorazo's contributions in this area, but I've not, in general been challenging them. However, forking off the content dealing with western Europe with no discussion whatever seems a bit too bold for my taste. Deor (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Myth Of The Flat Earth

You're absolutely right about St. Boniface needing a citation. I remember this personally from two lengthy papers I did in graduate school on him (in an era which predates the Internet, however). I'll try to dig up an online reference. The other theologians I cited already have Wiki entries verifying their views, I believe.

Regarding Bosch, he's hardly the only Medieval artist to depict a flat earth. And The Garden of Earthly Delights *does* fall into the Middle Ages, if only by a decade.

Also, I'm not sure why you added talk suggesting I deleted material from the entry. I merely added these references. The Flat Earth article does a fairly decent job of conveying the fact that, while many Medieval scholars did in fact realize the earth was round, that a strong undercurrent of flat earth sentiment persisted among theologians and the uneducated. The Myth of the Flat Earth page, however, reads more like Christian Apologia, and in its original form, leaves the reader with the mistaken few that no one at all during the period believed such. This is what I'm trying to clear up.

Regards, FellGleaming (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, hope you enjoy contributing. But as my edits indicate, I have a few problems with a possible tendancy to slide into original research. Let me turn to a few specifics.

As to Boniface, from what I've read on his dispute with Fergil/Vergil the Irishman, the issue was not the sphericity of the Earth but the related -- but different issue, of the existence of Antipodeans living on the opposite side of the Earth; hence my request for a citation of a reliable source on the specific point that Boniface opposed the sphericity of the Earth.

As to Bosch, besides being a Renaissance figure, his paintings are so fanciful that (like Dali's) they require considerable interpretation and cannot be used as a reliable portrait of anything.

As to your question about deleted material, this diff[4] shows that you deleted several significant points, including (in bold):

Today it is widely recognized among professional medievalists and historians of science that the "medieval flat Earth" is a misconception, and that the few verifiable "flat Earthers" of the period were the exception.

and

The widely circulated woodcut of a man poking his head through the firmament of a flat Earth to view the mechanics of the spheres, executed in the style of the 16th century cannot be traced to an earlier source than Camille Flammarion's L'Atmosphère: Météorologie Populaire (Paris, 1888, p. 163).... In any case, no source of the image earlier than Flammarion's book is known.

Since that material was properly sourced, its deletion prior to finding alternative sources is pushing the limits.

Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy about use of sources; those of us who've been through grad school have difficulty realizing we must rely primarily on secondary sources and that original interpretation of primary sources is discouraged. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Boniface, I no longer have access to the sources I once did, but this online source does confirm that, not only did Boniface believe in a flat earth, but it was official doctrine of the Church at the time. "Later on, St. Boniface accused Vergilius of teaching a doctrine in regard to the rotundity of the earth, which was "contrary to the Scriptures". Pope Zachary's decision in this case was that "if it be proved that he held the said doctrine, a council be held, and Vergilius expelled from the Church " (Catholic Encyclopedia, v. XV, pub. 1912) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15353d.htm.

As for Bosch, thousands of online sources clearly place him in the late Medieval era, including his existing Wiki article. To that I can add:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/bosch.shtml
• http://www.library.rochester.edu/camelot/Deathbooklet.htm

In any case, the entire issue is moot. The article's implication is that flat earth sentiment was wholly gone *before* the Middle Ages. Even were Bosch truly in the Renaissance, the persistence of his ideas alone would be significant enough to compel inclusion. Regarding your point that his work was "fanciful", that is certainly valid. It puts the work into an ambiguous category, and if you wish to label it as such, I have no objection.

Regarding the deletions, I didn't remove any sources, simply a sentence regarding another editors interpretation of those sources. Given the other sources I had added to the document, I feel that conclusion is adequately proven incorrect. As for the phrase, "In any case, no source of the image earlier than Flammarion's book is known.", I merely tightened up the language. The sentences after this clearly make the point that the woodcut was executed in the 19th century, not Medieval times. Why state this twice? If you disagree, though, I have no objection to reinstating it.

I think some of the confusion in this article is no more than the old-standing conflict over when exactly the Medieval period began and ended. Certainly the myth is correct for the *late* Middle Ages, and this point I tried to make in the update.

FellGleaming (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the disagreement comes from the kind of sources we use. You seem to cite visual images (Flammarion, Bosch) while I know the material on the history of science, the history of ideas, and the history of religion. In that case, it's clear that from the reception of Aristotle in the twelfth century, everyone who studied at the Universities knew that the Earth was a sphere. Dante and Aquinas are examples from two different fields. In the earlier period, anyone who read Bede's computus (a required topic of study for all the clergy) was taught that the Earth was a sphere (whether they learned it is another matter, but we have no documentation on that). The same ideas were presented clearly in Martianus Capella, Cassiodorus, and other ancient Latin writers who were studied in the Carolingian Era. For further details see my Astronomies and Cultures in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge, 1998) or Bruce Eastwood's Ordering the Heavens: Roman Astronomy and Cosmology in the Carolingian Renaissance (Leiden, 2007). My gut feeling is that medieval people seldom, if ever, thought about the shape of the earth, just as we seldom think about the idea that given modern atomic and quantum theories, the "solid" chair upon which I'm sitting is mainly empty space.

On another point, you say that it reads like a Christian apologia; it would probably be more correct to say that it reads like a medievalists' apologia for our favorite period. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

From a history of *science* perspective, I agree utterly; the knowledge of the earth's shape didn't vanish during the MA. And I would certainly agree that from Bede onward, it became very hard to find flat earth views expressed among the learned...its the 4th-early 7th century that I'm primarily referrring to. From what I recall of the period, even those authors who did write of a spherical earth, did so in an extremely guarded and cautious manner, indicative that the Church's official position still contradicted this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs) 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)