Talk:Royal Society/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oldest Learned Society?

According to its wikipedia entry the Leopoldina was founded in 1652 -- eight years prior to the RS. It is still in existence and was so permanently [1]. Hence, it would be the oldest learned society, and the statement in the lead of the article would be wrong. Encyclopedia Britannica and the RS itself do not state it would be older.

If there is not a proper reference or modification, I'd suggest to remove the statement. --Dagox (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The version with "most consider it" would need a citation. As I said, I could not find this statement, e.g. in the Encyclopedia Britannica. So EB does not belong to "most". As far as I could see, the Royal Society itself does not, either. Personally, I'm hesitating to consider the official chartering as more important than the constitution itself. Rather, it would be the "oldest sovereignly chartered and accredited such society still in existence". --Dagox (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Inquisition

This should be reworded: " the Inquisition was still the primary form of peer review for scientists in Catholic Europe, " because it is an ill attempt at humor.

I am glad that the phrase is still there. There is some truth to it, and it's funny. Paul 17:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed from the article:

Prior to the Royal Society, Science itself did not formally exist

Eh? -- Anon.

Prior to the Royal Society, the term Science did not exist as we know it. (See below.) -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And for a long time after, the term science still did not exist as we know it. It doesn't necessarily follow that we can't or shouldn't use it in this article. The term is used in histories of earlier societies like the Accademia del Cimento and the Accademia dei Segreti, and of course when talking about medieval science (pursued in institutions like the University of Paris) and Greek science (in institutions like the Lyceum and the Museum). -- of the reauiln the touned totury

Royal Society in fiction

There should be a mention to Gulliver's Travels -- 62.99.88.10

Perhaps we can insert a small subsection or just a paragraph dedicated to the portrayal of RS in works of fiction? Another book possibly warranting mention is Quicksilver (novel). Paranoid 10:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There absolutely must be mention of Patrick O'Brian's cycle in the fiction section. Both his Stephen Maturin and Jack Aubrey are fellows of the Royal Society, and it is of first importance throughout the twenty novels. There is considerable mention of Joseph Banks as well. Sigma-6 23:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

History of the Royal Society

This will require some verification. As such, I am not placing this in the main body of the article until it's edited and cleaned up. Also, I have typed a portion of my reference 'as is' from the book itself. (Quoting passages.) (As is, minus any typos that I might have introduced.) -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A few comments: 1. Francis Bacon was no longer just Sir Francis, but Lord St Albans, by the time the Royal Society was founded.
2. By then, Bacon was also dead. He didn't support the society himself, but some of the foundation members were very supportive of Bacon's ideas. The Royal Society states this on its own web page. It'd be worth linking to a separate entry on Baconianism instead of dealing with that here.
3. The Royal Society considers itself to have originated in the Philosophical College or Invisible College, an informal gathering of thinkers who liked to talk about Baconian ideals.


References:
Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution

The original purpose of the Royal Society was to create an alternative form of the study of natural philosophy. The term science did not mean the same thing when the Royal Society was founded. Disillusioned by the current study of natural philosophy being taught by 16th century institutions of education, several people founded the Royal Society.

Several rules were imposed on the members of the Royal Society:
1. Members were not allowed to talk about religion
2. Members were not allowed to discuss about their personal problems and issues of politics

The Royal Society's primary purpose in the 16th century was attempting to establish mechanical philosophy. Or rather, attempt a "depersonalization of nature" as Shapin describes in his book.

Sir Francis Bacon had a large impact on the Royal Society, supporting it and especially with his writings.

Bacon said that the "universities are the seat and continent" of the "distempers" of learning, - Shapin, The Scientific Revolution, Page 133.

The following text is disclosed under fair use of the US Copyright.

From Pg. 134-135 of The Scientific Revolution by Steven Shapin:
A publicist of the early Royal Society of London announced that its membership was composed for the most part of "Gentlemen, free and unconfined," and, indeed, one marked contrast with traditional scholarly sites was the more civic, and more socially elevated, tone of several of the new societies. While Bacon made a humanist case for reforming natural philosophy so as to fit it for civic gentlemen, the participation in the Royal Society of men like the Honourable Robert Boyle -- a wealthy and well-connected Anglo-Irish aristocrat -- substantially transformed Baconian vision into social reality. The enterprise of natural knowledge was intentionally being made attractive to, and fit for, civic gentlemen. The consequences of changing participation in natural knowledge were considerable. A society dominated by gentlemen could more effectively draw on codes of genteel civility and decorum in conducting philosophical debate and evaluting testimony. Gentlemanly society had its own well-developed conventions for guaranteeing good order. The adhesion to natural philosphy of civic gentlemen thus offered a powerful alternative to scholarly disputatiousness.1
The codes regulating the "civil conversation" of early modern gentlemen warned against the intrusion of potentially divisive and disruptive topics. Ad hominem speech, as well as contentious matters of politics, theology, and metaphysics, was seen as threatening the good order and continuance of conversation. Just as the establishment of Boyle's matters of fact depended on protecting the boundaries betwen the factual and the theoretical, so the consitituion of the Royal Society of London explicitly prohibited its fellows from speaking of religion or poltics during the course of its scientific meetings, and similar prohibitions were inscribed in the charters of a number of Continental societies.

Footnote: From page 134 of The Scientific Revolution by Steven Shapin: By no means all natural philosphers -- even in the English Royal Society -- were gentlemen. We still lack a secure understanding of the social map of scientific learning anywhere in Europe, and we do know that many important modern practictioners came from ungentle backgrounds. Nevertheless, the improtance of gentlemanly codes of conduct in regualting behavior is formally independent of the identities of all the individuals operating under those codes. So, for example, knowledge of how to behave in a church is not confined to the community of Christians, or even of believers of God. Nor was knowledge of how to behave as a gentlemen restricted to those who were gentlemen.

Invisible College

Invisible College redirects to this article, but the name is not mentioned at all in the text.

Invisible College is a book by Robert Lomas about the founding of the Royal Society [2], an educational association based in Santa Cruz [3], the former name of the Educators for Community Enlightenment[4], a publisher of books on the paranormal [5] and various other projects. I suspect it is the first of this list why the redirection occurs. Now, if only I knew how to change redirects... Scottkeir 23:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Expansion request

...has a nice introduction and some facts, but the body of the article is missing. :( It would be nice to have information about formal status, relation to the Crown, financing, notable activities (missions), foreign relations, internal politics, etc. Paranoid 10:46, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've added a bit about governance (which I guess is your internal politics). You're right though, more is needed. Scottkeir 14:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The hunt for the Nature errors

Any ideas what the Nature errors are?

As talked about above, I'm not sure if the Inquisition can be called peer review.

I've added a couple of source website links and edited the history of the houses of the Society to include Arundel House.

I've also filled out the timeline to the present day. On possible error is that the timeline went from 1666 Fire of London causes move to Arundel House to 1710 acquires its own home in Crane Court - the Society returned to Gresham College for a time. [6]

A minor technicality is that the Royal Society is not a member of the Science Council, it has representation on Science Council's committees. This is not clear from the Science Council's own website [7], but was published in the flyer for an event open to members of Science Council members - [8] Scottkeir 08:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A fairly basic error is the one that states that the Royal Society is the national academy of Science for England - it is not, it covers the UK, as the front page of the Royal Society website states. Now corrected. Scottkeir 12:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

From what i read they scored for errors and ommissions. It will be hard identify an omission (if that is one of the errors) since that seems a bit subjective. David D. (Talk) 18:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

The Royal Society of London is not, and cannot possibly be, "the national academy of sciences of the United Kingdom", for the very simple reason that the Royal Society of Edinburgh is the national academy of sciences of Scotland. Perhaps the Royal Society of London is the national academy of sciences of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but certainly not of the whole United Kingdom.--Mais oui! 22:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No. London is the capital of the United Kingdom. If HM Government want advice on scientific matters they ask the Royal Society. As the Royal Society's about page says it is the "UK's national academy of science". There are Scots who are FRS. The RSE only acts in Scotland, the Royal Society acts in the UK and in some ways throughout the Commonwealth. It's got nothing to do with POV, it has everything to do with fact. — Dunc|☺ 22:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Totally agree. The Fellowship of the Royal Society covers the Commonwealth and Ireland. Scottish-resident scientists can be both FRS and FRSE. They overlap. For example the current President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh is a former President of the Royal Society - according to the RSE's own website! [9] In a similar way, the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Chemistry both cover Chemistry.
Ireland? What about the Royal Irish Academy, which claims to be the academy for the sciences and humanities for the whole of Ireland? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Yup, Ireland. The Royal Society Fellowship covers Ireland too - eg Michael Atiyah, the current President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh crops up again [10]. They overlap. Though in terms of practical activities, it looks as though the Royal Society restricts itself more to the UK.[11] Scottkeir 12:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum

  • Sprat’s name misspelt in References. (done on 22 December)
  • The timeline implies that the Society stayed at Arundel House from 1666 to 1710, whereas in fact it moved back to Gresham College (not mentioned), where it was based from its foundation till 1666. (done on 15 December)

Magnetic progression

Or procession. I really can't remember. I'm trying to do a bit on the importance of the continuity provided by the RS. This meant that magnetic North readings could be repeated years later with the same apparatus in the same place, revealing mag North had shifted (previously, differences would have been written off as due to equipment or location). But I can't find refs. Help? JackyR 23:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The value of having a society within which results could be shared and experiments repeated was demonstrated most dramatically in the discovery of magnetic progression.

Unsourced, POV

I've removed the following, as unsourced and POV. If the editor who added it would like to include something on this, please add a newspaper ref or the like to substantiate it, and rewrite it from a Neutral Point of View. Cheers, JackyR 01:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Royal Society has recently courted controversy by claiming that Creationism is too prevalent among university students and by labelling it "anti-science". This has angered and deeply offended many Christians who believe that this is wrong. The Royal Society has taken the very unusual step of organising a lecture with Steve Jones to combat Creationism.

Prime Ministers with FRS

Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher were all elected Fellows of the Royal Society (at least according to Wikipedia). The former two had no scientific background at all. Does anybody know if prior to the (very recent) intoduction of a seperate postion of Honourary Fellow it was common pratice for non-scientists to be honoured in this way. The practice isn't mentioned here or at Fellow of the Royal Society. A Geek Tragedy 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Benjamin Disraeli was a Fellow. (It's pointless having two separate articles; we've had the same question and answer in two places.)--Runcorn 19:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Slightly misleading to describe Margaret Thatcher as a non-scientist. Not a distinguished one, certainly.--Runcorn 19:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I was careful not to describe her as such (I put "the former two..."). Similiarly Wilson was a respected statistician but I would be surprised if either of them were of a standard to be elected to the fellowship on their research alone. --A Geek Tragedy 22:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The practice is mentioned at Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society (which should possibly also be merged into this article, if FRS is to be) - Statute 12 is what Margaret Thatcher was elected under, at least. Scottkeir 22:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wellington Melbourne and Aberdeen should be added to the list.

Wilson was responsible for founding the Open University and many Polytechnics so that might explain the honour. Arachrah (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging

I think you're right about the seperate articles actually; we probably want to merge Foreign Member of the Royal Society as well.A Geek Tragedy 14:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, someone doesn't want the matter discussed and keeps deleting the tag. --Runcorn 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see that there's anything substantial to merge from the FRS article. We might as well make FRS redirect here. --C S (Talk) 09:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what used to be the position.--Runcorn 07:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I may be swimming against the tide! I looked up Stephen Hawking and note the initials after his name viz CH, CBE, FRS. I think that the FRS methodology is the most useful for most users.

  1. I click on FRS and get immediate help on what it stands for – I can follow further links if I want more info, but I believe most users just want to know that it means Fellow of the Royal Society, and can immediately back-page to carry on reading the article.
  2. CBE is not so helpful. Because I have to wade through text to find out what CBE stands for - when I may not be interested in knowing anything else about that Order. — Saltmarsh 14:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, actually see your point. Also most electronic refence works DO have special short explanations of abbreviations.:A Geek Tragedy 21:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Saltmarsh has convinced me: The FRS article should stay separate. --C S (Talk) 09:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have reduced the size and scope of the article - is Runcorn happy? — Saltmarsh 08:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So we need an article "Fellow of the Royal Society" that redirects here. The text [[Fellow of the Royal Society|FRS]] inserts FRS into the article, and if you hover over it you can see "Fellow of the Royal Society" at the bottom of the page.--Runcorn 06:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth further discussion.--Runcorn 09:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nullius in verba

There is a nice thought by Stephen Jay Gould himself on what the motto means, here [12] extracting the main bit: "It looks like it means "Words do not matter" or "Do not pay any attention to words," since nullius means "nothing" and verba is "word." So most people think it means that words mean nothing and you have to do the experiment. But nullius is genitive singular; it can't mean that. It means "of nothing" or "of no one." I knew what the motto meant. I knew that it was a fragment of a statement from Horace — a famous quotation from a poem, in which he says, "I am not bound to swear allegiance to the dogmas of any master." Nullius addictus jurare in verba magister. It's "Nullius in verba," or "In the words of no (master)." It's just a fragment from a larger line." I suggest changing the explanation on the wiki page.

First female Member

Is it true that Margaret Cavendish was the first woman to join? (1667) --Nemissimo II 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Not according to the Royal Society Library Search for past Fellows function. This page says the "first women, Marjory Stephenson and Kathleen Lonsdale, were elected to the Fellowship in 1945." Scottkeir 21:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Relationship to the Monarchy

This may seem like a dumb question, but given it's name, I presume the Monarch (presently QEII) is involved in some way, either as a patron or officer in some capacity. I read the article but I could not see the relationship identified, apart from the granting of the Royal charter. (Apologies if I missed it). Manning (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

-- added! The Queen is Patron.[13] Scottkeir (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"the Restoration of King Charles II". Is the Restoration of the monarchy, rather than the particular monarch? This is a fine point of pedantry and constitutional law, and I'd be unsurprised to hear an argument that C2 had been restored since he had been monarch ever since C1 became Charles the Short. The alternative is that for a while we had a commonwealth and regardless of people wandering around and their choice of hats, England was not a monarchy for that time. Unsure, but the line as it stands seems awkward to me. Midgley (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

presidents merge

it has been suggested that the article President of the Royal Society be merged, and incorporated into Royal Society#A selected list of Presidents in this article. your comments are invited --emerson7 14:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is better left as a separate list. The section in this article and the full list serve difference purposes. The list is a complete record, while the section is meant to draw attention to particularly significant individuals in keeping with the rest of the article, which should give the reader a sense of the Royal Society's larger place in history.--ragesoss (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose; The list of presidents is rather long and would not go easily on the page. The situation regarding this merge proposal was previously confusing because a heading for any discussion or any exlanation was not started here until today. Snowman (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - should be possible (eventually) to have three things: a list, a section in this article, and an article on the history of the presidency, which could go into more detail than the section in this article. The latter can come later after the list has been sorted out (currently there is a list and a template doing the same thing), and the section here converted to prose. Then, as the section expands, an article can be spun off. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

No facts are in dispute here. See WP:V, i.e.,

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged ....

Reiss is at once a biologist and an official of the Church of England and the Director of Education for the Royal Society. These roles are mentioned within the fact-mix of this subsection. All facts in this subsection are supported by a reputable reference source; ergo, there is no need to "defend" some obscure point as if something were somehow wrongly deleted. --Tenmei (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind which article we cover this, but it is pointless and a waste of effort covering it in full in two separate articles, and having to worry about continually updating both everytime there is an edit. Also I am not clear why the "main article" link was removed? Mdwh (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I can only agree with Mdwh and Carl.bunderson about the way to handle the format in which this controversy is presented. The perceived problem has been identified and acknowledged in this article's context, and fuller details are provided at [Michael Reiss]]. If other editors happen to hold a different point-of-view, this is would be a plausible venue in which to express those ideas more completely -- not in the cramped space provided by an edit summary box. --Tenmei (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

citations needed

I've removed this tag; I can't see anything glaring that needs citing. To anyone who adds it back on I'd point out that googling the information yourself and trying to find something out would be hellsa easier all around. Ironholds (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Empiricism in the early days

The early RS was empiric, but this is nowhere explicitly stated. Is there a reference to cite indicating that? Midgley (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Massive update

As people can see, I've massively updated, tweaked and expanded the article - if anyone feels like commenting/criticising/suggesting amendments, feel free to drop something here on the talk :). Ironholds (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just came across an article in The Economist that mentions this year, ie 2010, as the 350th anniversary of the society, pegging the 28th November, 1660 date as its date of foundation. On checking the Royal Society website I found a validation of that information [1]. While this entry mentions the date it does not explicitly point it out as the date of foundation. Do you think it ought to mention something on the lines of "This event is today recognised as the founding meeting of the Royal Society", as it does in the website, in reference to it. Demodifier (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Good point; I'll link it in this evening when I get back from work. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
28 November 1660 was indeed the founding meeting of the first Fellows and is the date we now use to celebrate our Anniversary Day. As to the actual date of foundation, there are a number of possibilities. It might be wise to use the date we were granted a Royal Charter by King Charles II (although he granted us three of them, which doesn't exactly help!) PointOfPresence (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi, good job on the article. Perhaps you could sketch the move from pre-uniformitarian times under Pepys, Newton et al, to the present? There is huge interest on this, what with the recent attempted sacking of one fellow[14] for being percieved as not uniformitarian enough. Maybe outline what part the uniformitarian assumptions play within the Society, and how they differ from the creation style assumptions made by Newton, Maxwell, Kepler et al.

7kingis (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://royalsociety.org/Anniversary-Address/

Feedback to the Royal Society

Hi everyone, thanks for all the great work developing these Royal Society pages. If you see ways in which the Royal Society's website could be improved or you have ideas about the sort of information we could publish then please let us know here: http://royalsociety.org/contact-us/ (select 'Web site queries'). Thanks, Francis (Web Editor, The Royal Society) Andeggs (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! I invite your comments on the discussion above about Michael Reiss and the Society's stance about a member of the clergy being in a leadership position. --Yopienso (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm particularly interested in your response to this that I wrote above on Oct. 8:
I do see your point that the article deals in broad outlines and that Reiss was a minor figure. His resignation, however, made him a much larger figure in its symbolism. Omitting all mention of it smacks, to me, of glossing over what could be perceived as intolerance on the part of the Society.
and to Tony's entire response the same day, beginning with:
I agree with you that what made Reiss's job untenable was the call for his resignation by two of the more illustrious Fellows,...
Yopienso: you understand how Reliable Sources work, yes? Andeggs saying that "yes, internal Royal Society scuttlebutt sez that's what happens" is irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I hold the quaint attitude that I could occasionally be wrong. If Andeggs says I am on this, I drop the issue. If he says I'm right, it would be worth pursuing if I have the time. --Yopienso (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Expert opinions are irrelevant in this matter. If you can find reliable sources, fine. If you cannot, you drop it. Ironholds (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
You missed my point. My looking would depend partly on what Andeggs says. If he dismisses the notion out of hand, why should I waste my time? If he agrees, it would be worth my time--if I could find it--to dig up some RSs. But I have a funny feeling no quantity or quality of RSs would convince you. Fortunately, I have no inclination to try to do that. --Yopienso (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
If you slough off Dawkins' and Nature's views, what's mine? Less than nothing. And, really, it is! :-) I assume your view is far more informed than mine, but, sadly, more entrenched as well. Best wishes, --Yopienso (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
More entrenched, and no amount of reliable sources? This is, I assume, based on the fact that I, uhm, asked for reliable sources before dropping us in the shit :P. How blinkered you are. Ironholds (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The guideline at WP:THE should be respected unless there is a good reason. As pointed out there, the country is called "the United Kingdom" in running text so we have the article at United Kingdom. Even on the above talk page, and within the article itself, people are writing it as "the Royal Society". Since "the" is not capitalized, as in The Hague, we don't usually make "the" be part of the article title. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC) EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Royal Society → The Royal Society — The correct legal name includes the word "The" There are registered trade marks to prove this. ThanksPointOfPresence (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC) PointOfPresence (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support, as per PointOfPresence. Jonchapple (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Unsure, maybe not: there is WP:DEFINITE. It also sets a precident that we should start moving RSPB, RSPCA, RoSPA, etc... ComputScientist (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nam and Jonch --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 12:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is one of the only cases where I support the inclusion of The. If there were no other royal societies I would not be supporting this motion. However, there are a large number of other royal societies. As such, I can see the value is including The in this case and in this case only. Given wikipedia doesn't care about WP:OFFICIALNAMES find the argument put forward by PointOfPresence inappropriate and rather contrary to convention. My support is principally on the basis of WP:THE given it is almost exclusively referred to as The Royal Society and helps distinguish it from others.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:THE: "When a proper name is almost always used with capitalized "The", especially if it is included by unofficial sources, we should include it." and "Definite and indefinite articles should be avoided for all cases not mentioned above." The "the" is used several times but not capitalized on this page from the Society's website. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kuguar03. "Royal Society" on its own always refers to this organisation and not, for example, the Royal Geographical Society, the Royal Society of Medicine, or the Royal Society of Arts. Their website is located at royalsociety.org. The Celestial City (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is Royal Society indeed the oldest learning society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academie Francaise

The Académie was officially established in 1635 by Cardinal Richelieu, the chief minister to King Louis XIII

Royal Society was established 25 years later(1660). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.238.82 (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify which Académie your are referring to (neither the above link nor French Academy of Sciences mention 1635) and provide references if this is not in wikipedia articles. Materialscientist (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I think editor intended to link to Academie Francaise, established in 1635. But that is not a society for science. ComputScientist (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah; as far as I'm aware the only possible competitor is the german equivalent. Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The Academia Secretorum Naturae was created in 1560 though it survived only until 1578. The Accademia dei Lincei was founded in 1603 and it still exists. Both were scientific societies and they predate both the Royal Society and the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina. Any statement as to which scientific society is the oldest ought to come from a secondary source. The question of which was the first scientific society must surely have been a topic of discussion among historians. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes; since the first one was closed, it's hardly a useful comparison. I would suggest providing a secondary source for your second statement as well, which currently lacks one; if you are aware of sources covering the oldest society, feel free to include them. Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
On their own web site, the Royal Society claims to be the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence but gives no citation for that claim. They celebrated their 350th anniversary in 2010, which would acknowledge a 1660 founding date. The German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina asserts: "The Leopoldina was founded in 1652 in Schweinfurt and is thus the oldest continuously existing academy of natural sciences and medicine in the world", per a document on their web site. The Leopoldina safely follows the precedent of the Royal Society by giving no reference for their statement. The two claims refer to the same criterion ('continuously existing academy') so they can't both be true. I do not know how the Royal Society would respond to the rival claims of the Lincei and the Leopoldina. Footnote 2 on our Leopoldina article is clearly incorrect. The Royal Society dates its own royal charter to 1662, not 1650. Until we find reliable sources, we probably should change the Royal Society article so it does not assert in Wikipedia's voice that it is 'possibly the oldest such society in existence'. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, the Royal Society article does contain a citation saying it's true - and the Royal Society is dating its second charter, not its first one. Ironholds (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Second charter? It would be hard for them to have got a royal charter before 1660, since there was no king on the throne between 1649 and 1660. The Royal Society is not a historian. They are not a reliable source for their own priority. We could, of course, list all the conflicting claims the way newspapers would. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I would suggest amending the footnote to include the Italian claim. Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Invisible College

The identification of the so-called Invisible College around Boyle with the Wilkins group is basically probably wrong, a mistake that has been around since the 18th century. I'm trying to make the article about it reflect contemporary scholarly views. Anything said here should be very cautious. There were in any case a number of groups concerned in the prehistory of the Royal Society. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Then...can you provide reliable sources? Ironholds (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. There are certainly no problems with talking about a group at Gresham College from 1645, which came to include John Wilkins who was later at Wadham College, Oxford and drew in various scientists in a "big tent" fashion (i.e. including royalists such as Wren). The only snag is that that group doesn't have a really respectable name: "men of Gresham" would do. The name Invisible College was borrowed for that group, it seems during the 18th century, and this nomenclature gets two points almost exactly wrong: (i) the real "invisible college" were the people who were excluded from the "big tent", and were deliberately left out of the Royal Society when it was set up, i.e. Hartlib and friends; and (ii) it seems that "invisible college" more generally meant a correspondence network at the time, not people who met face-to-face. So we are dealing with a serious misnomer, at best. That is why this page for example, by Richard S. Westfall, talks about the group in London, the misnamed "Invisible College," generally taken as the precursor to the Royal Society. So, indeed, there are reliable sources: Christopher Hill too, for example.

More of a writing problem concerns exactly what should be said here: a reference to the "Wilkins group" would be better, certainly. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm now drafting something in my userspace that ought to be better to link to. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Gresham College and the formation of the Royal Society has been created. I think all the mentions in this article of the Invisible College are wrong and misleading. The whole section on the foundation needs to be carefully referenced in the light of current views. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael Reiss

I've removed a reference to a nine-day wonder involving a misreported statement by Michael Reiss. At best, this belongs on the biographical article of that scientist. It has no place here. --TS 20:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Imho, the point is worth noting. As far as "recentism," I've seen that term on talk pages, but can't find a WP page on it. To me, something 2 years old isn't recent, but it's entirely possible misunderstand the term.
Not sure what "nine-day wonder" means here. I think the fact that Reiss had to resign after suggesting questions from students about creationism be answered is pertinent to the article. The article should aim to inform about the history, nature, mission, publications, and deeds of the society. If the society will not countenance that suggestion, I think that fact should be included. Dawkins thought it significant enough to comment on. Nearly a year after the event ("row" or "affair," as the press called it) it was still getting traction. (It's a blog, but at Nature.com, and here are the blogster's credentials.)
It’s not everyday you’ll find Richard Dawkins agreeing with a priest who was hounded out of his job for daring to suggest creationists shouldn’t be totally ostracised. However, Dawkins and Reverend Professor Michael Reiss have both put their names to a demand that evolution should not be excluded from primary schools in the UK.
--Yopienso (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(I took the liberty of trimming out some off-topic to-and-fro while we got to this discussion with everything in one place --TS 00:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC))

Thank you; great job. I'm pretty busy right now so probably won't be commenting in the next several hours or more. --Yopienso (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


It was a storm in a teacup. The Society is a fellowship organization--a college, if you like--and Reiss himself is not a Fellow, much less an elected Officer of the Society, he was only ever an employee of the Society. It was unfortunate that his remarks were misinterpreted and he resigned, but it doesn't rank alongside the other events in this article which mostly focuses on governance and the membership. If we do cover the affairs of employees, even those that make the newspapers, we shouldn't just pick on the latest newspaper article. That's what I mean by Recentism. Look at the latest event before the Reiss affair in that section, and you'll see it relates to the first election of female Fellows, in 1945.

To give you a further example of where this all stands, I should point you to the state of the article in the days before the Reiss affair, here. There is no mention of Reiss, and even the section "Permanent staff" only lists the Executive Secretary and three of his Senior Managers. That section of the article has not changed much in the intervening period. Reiss himself is a prominent bioethicist and specialist in science education, but his work with the Royal Society was in a minor role, albeit a public-facing one. When he stepped down, the Society itself described his post as "a part-time post he held on secondment."

Understandably the press often finds it difficult to distinguish between part-time employees and elected Fellows and Officers, and tends to think anybody whose role in an organization is to perform public outreach must be a very important person within the structure of the Society. We don't have to follow their errors. --TS 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't have started this knowing I had precious little time to devote to it. My take on it, and I reacted too quickly, was that this incident reveals the overt anti-religion stance of the Society. I think that's important, as it identifies a core value in its decision-making process. The problem here wasn't really what Reiss said but that he was a priest. Dawkins was uncharacteristically polite in his letter to which I linked above:
Unfortunately for him as a would-be spokesman for the Royal Society, Michael Reiss is also an ordained minister. To call for his resignation on those grounds, as several Nobel-prize-winning Fellows are now doing, comes a little too close to a witch-hunt for my squeamish taste.
Nevertheless - it's regrettable but true - the fact that he is a priest undermines him as an effective spokesman for accommodationism: "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he!"
As Dawkins also says in that letter, in the US we--including Eugenie Scott--are more accommodationist. It is my own accommodationist attitude that rankles at the deletion of the paragraph.
I won't argue with you as to whether this was a storm in a teacup, but may disagree on the size of the teacup. On a grand scale, the world didn't stop spinning, the stock market didn't crash, the Prime Minister wasn't ousted. But in the Royal Society/teaching-of-evolution culture war community, it reverberated, as I noted above, for months.
I still see the issue the same way I did yesterday when I made an over-hasty revert. I do see your point that the article deals in broad outlines and that Reiss was a minor figure. His resignation, however, made him a much larger figure in its symbolism. Omitting all mention of it smacks, to me, of glossing over what could be perceived as intolerance on the part of the Society. Please see my user page for my editing rationale.
In my opinion, the Society's attitude and action in this case casts them into the unworthy lot of people who don't know what niggardly means.
I've said all this, well, because I wanted to, I guess! :-) To show you and any editor who happens along why I think this is significant. But I don't have the time or energy or will to pursue the issue, so I'm dropping it. In leaving, Tony, thank you for your good will, which I reciprocate. --Yopienso (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that what made Reiss's job untenable was the call for his resignation by two of the more illustrious Fellows, who didn't like having an ordained minister in such a sensitive role. The secular nature of the Society is very important historically; for much of its history it was the only secular body of scientists in Britain, all of the other institutions required their Fellows, with rare exceptions due to Royal patronage, to take holy orders.

However the involvement of Kroto and Roberts, which I do not think was covered in the piece I removed, does tend to sway me in your direction. Most of the Press flubbed this story through ignorance or simple carelessness about the Society's secular ethic. There was a related controversy, in my opinion more telling, over the Society's acceptance of Templeton money. I'll think about this and type something up when I get home. The important thing is to get this into historical, that is to say encyclopedic, context. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to a link and comment from 2/0 about Recentism, I just wrote on my talk page:
Please look at the article if you can find time; Tony seems to have never gotten back to it. I'm thinking something appropriate would be, In keeping with its historic[ally] secular orientation, the Society only reluctantly accepted a priest as Director of Education and gladly received his resignation after comments he made about addressing questions students might ask about creationism were misrepresented in the media. A footnote could link to the story. --Yopienso (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The above section is all groundless speculation and bullshit without some kind of citation. Can you prove that the acceptance of a priest was reluctant, and that the resignation was received "gladly"? Because if you can't, It's not going in. Ironholds (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll be happy to engage with you after you've read everything in this section and looked at the history of the article from Oct. 7-8. --Yopienso (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
What the- looked at the history of the article? I wrote most of the article. Look, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's the rule. That means that if you want to say things like " the Society only reluctantly accepted a priest as Director of Education and gladly received his resignation " you must provide a metric fuckton of reliable sources before it acceptable. The opinions of two individuals, Nature bloggers or not, are not enough. Ironholds (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reading what others have written. Tony's point was that the RS was ground-breaking in being secular, and my point is that the episode with Reiss illustrates the Society wants to keep it that way. I'm hoping Francis (Andeggs) will have some helpful contributions. --Yopienso (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Andeggs; are you there? I believe this article in the Guardian should somehow be incorporated into our WP article. This section of the talk page makes much of the Royal Society's secular orientation, but that is not reflected in the article. The Royal Society itself makes no such overt claim. Is the Society anti-religious, or does Kroto speak solely for himself? Yopienso (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Any influences from earlier empirical societies?

Are there any empirical societies prior to the Royal Society that may have influenced it? For example, the Casa de la Contratacion in Seville?--128.227.104.203 (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

List of female Fellows of the Royal Society

The recently-created List of female Fellows of the Royal Society has been nominated by KTC (talk · contribs) as a featured list at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. There's also a newly-augmented Category:Female Fellows of the Royal Society. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 12:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ascension Parish Burial Ground, Cambridge

There are 24 'FRS' buried in the Parish of the Ascension Burial Ground in Cambridge; is this the largest single collection of FRS graves?

2.30.207.194 (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Masonic?

There needs to be something about the parallels with British & Dutch Freemasonry. The Grand Masters John Theophilus Desaguliers and John Montagu, 2nd Duke of Montagu were Fellows of the Royal Society. There are more names in a masonic biography of Sir Isaac Newton. --Wool Bridge (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting - is there any historical research that you can cite to clarify that? Remember WP:NOR! Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Are all Fellows notable?

I had assumed that all Fellows of the Royal Society of London would pass Wikipedia's notibility criteria, but perhaps not?

Thoughts? --Mais oui! (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And another one:
--Mais oui! (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Rutherford is in the Dictionary of National Biography. I wouldn't argue that absolutely every person in the DNB is notable; but the exceptions are usually rather special cases. The ODNB says of him "controversies with anti-vivisectionists led to a nervous breakdown". There was a certain amount of hushing-up at the time. I see no reason to argue that he is not notable.

Generally speaking, things like FRS or DNB inclusion give a prima facie case for notability here. Some people might come under "famous for just one thing", or "wrote a book and the topic of the article should be the book rather than the person", i.e. biography somewhat narrow. Looking at [15] I see no reason to exclude Sheina Marshall. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, Mais Oui! I've amplified each a bit, and removed the notability tag, since these two seem clearly notable to me. FRS get special extended biographical treatment in Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society. I agree with Charles's remarks. Dsp13 (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • (much later) See WP:PROF, "Criteria" (my bold):

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. ...

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)."

Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure on updates

The multiple edits made on January 29 in this diff updating and correcting the existing text were made by various Royal Society staff members in the course of editing training led by myself as Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society. In most cases the existing links led to web pages with the correct current information. One sentence that was plain wrong, and not supported by the reference was removed. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

How many fellows are there?

The article says 1,450 in one place, and 1,314 in another. Richard75 (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Changed, but if you followed the ref on 1314 you would have seen 1450. It is pointless trying to get an exact figure; there is a death about twice a month, but 50 new Fellows every April, so the total is slowly rising. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

NEW: Photos for Commons of the new Fellows for 2014

I'm delighted to be able to announce that the Royal Society has agreed that the official photo portraits of the new Fellows elected in 2014 / List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 2014 will, as the default, be released on open licences and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. It is intended that this will continue in future years. The photos are taken at the Induction Day in July so will not be on Commons until after that. Please watch the project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Royal Society! There may be some exceptions, where Fellows prefer to use an existing photo which cannot be released on an open licence. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Useful resources

Hi, it would be great if this page had some more information about the more recent activities and history of the Society. Here are some useful resources for anyone who wants to take up the challenge:


There could also be more information about the Society's library and collections. Here's a scanned book which offers a definitive history of the Library:

Thanks Andeggs (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC) (Digital Manager, The Royal Society)

New photos on Commons from the Royal Society Library

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Royal Society a special photo session in the Royal Society Library in London has resulted in Commons:Category:Royal Society Library, with over 50 photos of their treasures, mostly 17th century manuscripts, including several of one of the early minute books, Boyle's notebooks etc, the manuscript fair copy of Newton's Principia etc. Please add these as appropriate. Thanks! Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Accomplishments

Given how many important contributions to science have been made by fellows of the Royal Society, presented at its meetings, disclosed in its journals, etc., it seems like this article should have a sampling. The 18th Century section says the society had "a small number of scientific "greats" compared to other periods", which seems like a teaser as to what the "greats" actually were. -- Beland (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oldest Academy

The oldest Academy is Accademia dei Lincei founded in 1603 http://www.lincei.it/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=21. The wiki page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accademia_dei_Lincei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.245.233.62 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

""The Lincei did not long survive the death in 1630 of Cesi, its founder and patron",[1] and "disappeared in 1651".[2] It was revived in the 1870s to become the national academy of Italy, encompassing both literature and science among its concerns.[3]" - see the article. This is about continuous operation. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The oldest continuously existent is Academia Leopoldina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.245.233.62 (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Covered in note in the article. Formal charter later than RS. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accademia_del_Cimento was founded in 1657
And lasted a decade only! What about Plato's Academy?? Please stop this. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

To capitalize or not to capitalize?

This page should make up its mind whether or not "the Society" is capitalized. It's currently an inconsistent mix with "the society". SpinningSpark 12:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Goat

According to Tony Robinson Down Under, a goat that travelled around the world with Captain Cook was made a "member" of the RS. Does anyone have more details of this incident? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Royal Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Banks

It seems odd that Joseph Banks is only mentioned in connection with the move of the society to Somerset House. He was a considerable figure, not least for his role in the creation of the settlement at Botany Bay and the eventual creation of the country of Australia. In relation to the Royal Society, he was president from 1778 to 1820 (42 years), continually being re-elected, and he died in office - worth some sort of remark, surely? Urselius (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, though at least the later part of his presidency is not seen as a great period, I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Society/Archive_1&oldid=1100451127"