	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Copyright Permission to modify and distribute this and other timelines originally developed by Niel Brandt have been granted to wikipedia. See Talk:Timeline of transportation technology

I'm a little uncertain about that 1953 date for Perutz and Kendrew to have solved the structure of hemoglobin. I know Perutz did studies of hemoglobin mercury derivatives in 1953, essential to the method of isomorphous heavy metal replacement in X ray crystallography. But my understanding was that the myoglobin structure was solved in 1957, and the hemoglobin structure in 1959, and that Nature co-published the results in 1960. Is my understanding incorrect? David M

That seems to be right. I'm going to make that change based on an entry in the online Britannica. Eperotao 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to consider deletion of the "Mars metiorite" item, let's discuss it here first. One user apparently deleted it because it didn't have a date. I think it should be deleted if it truely not significant enought for inclusion, but not just because the information is incomplete. If the lack of a date bothers you, try to dig up the information! User:ike9898

I deleted it because all the evidence I've seen indicates this was just a hyped up media event that just does not belong on this excellent page. (I mainly mentioned the missing date because that suggested that even the contributor (who contributed some fine stuff) did not feel this particular item was worth the trouble.) By the way, I agree that users should not lightly "mess around" with other people's work when it is evident that there has been a significant amount of thought or effort put into a contribution, but this was clearly not the case here.

Having now explained more completely why this particular item was deleted, I plan to delete it again, and would ask that if someone thinks there is something sufficiently significant about this to warrant inclusion on this page, that they explain why, either here or in the article. Peak 06:23, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

timeline excludes a lot of biology[edit]

I am author of a college biology textbook and am fairly well shocked at the exclusive focus on molecular and biochemical aspects of biology in this timeline. If you aren't going to include any organismal biology, including evolution, ecology, taxonomy and physiology, I think you need to rename this entry. Otherwise, may I add some entries? Eperotao 20:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't wait for an answer and went ahead and worked on the timeline today. Everything was double checked against reference books. Eperotao 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sources?[edit]

Doesn't wikipedia demand that everything be cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.31.248 (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Baptist van Helmont[edit]

The year of Jan Baptist van Helmont's tree growing experiment is given as "??". It should be given at least as a "circa" date. c. 1630? c. 1640?.--ospalh (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious information[edit]

The following material was added by user Jagged 85, who has gained notority because of his attempts to rewrite history, trying to make medieval islamic scholar seem more modern. Recentrly an RfC was done to try to stop him writing more lies. He agreed to change his attitude. But soon afterwards he got busted for sockpuppetry. As you shall imagine, his action have proved seriously detrimental to the credibility of the enciclopedia, as this two articles show:

Therefore I´ll remove all the material dealing with the islamic scholars and check it. There´s a big chance that half of it is wrong.Thanks--Knight1993 (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency with Diocles of Carystus[edit]

Diocles of Carystus is listed in this article as living c. 100 BC, but in his own article as living in the 4th century BC. Can someone please confirm which is correct? Cheers! bd2412 T 14:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]