Talk:Robert Hooke

Wadham?

The article is a bit confused as it stands. In one place in the Oxford section, it says [with citation] that H secured a chorister's place at CC, but elsewhere in that section we have Wadham was then under the guidance of John Wilkins. So what? The DNB entry for H doesn't even mention Wadham. Delete? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem solved by rewording so that the emphasis is on Wilkins and the Oxford Philosophical Club rather than the College. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Addressing arguments against portrait

The caption for the main image mentions a argument opposing the identification of the portrait of Hooke. However, the specifics of that argument aren’t mentioned. I unfortunately can’t access the article myself, but to anyone who can, could they write about them in the likeness section? Thank you. Leevine65 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Leevine65:, for this and a tonne of other reasons, you really need to sign up the Wikipedia Library, which gives you free access to a vast collection of resources, (notably JSTOR and Oxford Journals, which are heavily cited in Wikipedia (perhaps for this reason). Using the search box, I typed Portrait of Robert Hooke and immediately got access to both Griffing's original conjecture and Whittaker's rebuttal.

As far as inclusion in the article is concerned, we have a problem. Both papers are presented as "Letter to the Editor": they are not peer-reviewed, so we can't really say much more about them than is given in the caption. But do please read the letters and see if you can propose anything based on them. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You will also need to read Comments on Dr Whittaker's letter and the article, which is Griffing's counterargument. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

There is a possible typo under the section "Personality and disputes" , in the second paragraph, last sentence.

The whole paragraph reads as follows, with emphasis on the potential typo:

"On the other hand, as the Royal Society's curator of experiments, Hooke was tasked to demonstrate many ideas sent in to the Society. Some evidence suggests that Hooke subsequently assumed credit for some of these ideas.[citation needed] Yet in this period of immense scientific progress, numerous ideas were developed in multiple places roughly simultaneously. Immensely busy, Hook let many of his own ideas remain undeveloped, although others he patented." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazi109 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)‎

 Done, thank you for spotting it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of citation needed sections

Hi all, I've removed the parts that said "citation needed" since 2020, and tried to move the orphaned parts of that section to somewhere else in the article. Please feel free to revert if you disagree with the changes. Red Fiona (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have cut this text for now.

Reputedly, Hooke was a staunch friend and ally. In his early training at Wadham College, he was among ardent royalists, particularly Christopher Wren. Yet allegedly, Hooke was also proud, and often annoyed by intellectual competitors. Hooke contended that Oldenburg had leaked details of Hooke's watch escapement. Otherwise, Hooke guarded his own ideas and used ciphers. The Royal Society's Hooke papers, rediscovered in 2006, (after disappearing when Newton took over) may open up a modern reassessment. In the 20th century, researchers Robert Gunther and Margaret 'Espinasse revived Hooke's legacy, establishing Hooke among the most influential scientists of his time.

Yet more uncited material about royalism reads as editorialising and it starts with an error (Hooke was not at Wadham, that was Wilkins. It just seems to have been bunged in at the top of the #Personality and disputes section arbitrarily. Maybe a place can be found for the [uncited] material about Oldenburg, the ciphers [also uncited] and the recovery of the Hooke papers at the RS, but it is not obvious right now. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have also deleted Hooke's collaboration with Christopher Wren also included St Paul's Cathedral, whose dome uses a method of construction conceived by Hooke. because, if it refers to drawing a perfect circle for the base, it is directly contradicted by Inwood (p399). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have deleted Hooke also participated in the design of the Pepys Library, which held the manuscripts of the diary of Samuel Pepys, the most frequently cited eyewitness account of the Great Fire of London. as impossible because Pepys and Hooke both died in 1703. I assume that Hyam (1982) is being cited for " the most frequently cited eyewitness account", not the architecture. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I have subsequently found a reference in Inwood (2003), p.236 which says that Hooke made a design (and no more) for a building at Magdalene College which could be the one that subsequently became the Pepys Library. This to me makes it too tenuous and I have not reinstated it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Sully and Derham

Two important citations appear to fail verification, so would someone please check

Henry Sully, writing in Paris in 1737, described the anchor escapement as "an admirable invention of which Dr. Hooke, formerly professor of geometry in Gresham College at London, was the inventor". William Derham also attributes it to Hooke.

as I can't believe they were added to the article in bad faith. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I should make clear that the original text of the citations did not have URLs. These are the results of my searches and may be incorrect. Also, Derham says that Hooke claimed it, he does not say it is true, afaics. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I shall delete these assertions. Inwood writes "the oft-repeated claim that Hooke invented the anchor escapement originated in William Derham's The artificial clock-maker (1696), not with Hooke, and is now regarded as untrue." --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Blunder?

Is this WP:original research

Several commentators have followed Hooke in calling Newton's spiral path mistaken, or even a 'blunder', but there are also the facts: (a) that Hooke left out of account Newton's specific statement that the motion resulted from dropping "a heavy body suspended in the Air" (i.e. a resisting medium), see Newton to Hooke, 28 November 1679, document #236, and compare Hooke's report to the Royal Society on 11 December 1679 where Hooke reported the matter "supposing no resistance", see D Gjertsen, 'Newton Handbook' (1986), at p. 259; and (b) that Hooke's reply of 9 December 1679 to Newton considered the cases of motion both with and without air resistance: The resistance-free path was what Hooke called an 'elliptueid'; but a line in Hooke's diagram showing the path for his case of air resistance was, though elongated, also another inward-spiralling path ending at the Earth's centre: Hooke wrote "where the Medium ... has a power of impeding and destroying its motion the curve in which it would move would be some what like the Line AIKLMNOP &c and ... would terminate in the center C". Hooke's path including air resistance was therefore to this extent like Newton's. The diagrams are also online: see Wilson, p. 241, showing Newton's 1679 diagram with spiral, and extract of his letter; also Wilson, p. 242 showing Hooke's 1679 diagram including two paths, closed curve and spiral. Newton pointed out in his later correspondence over the priority claim that the descent in a spiral "is true in a resisting medium such as our air is".

I can't find any commentators that use the term "blunder"? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I have decided to be bold and just delete it. It reads to me as too close to WP:OR and it is too incidental to the topic in any case – do we really want to take space to relitigate the Hooke-Newton dispute? At best, it is a separate article but more practically it is one for specialist books: it is not encyclopedic, IMO. Anyone care to defend it?--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Micrography Observ. (journal)

I can't find any source for this assertion: His explanation of this phenomenon [capilliary action] was subsequently published in Micrography Observ. issue 6, in which he also explored the nature of "the fluidity of gravity". I can neither find such a journal nor the phrase "the fluidity of gravity" anywhere that is not a copy of this article. The British Library online catalogue doesn't go back before 1885 but maybe someone more familiar with the BL could find something? Anyway, as I don't see that it is essential to the narrative, I have deleted it rather than leave so obvious an invitation for a {{citation needed}} tag. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Gribbin and Gribbin

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

Doctor of Physic

In anyone has access through their University to

• De Milt, Clara (November 1939). "Robert Hooke, Chemist". Journal of Chemical Education. 16 (11): 503–510. Bibcode:1939JChEd..16..503D. doi:10.1021/ed016p503.,

would they clarify which institution awarded him the doctorate, please? (Last sentence of Royal Society section). Was it a medical doctorate? (in the old sense of the word physic). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Further research reveals that it was awarded by Doctors' Commons, a contemporary lawyers association. It has nothing to do with medicine (or Physics). It is mentioned in the ODNB 1885 edition but not in the current edition. It may be an honorary degree? Given the lack of any supporting information, it seems to me to be WP:UNDUE. I propose that we follow Oxford's lead and drop it too. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Gribbin & Gribbin (2017, p 214) say that it was Oxford that awarded the Doctorate on the "advice" of John Tillotson (Archbishop of Canterbury) at an unspecified date between March 1690 and December 1692 [corresponding to a missing volume of Hooke's diary]. From the commendation quoted, it is clearly an honorary degree. I still consider it incidental but it is mentioned in footnote c as an explanation of the "SRS, MD" honorifics. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

GA nomination

I have finished work on a full-scale spring-clean of the article. I have provided citations for the many assertions, deleted some dubious and uncited ones (after searching for evidence) and verified (or not) the citations that were there. I have also cleared out or summarised the tangential material. Some of the rewording is fairly extensive. The big risk is wp:righting great wrongs in the Hooke/Newton dispute so I hope that I have maintained NPOV.

I think that it now GA standard and have added it to the "Physics and astronomy" queue for review. We shall see if it makes the cut. No doubt it could be improved further in the meantime, so please do so.

@JzG and Casliber: you peer reviewed it in April 2013. If you have the time and inclination, your comments on this version would be most welcome. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Very well done! It is nicely coherent and flowing. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Hooke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 17:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Initial comments

There's nothing much wrong with this article, and I shall certainly be promoting it to GA. It is, to my mind, a potential FAC. I first ran across Hooke back in the 1970s in Pepys's diary (21 January 1665): "Before I went to bed I sat up till two o’clock in my chamber reading of Mr. Hooke’s Microscopicall Observations, the most ingenious book that ever I read in my life." I always meant to read more about Hooke, and now, thanks to you, I have. A few minor quibbles:

• "Father John Hooke's two brothers" – might be as well to make it clear that Hooke senior was not called "Father" in the RC manner, but was simply Hooke's father.
• "On his father's death in 1648, Robert inherited £40 from his father" – you could avoid the repetition of "father" with a pronoun the second time.
• Throughout the article the name Hooke is repeated when a pronoun would make for smoother reading, for example:
  • "Hooke secured a place at Christ Church... In 1662, Hooke was awarded a Master of Arts degree."
  • "In 1659, Hooke described some elements of a method of heavier-than-air flight to the Club, but concluded that human muscles were insufficient to the task. Through the Club, Hooke met Seth Ward."
  • "Hooke was also appointed Gresham Professor of Geometry. On 13 September 1667, Hooke became acting Secretary of the Society"
• "Robert Boyle, who the Club sought to attract to Oxford" – whom, please.
• "Biographer Margaret 'Espinasse" – a pity to let the tone of the prose down with a tabloidese false title.
• "He often met Christopher Wren ..." – he crops up a lot in Pepys's diary too. Perhaps worth a mention? Just a thought.
• "a radical departure from the Aristotlian "– spelling?
• "an inverse-square relation with distance from the center" – spelling.
• "at least 5 years beforehand "– it is usual to use words for numbers up to ten.
• "a grid pattern with wide boulevards and arteries, a pattern subsequently used in Haussmann's renovation of Paris, in Liverpool..." – Paris, I grant you, but as a Scouser I have to say that I don't recognise that description of my native city.
• "In 2003, historian Lisa Jardine" – another false title we could do without.
• "amateur history painter Rita Greer" – and again
• References – I can't work out the thinking behind the distribution of book titles/bibliographical information between the References and Sources sections. Most are in the latter, where one would expect to find them, but e.g. the Berry, Sullivan Manuel, More and Andrarde (and others) are bundled into the References section, with incomplete bibliographical details. This is passable for GAN, but will need to be sorted out and made consistent before you go to FAC.

Nothing to frighten the horses there. I shan't bother putting the review formally on hold, unless you would prefer me to do so. Over to you, meanwhile. – Tim riley talk 17:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that is most generous. As for FAC, the threshold is very high nowadays (as it should be) and I'm not sure I have the stamina to drive it. I got (back) to Hooke while working on John Ogilby (the man who mapped London, then Britain and who worked for Hooke on the survey after the Great Fire). I thought I knew about Hooke but came to realise that I had only skimmed the surface. Newton did a very good job of making him an unperson. Anyway:

• "Father John Hooke's two brothers": distracted by the honorific, I let that sentence stand. Now that you question it, I wonder why does it matter? Resolved by deleting it.  Done
• Rewritten as His father died in October 1648, leaving £40 in his will to Robert together with another £10 held in trust from his grandmother. (which need a new citation, fortunately I still have Gribbin & Gribbin). I don't know if the "held in trust" is DUE?  Done
• But but but it was only 283 times, sir! Guilty as charged. I have spring-cleaned but would welcome a re-read in case I have introduced ambiguity somewhere. I thought I was on a roll with using "Robert" until I reached Robert Boyle .  Done unless you spot something (I just found that I had the King doing the survey of the ruins of the City.)

• Hmm. You absolutely must use surnames except where it is necessary to distinguish between, e.g. brothers. Referring to our man as Robert in swathes of the main text is verboten: see MOS:SURNAME. And I wasn't suggesting you replace "Hooke" with a pronoun on quite such a scale. At first mention in any para it is usual to use the name. Tim riley talk 13:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Ok, thank goodness for all the other Roberts as I might have a lot more reversion to do.  Done I have left a couple of instances of "Robert" in the section about his childhood because it seemed very contrived not to do so: if you still think it is problematic then I will change them. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Robert Boyle, whom  Done
• False title  Done
• I did toy with dragging in a Pepy's quote on some pretext, but I couldn't find one.  Not done Where there's a will, there's a way!  Done
• Center/centre.  Done (Interesting that it was spelled in the American fashion at the time but then again the spelling - especially Aubrey's - would make Nigel Molesworth blush.)
• 5 -> five  Done

• "♬ It's not the leaving of Liverpool that grieves me ♬". Believe it or not, that canard has been there since October 2005! It's astounding that it has taken this long for anybody to notice. Deleted.  Done

• Two more false titles  Done
• Yes, FA requires tight consistency in ref style.  Done (and exposed some sloppy old citations that I hadn't noticed, now fixed.)

All  Done! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Anomaly that may need consideration

• @Tim riley: In doing the citation style change, I noticed A bitter dispute between Hooke and Christiaan Huygens on the priority of this invention was to continue for centuries after the death of both; but a note dated 23 June 1670 in the Hooke Folio, describing a demonstration of a balance-controlled watch before the Royal Society, has been held to favour Robert's claim to priority. There was a (not very precise) citation for the note [rectified, see 102 Oldenburg (1670) p 81 but more significantly, there was no citation for "has been held", which has been there since over 15 years ago. By whom? I have changed it to "may be held to favour" but maybe it should just be dropped? It is interesting but can it stand? It wouldn't pass FAC, I suspect. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Probably best to prune it, but for GAN purposes... Tim riley talk 17:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Concluding:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Prose is highly readable and polished

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The article is long, but could not IMO be profitably broken into further smaller sub-articles

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

I enjoyed this very much indeed. On to FAC I hope! Tim riley talk 17:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible DYK hooks

Suggestions welcome! My very threadbare list just has

• No authenticated portrait of Robert Hooke exists. This situation has sometimes been attributed to the heated conflicts between Hooke and Newton, although his biographer Allan Chapman rejects as a myth the claims that Newton or his acolytes had deliberately destroyed his portrait.

Anyone else? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

At another place, Tim riley prompted these two

• In addition to his work as a scientist, Robert Hooke was an architect who designed the Monument to the Great Fire of London so that it could also have a practical value as a scientific instrument.
• In addition to his work as a scientist, Robert Hooke was Surveyor to the City of London and chief assistant architect to Christopher Wren, in which capacities he helped rebuild London after the Great Fire of 1666.

Any more? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

References

A truth that is glimpsed and a truth that is demonstrated

Ball's attribution of this aphorism to Clairaut is questionable as it appears rather more likely to be Mme du Chastelet's own work (since she has carefully credited all the other parts of her book to their respective authors). But until it is challenged by later academic research we must accept it at face value as it would violate Wikipedia policy WP:No original research to assert a different attribution. Consequently, Ball is cited in the concluding sentence of the section on Gravitation.

The full quotation is in section IX of

• Marquise du Chastellet, ed. (1759). "Exposition abregée du systême du monde, et explication des principaux phénomenes astronomiques tirée des Principes de M. Newton" [Abridged explanation of the world system and an explanation of the principal astronomical phenomena drawn from the Principia of Mr Newton]. Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle. Vol. 2. Paris: Desaint et Saillant.

though the introduction (Avertissement) in Volume 1 of Mme du Chastelet's translation merely says that the Exposition is drawn in the main from the works of Clairaut or from the notebooks that he had previously given in the form of lessons to her. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I may have been too hard on Ball: I suspect he had his own doubts because he cites Du Chastelet and Stephen Peter Rigaud to attribute the aphorism to Clairaut. The former does not attribute the remark, it was Rigaud (in Rigaud, Stephen P (1838). Historical Essay on the First Publication of Sir Isaac Newton's Principia. Oxford University Press.) at p. 66. The plot thickens! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in addition to his work as a scientist, Robert Hooke was an architect who designed the Monument to the Great Fire of London so that it could also have a practical value as a scientific instrument? Source: Gorvett, Zaria (11 August 2017). "The secret lab hidden inside a famous monument". BBC.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is a very long-standing article but I have developed it extensively in the past few weeks, copy-editing, verifying sources (and rejecting failures) and fully completing citations

Improved to Good Article status by JMF (talk). Self-nominated at 16:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Robert Hooke; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• GA approval date confirmed. Meets all DYK criteria for both article and hook/ hook fact. Interesting hook and article. Great work!4meter4 (talk) 17:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)