Talk:List of scientific priority disputes

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Purpose[edit]

This is a work in progress based on the discussions at [1]. It is intended to build a framework on which to create individual articles on the individual priority disputes, as well as a framework for an article "scientific priority disputes". JianLi 18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT IS A PRIORITY DISPUTE?[edit]

Please tell. --The Transhumanist 11:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technology & inventions[edit]

I'm not sure about breaking out technology (radio, TV, telephone, light bulb) to a separate list – there are too many borderline cases. MRI, for instance, is clearly technology but got a Nobel Prize, so it's science. Only the title of the article may be somewhat misleading right now. Rl 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATM[edit]

I'm not sure whether I should add the ATM, so I leave it here: Luther George Simjian, John Shepherd-Barron, Donald Wetzel - an ATM isn't really science, it's more "just an invention". --Tilman 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is IT?[edit]

What about tesla VS edison? What about the guy that said that HIV was NOT the cause of aids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlickWillyLovesSex (talk • contribs) 06:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright?[edit]

"Nevertheless, the calculus dispute between Leibniz and Newton only calmed down when the copyright protection of controversial invented calculus methods had expired." What does this sentence mean? Is it implying that differential calculus was, for a time, under a copyright?! And what is the nonsense about incomes from calculus textbooks?! 122.57.100.151 (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. The whole section didn't make sense. I removed it. Rl (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Descartes and Snell[edit]

I think that they discovered refraction of light independently. In France they call it "La loi de Descartes" but in american schools I noticed they call it "Snell's law", but I am not an expert on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.124.198 (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cite[edit]

This article needs citations, and it currently doesn't have any.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Bond dispute?[edit]

I couldn't find evidence of any "dispute" on the discovery of chemical bonds. I found evidence that (some) of the men mentioned collaborated together on forming theories behind chemical bonds, but they did not work independently of each other. There was no citation to back this up. I removed it and instead added the periodic table, as that has that actual evidence of a priority dispute. Please educate me if I was mistaken. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]