Talk:Timeline of women in science

Good start

TheSavannahRoller has made a good start on this but the article could be considerably expanded by drawing on the timelines listed under See also as well by searching for relevant external links. There are also books on the topic including the searchable "Tietjen, Jill S. (23 September 2016). Engineering Women: Re-visioning Women's Scientific Achievements and Impacts. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-40800-2.". I think we need to start with Antiquity and divide the listing into sections along the lines of Women_in_science.--Ipigott (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletions by an IP editor

I'm not too sure how to deal with the recent deletions by the IP editor 2600:1002:B010:F9EC:A506:E388:70AF:3019. The item on Merit-Ptah was deleted on the grounds that medicine is not a science, and that on Mary the Jewess as alchemy is not a science. Both are mentioned in the article Women in science and in several books on early women scientists. Alchemy is said to be behind the development of chemistry while opinions on medicine (art or science) appear to be divided. Can we find an authority on this?--Ipigott (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC) I see that both medicine and alchemy are mentioned in History of science.--Ipigott (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Understanding the history of modern science requires understanding the precursors to it, and imposing our current-day divisions between subjects onto the past is considered harmful. XOR'easter (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with XOR'easter. Maybe we don't consider alchemy a valid science by today's standards, but it was part of scientific understanding/exploration during its time. Regarding medicine: I think any physician who contributed to the scientific development of medical practices – an active application of biological or chemical knowledge – is worthy of inclusion in a science timeline. It might be worth creating an additional timeline for women in medicine, but I don't think that means we should exclude medicine entirely from this timeline. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless there are further comments here, I think I'll add them again, together with an explanatory note.--Ipigott (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The place of mathematics in science

Since another editor has just removed Gladys West from the timeline, I wanted to pose the question: how do you all feel about the place of mathematics in science? While I wouldn't suggest adding purely mathematical achievements to the timeline (e.g. writing a math book, or receiving a PhD in maths), I'm nonetheless inclined towards the view that mathematics, as a tool, frequently enables important scientific discoveries and contributions. NASA mathematicians like Katherine Johnson enabled the first American space missions. Gladys West's calculations enabled the development of modern GPS systems. I think some mathematicians have a place in the history of science. Thoughts? Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave: I feel that, especially through a historical perspective, it's often difficult to disentangle mathematics from science. Mathematicians, especially those who had a role in enabling scientific progress, belong here. I also think that the current lede makes this clear. ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 14:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Rem "globalize" tag

The article is greatly improved, & I think it's time to remove the tag I added a while back. Any objections? Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! I'm still working on adding scientists from different parts of the world, but I agree it's much improved. Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Doing it. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Linking individual biographies to Timeline

Would it be worth including a link to the Timeline as a "See Also" within the biographical article of each woman scientist listed? I know that would take some work, but I'm thinking it would help users find women scientists more easily and cohesively (plus it might draw more traffic to the Timeline). Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, nobody is objecting, so I think I'll start working on this. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Amelia Griffiths or Amelia Warren Griffiths?

See discussion at Talk:Amelia Griffiths#Amelia Griffiths or Amelia Warren Griffiths? Vivo (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Women in engineering or just STEM generally

I have lots of ideas to "tidy up" the multiple women-in-STEM entries on Wikipedia. But this includes engineering, technology, as well as mathematics and medicine. I see from the notes above about women in mathematics and in medicine that some feel this timeline should be for the "pure" sciences. Is there any way in which we can have combined timeline? What do other editors/wikipedians think? Peepsys (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

What about Barbara McClintock, some say if she lived longer she would have scored another Noble Prize. Her first one was the first (and if I am not mistaken; the only) non-shared Noble Prize awarded to a female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.1.58 (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Where's the social sciences?

No Harriet Martineau? Joan Robinson? Dierde McCloskey? Ruth Benedict?, the article intro even says

> it also includes women from the social sciences (e.g. sociology, psychology)

Wonder if people just forgot AtomicNumberPhi (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)