Talk:Margaret Burbidge

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 16 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sherika2016. Peer reviewers: ChristianSmay.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Please add more to this stub, the two listed bibliographies appear to be good, and the minor planet Burbidge named after her in [1] does match this search result from the IAU: Minor Planet Center at http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/MPDes.html:

(5490) Burbidge = 2019 P-L

Additional identifications = 1983 EP = 1983 GK1

Acknowledgements for the above information due to http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/cbat.html Wikibob 00:07, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

---

I've corrected the prize date from 1985 to 1983, seems I was using websites with wromg info! Note even the AAAS website has her date of birth very wrong, so I'm checking the facts more deeply now.

More references: photo including her husband with Fred Hoyle photo with her husband and Fred Hoyle and Donald Clayton in 1974 photo of her and Donald Clayton in 2002 -Wikibob | Talk 22:53, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

---

I have recently added a fair amount of material to the page, based on several further references (see newly edited page), including her autobiography in the Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, which may be considered authorative. I have especially added information on her role as one of the first women doing professional research in astrophysics. I know from conversations I had with her a few years back that this is very important to her.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoernWilms (talk • contribs) .

68.188.203.251 (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

no mention of expansion/contraction theory of universe

which she and her husband continued to support long after the BB which may itself need viable options.

The previous update looks good. I added some minor updates to expand on Burbidge's contributions, but more is probably needed on her specific research contributions and key publications. Geog Q (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Margaret Burbidge. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110701111652/http://www.lajollalight.com/2011/01/20/new-name-big-plans-for-women%E2%80%99s-history-museum-in-2011/ to http://www.lajollalight.com/2011/01/20/new-name-big-plans-for-women%E2%80%99s-history-museum-in-2011/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050414172039/http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/publications/times/TimesV15n4.htm to http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/publications/times/TimesV15n4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306012620/http://cannon.sfsu.edu/~gmarcy/cswa/history/burbidge.html to http://cannon.sfsu.edu/~gmarcy/cswa/history/burbidge.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margaret Burbidge. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140607005811/http://www.consejoculturalmundial.org/winners-science-margaretburbidge.php to http://www.consejoculturalmundial.org/winners-science-margaretburbidge.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Margaret burbidge.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Claims of credit given for Hoyle's work

An edit war is taking place over insertion of a comment that Burbidge has been given undue credit for work actually done by Fred Hoyle. This comment was reverted by two editors because it was unsourced. Per Wikipedia policy, sourcing is the sole respsonsibility of the editor who wishes to include that information. (See WP:FINDSOURCESFORME.) Please use a reliable source to support that statement before adding it back. What constitutes a "reliable source"? Here is a good place to start: WP:SOURCES.

Please also note that there is no "ownership" of articles, even one that an editor creates. Any editor has the right to make changes at any time provide that those changes conform with Wikipedia policy. Blue Riband► 00:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If the article already contains unsourced information, then additional citations will help improve the article. Blue Riband► 13:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the Sky & Telescope biography cited by 92.21.65.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At one point it does read, "...In 1946 and 1954, Hoyle published the first-ever papers in which he theorized how stars might forge hydrogen and helium into the heavier elements found throughout the universe, a concept now known as stellar nucleosynthesis..." Though the term "stellar nucleosynthesis" wasn't used until publication of the 1957 B²FH paper, I'm not seeing where it says Hoyle's work is unfairly credited to Burbidge. A photo caption reads, "...One of her most significant achievements was formulating our understanding of nucleosynthesis in stars...". Are you saying that's the false credit? Hoyle was a co-author of B²FH. If anything she formulated, in 108 page detail, his theory.

Using an if/then hypothesis as in "it says she formulated 'our understanding of nucleosyntheses'.." therefore "that's giving Burbidge credit for Hoyle's work" then that analysis is Original Research. Original research is any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

When the source cited doesn't support the statement, then there are three things that can be done:

1) the including editor can find and cite a different reliable source that supports the content,

2) the statement can be re-written to match the cited source, or

3) it can be tagged that if fails verification and needs a different source.Blue Riband► 15:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello again 92.21.65.50. You are new to wikipedia and have been in back and forth reversions with myself, and another editor, Modest Genius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is a lot to learn but the main Wikipedia issue here is WP:Verifiability. Any editor, from newest ISP user to a veteran administratior, must provide a reliable source to verify any content that they wish to add to an article. That burden rests solely on the editor who wants to include the content. You have wanted to add a statement that says, in essence, Burbidge is given credit for work that rightfully belongs to Hoyle. To summarize, your edits were reverted because:

• Your earlier additions were not sourced.
• You then cited the Sky & Telescope article as the source, which I tagged as "Failed verification" as it didn't specifically say that she got undue credit.
• You removed the "Failed verification" tag with a summary that stated,"...These statements claim that she "taught us" and "formulat[ed]" - or 'created' - stellar nucleosynthesis. Verified!"
• That however is "original research" as outlined above earlier.

In this case an editor who wants to say the "Burbidge is often given credit for Hoyle's work" would have to use a source that says just that. We cannot use an original reaserch if/then analysis of "..These statements claim that she "taught us" and "formulat[ed]" - or 'created'" therefore "she's being given credit for Hoyle's work!" Verification is especially important when we include something negative about a subject. Just because she's dead and didn't personally claim credit for Hoyle's work it certainly will be seen as diminishing her contributions. If you really believe that Burbidge is "often given credit for Hoyle's work" you will need to find a source that says that. Generally speaking, if a statement is so obvious and so well known it should not be too difficult to find a supporting source.

There is a learning tutorial you can try out at WP:ADVENTURE that covers many of the basics for newcomers. Blue Riband► 18:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion, back-and-forth discussion, before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here, however with an IP editor a filing at RPP is often more productive. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@TransporterMan- OK, this appears to be a case of WP:DISCFAIL so I will have to follow that procedure. That's unfortunate because a disparaging comment with questionable sourcing gets to stay in the article until this gets resolved. Blue Riband► 00:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@92.21.65.50: I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— Blue Riband► 12:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC).

Apologies for my slow reply - I'm on WP:Wikibreak. The S&T source does not support the statement that "she is often falsely credited as creator". This article doesn't say she was the creator of stellar nucleosynthesis either, only that "she was one of the founders" and mentions her collaboration with Hoyle. The biography of Burbidge is not the appropriate place to argue whether Hoyle's contributions are unfairly overlooked, that can be discussed at stellar nucleosynthesis or Fred Hoyle. I'm going to revert to the last stable version. Because @92.21.65.50: has refused to engage in this discussion and are continuing to WP:edit war, I'm also going to request semi-protection. Modest Genius ^talk 15:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization of "president"

@Modest Genius: No, in WP we do not capitalize "president of the Dry Gulch Bridge Club", or any association, society, committee, etc. It would make Wikipedia look ridiculous. Try searching on Google for site:washingtonpost.com "President of the American Astronomical Society" and you will see that they don't capitalize it. When I read MOS:JOBTITLES, and it talks about sometimes capitalizing "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope", I think by "president" they mean "an elected official serving as both chief of state and chief political executive in a republic having a presidential government" (Merriam-Webster), not the head of a society. I will change it back to lower case. Chris the speller ^yack 04:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)