This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eclipse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 25 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
John0552.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Needs more cultural myths. Leonard G. 00:30, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Two little ones ( 192.115.248.2 07:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)):
````````It is interesting that when we as humans look up into the sky from where we stand within space-time, the moon fully covers the sun, and vice versa, during an eclipse. It's almost as if to show us that these two objects hold the same meaning, or equal meaning, and that they are special because of this relationship they share. However this relationship only exists because of relativity. In actuality, the moon is a tiny spec of dust compared to the sun. And the Earth is a specific distance from the sun, as is the moon. However, from our plane of existence in this universe, relative to where we are and where we stand, we are able to see them as perfect fits, a perfect pair of celestial bodies that govern and drive the forces into what makes us possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.170.117 ( talk) 07:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Really? The Moon would have to be so near its annular/total crossover distance that its shadow cone literally grazes the observer's position within the duration of near-totality. Are there any known occurrences? -- Urhixidur 14:00, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
They're rare, but not dramatically so. Go to the hermit.org eclipse search engine (linked from the article) and search for hybrids. There was one in April 2005; next one is 2013. -- Johantheghost 09:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
In this article, it is stated:
However, in the Lunar phase article, the opposite appears to have been said: "Note that the plane of the Moon's orbit around the Earth is tilted by about 5 degrees with respect to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Therefore, eclipses of the Moon during the full Moon and of the Earth by a new Moon are rare and usually newsworthy."
I believe what is being said is that it's rare to happen during a perfectly full or new moon, but I don't know enough about the subject to tell which is correct--someone who does should make them match up. Chris 01:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Currently, "Total Eclipse" redirects to this page, but its disambiguation page is not provided here (it is distinct from that of "eclipse"). I am not sure of how to fix this. If someone with a bit more know-how could take care of it, that would be nice. -- Fell Collar 04:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article is currently very unbalanced. The rationale for this topic is to describe eclipses in general, but the vast majority of the prose is about the Moon (which is a summary of solar eclipse and lunar eclipse), and there are only six sentences about other more general types of eclipses in our solar system. I presume that more can be said about the other planets; perhaps someone could contribute more information? Mabye it would be a good idea to slim down the Earth-Moon section as a start. Lunokhod 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Quoting a passage from the article
A solar eclipse is actually a misnomer; the phenomenon is more correctly described as an occultation.
I suspect "eclipse" had been in use in normal English long before anyone decided that "occultation" was a great word to be used. If that is the case, which I am sure is, than no amount of redefinition by astronomers would change our use of the word "eclipse". Therefore, to us ordinary folks, an occultation would simply be a type of eclipse.
If "occultation" is an astronomer's term, than calling an eclipse an eclipse is not a misnomer.
Should one day the Society of Engineers tell us that a bridge would be a misnomer and should instead be called a "drain overpass" and bridges are meant for span longer than 100metres? I don't think academic/professional societies has the capacity to willy-nilly change established language.
You may concoct your own deliberated technical terminology but attempting to push them onto established language and declaring normal lay terms which do not agree with deliberated terminology as "misnomer" is foolhardy and quixotic.
Use of established language in contrast with a deliberated technical term is not "misnomer". I wish someone would remove "misnomer" from the sentence or the sentence altogether.
Miamidot 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I saw this page on the "request for feedback" page. Here's a couple of ideas:
Neither the solar eclipse not lunar eclipse articles seem to cover "Cultural impacts" to any great degree. Should they be discussed here?— RJH ( talk) 17:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
this made me really confussled . . . .(confused!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.219.20 ( talk) 12:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
In regards to Phobos, are insignificant transits really eclipses?? Do we call it a partial eclipse even though the shadow of Phobos ( umbra) does not fully cover the Sun from any part of the surface of Mars? Is this that like being partially dead? -- Kheider ( talk) 16:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
1. Looking at your NASA reference I see Solar and Lunar eclipses and then transits by Mercury and Venus. Does the first reference list any planetary alignments as eclipses? Your second reference does weakly call them eclipses.
2. When I first noticed that
by
IP 124.217.12.135 I was tempted to revert it myself. But then I started wondering what is an eclipse? Of course that IP has deleted other images... --
Kheider (
talk) 17:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. It is a grey area. I am inclined to think calling antumbra transits as eclipses is a dumbed down cultural thing. Kheider ( talk) 18:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
In rooting out the "eclipses aren't really eclipses" material, I ended up putting the main argument in Occultation under the section "Occultations, Transits an Eclipses", mainly because there was already a section started. It could just as well go in either of the other two. it would be nice to have it separate, but it doesn't seem worthy of an article of its own. Nonetheless, it's probably worth mentioning the three together, along with Syzygy. -- Dmh ( talk) 07:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I was just thinking there s[h]ould be a section on folklore, superstitions and mythologies based on eclipses. such as beliefs of eclipses being omens or that a giant snake is trying to swallow the sun. Bloodkith ( talk) 14:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The clay tablet, said to be Syrian, was found in modern Syria but was in the Ugaritic language, not Assyrian, Syriac or modern Syrian Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.6.19 ( talk) 13:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
An eclipse of Saturn and Titan on the 1st. of September in 597 B.C. is mentioned. I am not sure that it could have been seen at that time with the unaided eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.254.146.78 ( talk) 12:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
IMO too much weight has been given, at least in assigning "Eclipse" to a topic, to the usage of "eclipse" as embracing its full scientific scope, as opposed to the (IMO presumptively primary) conventional, common-sense, or man-in-the-street sense which may deserve to be either primary topic or one of the "arms" of a so-called "equal" (i.e., no-primary-sense) Dab. To wit, users having a hard time grasping
are ill-served (unnecessarily, i am arguing) by articles that
So far, i'm proposing equal (i.e., no-primary-sense) Dab'n of "Eclipse", with, as its first entries:
(I'm making no distinction -- solely in order to protect this talk page's ToC from chaos -- between bullet-labelled levels of hierarchy and section/subsection levels. E.g., obviously "Astronomy" would be a section on the Dab page, not a bullet point.)
IMO
failing to cover both these topics is too much like claiming our article
relativistic mechanics obviates our covering
classical mechanics.
--
Jerzy•
t 09:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
How far in the future will it be before all eclipses are annular due to the moon being further away from the earth?
How many million years ago (approximately) was it when the first annular eclipse occurred ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nojoking ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eclipse. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Praemonitus, according to WP:Hatnote, it is true that "disambiguation hatnotes are intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title. They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic...." But please note that disamibiguation hatnotes are not the only kind of hatnotes. The one you deleted was not a disambiguation hatnote. WP:Hatnote allows lots of hatnotes that are not for disambiguation. For example, "{{See also|TOPIC PAGE|OTHER TOPIC PAGE}}" where the targeted article is "related to current article". According to the lead of WP:Hatnote, "Hatnotes provide links to the possibly sought article or to a disambiguation page" (emphasis added). So, I will restore the non-disambiguation hatnote. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eclipse. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Satellites and other spacecraft experience earth-sun eclipses. This should be mentioned in the article. A NASA photograph of one is here FYI. Onceinawhile ( talk) 07:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if this is accordance with Wikipedia's policies but maybe a section could be added to the article mentioning or discussing several pieces of software that can be used to calculate eclipses in the future? I'm not personally associated with any eclipse calculation software but I think it would be helpful for readers who like to study eclipses over many many years to be aware of the different options out there. For example, Wolfram Mathematica has a function to calculate the next Solar Eclipse. This could be a small section that is added to the end of the article or to the resources for further use at the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientistBuilder ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Should the sentence
An eclipse is an astronomical event that occurs when an astronomical object or spacecraft is temporarily obscured, by passing into the shadow of another body or by having another body pass between it and the viewer.
not be the sentence.
An eclipse is an astronomical event that occurs when an astronomical object or spacecraft is temporarily obscured, either by passing into the shadow of another body or by another body passing between the object and the viewer. The latter should actually be called a transit .
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad van der Ven ( talk • contribs)
This one is on the US, in October. Can this be used at all? 😺😺😺😺😘🥰 Nuclear Sergeant ( talk) 11:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm surprised that there is no section describing phenomena observed during an eclipse -- besides the occultation of the sun. These include a notable lowering of temperature, the unreal quality of the dimming light (i.e. unlike dusk, objects still retain crisp details), animal behavior, & probably most overlooked are the shadows of light waves on the ground. (When I witnessed an eclipse in 2017, these shadows on the grass beneath me resembled ghostly snakes.) These phenomena have been documented, so reliable sources exist; they just need to be included so this article can be complete. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
In the section "Eclipses in mythology and culture" I had added the fundamental concept that the moon precisely covers the sun - this is why eclipses appear so magical. There is no mention at all of this in the article. Alas a Philistine has removed my valuable contribution, and I am hereby reverting it and request a fair consideration.
The American author Gene Weingarten described the tension between belief and eclipses thus: "I am a devout atheist but can't explain why the moon is exactly the right size, and gets positioned so precisely between the Earth and the sun, that total solar eclipses are perfect. It bothers me." [1]
86.158.22.171 ( talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eclipse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 25 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
John0552.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Needs more cultural myths. Leonard G. 00:30, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Two little ones ( 192.115.248.2 07:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)):
````````It is interesting that when we as humans look up into the sky from where we stand within space-time, the moon fully covers the sun, and vice versa, during an eclipse. It's almost as if to show us that these two objects hold the same meaning, or equal meaning, and that they are special because of this relationship they share. However this relationship only exists because of relativity. In actuality, the moon is a tiny spec of dust compared to the sun. And the Earth is a specific distance from the sun, as is the moon. However, from our plane of existence in this universe, relative to where we are and where we stand, we are able to see them as perfect fits, a perfect pair of celestial bodies that govern and drive the forces into what makes us possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.170.117 ( talk) 07:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Really? The Moon would have to be so near its annular/total crossover distance that its shadow cone literally grazes the observer's position within the duration of near-totality. Are there any known occurrences? -- Urhixidur 14:00, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
They're rare, but not dramatically so. Go to the hermit.org eclipse search engine (linked from the article) and search for hybrids. There was one in April 2005; next one is 2013. -- Johantheghost 09:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
In this article, it is stated:
However, in the Lunar phase article, the opposite appears to have been said: "Note that the plane of the Moon's orbit around the Earth is tilted by about 5 degrees with respect to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Therefore, eclipses of the Moon during the full Moon and of the Earth by a new Moon are rare and usually newsworthy."
I believe what is being said is that it's rare to happen during a perfectly full or new moon, but I don't know enough about the subject to tell which is correct--someone who does should make them match up. Chris 01:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Currently, "Total Eclipse" redirects to this page, but its disambiguation page is not provided here (it is distinct from that of "eclipse"). I am not sure of how to fix this. If someone with a bit more know-how could take care of it, that would be nice. -- Fell Collar 04:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article is currently very unbalanced. The rationale for this topic is to describe eclipses in general, but the vast majority of the prose is about the Moon (which is a summary of solar eclipse and lunar eclipse), and there are only six sentences about other more general types of eclipses in our solar system. I presume that more can be said about the other planets; perhaps someone could contribute more information? Mabye it would be a good idea to slim down the Earth-Moon section as a start. Lunokhod 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Quoting a passage from the article
A solar eclipse is actually a misnomer; the phenomenon is more correctly described as an occultation.
I suspect "eclipse" had been in use in normal English long before anyone decided that "occultation" was a great word to be used. If that is the case, which I am sure is, than no amount of redefinition by astronomers would change our use of the word "eclipse". Therefore, to us ordinary folks, an occultation would simply be a type of eclipse.
If "occultation" is an astronomer's term, than calling an eclipse an eclipse is not a misnomer.
Should one day the Society of Engineers tell us that a bridge would be a misnomer and should instead be called a "drain overpass" and bridges are meant for span longer than 100metres? I don't think academic/professional societies has the capacity to willy-nilly change established language.
You may concoct your own deliberated technical terminology but attempting to push them onto established language and declaring normal lay terms which do not agree with deliberated terminology as "misnomer" is foolhardy and quixotic.
Use of established language in contrast with a deliberated technical term is not "misnomer". I wish someone would remove "misnomer" from the sentence or the sentence altogether.
Miamidot 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I saw this page on the "request for feedback" page. Here's a couple of ideas:
Neither the solar eclipse not lunar eclipse articles seem to cover "Cultural impacts" to any great degree. Should they be discussed here?— RJH ( talk) 17:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
this made me really confussled . . . .(confused!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.219.20 ( talk) 12:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
In regards to Phobos, are insignificant transits really eclipses?? Do we call it a partial eclipse even though the shadow of Phobos ( umbra) does not fully cover the Sun from any part of the surface of Mars? Is this that like being partially dead? -- Kheider ( talk) 16:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
1. Looking at your NASA reference I see Solar and Lunar eclipses and then transits by Mercury and Venus. Does the first reference list any planetary alignments as eclipses? Your second reference does weakly call them eclipses.
2. When I first noticed that
by
IP 124.217.12.135 I was tempted to revert it myself. But then I started wondering what is an eclipse? Of course that IP has deleted other images... --
Kheider (
talk) 17:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. It is a grey area. I am inclined to think calling antumbra transits as eclipses is a dumbed down cultural thing. Kheider ( talk) 18:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
In rooting out the "eclipses aren't really eclipses" material, I ended up putting the main argument in Occultation under the section "Occultations, Transits an Eclipses", mainly because there was already a section started. It could just as well go in either of the other two. it would be nice to have it separate, but it doesn't seem worthy of an article of its own. Nonetheless, it's probably worth mentioning the three together, along with Syzygy. -- Dmh ( talk) 07:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I was just thinking there s[h]ould be a section on folklore, superstitions and mythologies based on eclipses. such as beliefs of eclipses being omens or that a giant snake is trying to swallow the sun. Bloodkith ( talk) 14:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The clay tablet, said to be Syrian, was found in modern Syria but was in the Ugaritic language, not Assyrian, Syriac or modern Syrian Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.6.19 ( talk) 13:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
An eclipse of Saturn and Titan on the 1st. of September in 597 B.C. is mentioned. I am not sure that it could have been seen at that time with the unaided eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.254.146.78 ( talk) 12:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
IMO too much weight has been given, at least in assigning "Eclipse" to a topic, to the usage of "eclipse" as embracing its full scientific scope, as opposed to the (IMO presumptively primary) conventional, common-sense, or man-in-the-street sense which may deserve to be either primary topic or one of the "arms" of a so-called "equal" (i.e., no-primary-sense) Dab. To wit, users having a hard time grasping
are ill-served (unnecessarily, i am arguing) by articles that
So far, i'm proposing equal (i.e., no-primary-sense) Dab'n of "Eclipse", with, as its first entries:
(I'm making no distinction -- solely in order to protect this talk page's ToC from chaos -- between bullet-labelled levels of hierarchy and section/subsection levels. E.g., obviously "Astronomy" would be a section on the Dab page, not a bullet point.)
IMO
failing to cover both these topics is too much like claiming our article
relativistic mechanics obviates our covering
classical mechanics.
--
Jerzy•
t 09:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
How far in the future will it be before all eclipses are annular due to the moon being further away from the earth?
How many million years ago (approximately) was it when the first annular eclipse occurred ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nojoking ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eclipse. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Praemonitus, according to WP:Hatnote, it is true that "disambiguation hatnotes are intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title. They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic...." But please note that disamibiguation hatnotes are not the only kind of hatnotes. The one you deleted was not a disambiguation hatnote. WP:Hatnote allows lots of hatnotes that are not for disambiguation. For example, "{{See also|TOPIC PAGE|OTHER TOPIC PAGE}}" where the targeted article is "related to current article". According to the lead of WP:Hatnote, "Hatnotes provide links to the possibly sought article or to a disambiguation page" (emphasis added). So, I will restore the non-disambiguation hatnote. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eclipse. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Satellites and other spacecraft experience earth-sun eclipses. This should be mentioned in the article. A NASA photograph of one is here FYI. Onceinawhile ( talk) 07:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if this is accordance with Wikipedia's policies but maybe a section could be added to the article mentioning or discussing several pieces of software that can be used to calculate eclipses in the future? I'm not personally associated with any eclipse calculation software but I think it would be helpful for readers who like to study eclipses over many many years to be aware of the different options out there. For example, Wolfram Mathematica has a function to calculate the next Solar Eclipse. This could be a small section that is added to the end of the article or to the resources for further use at the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientistBuilder ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Should the sentence
An eclipse is an astronomical event that occurs when an astronomical object or spacecraft is temporarily obscured, by passing into the shadow of another body or by having another body pass between it and the viewer.
not be the sentence.
An eclipse is an astronomical event that occurs when an astronomical object or spacecraft is temporarily obscured, either by passing into the shadow of another body or by another body passing between the object and the viewer. The latter should actually be called a transit .
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad van der Ven ( talk • contribs)
This one is on the US, in October. Can this be used at all? 😺😺😺😺😘🥰 Nuclear Sergeant ( talk) 11:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm surprised that there is no section describing phenomena observed during an eclipse -- besides the occultation of the sun. These include a notable lowering of temperature, the unreal quality of the dimming light (i.e. unlike dusk, objects still retain crisp details), animal behavior, & probably most overlooked are the shadows of light waves on the ground. (When I witnessed an eclipse in 2017, these shadows on the grass beneath me resembled ghostly snakes.) These phenomena have been documented, so reliable sources exist; they just need to be included so this article can be complete. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
In the section "Eclipses in mythology and culture" I had added the fundamental concept that the moon precisely covers the sun - this is why eclipses appear so magical. There is no mention at all of this in the article. Alas a Philistine has removed my valuable contribution, and I am hereby reverting it and request a fair consideration.
The American author Gene Weingarten described the tension between belief and eclipses thus: "I am a devout atheist but can't explain why the moon is exactly the right size, and gets positioned so precisely between the Earth and the sun, that total solar eclipses are perfect. It bothers me." [1]
86.158.22.171 ( talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
References