This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Heliocentrism 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 |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 100 days
![]() |
![]() | Heliocentrism was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization: |
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
A passage in the article dealing with Plutarch's supposed assertion that the stoic philosopher Cleanthes thought Aristarchus should have been charged with impiety was recently replaced with an alternative, stating categorically that this is a "common misconception" and that Plutarch's assertion was instead that Aristarchus had (jokingly) suggested that Cleanthes should have been charged with impiety. The two sources cited for this assertion are Lucio Russo's book The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had to Be Reborn, and a scholarly paper, Sulla presunta accusa di empietà ad Aristarco di Samo, by Russo and a scholar of classics, Silvio Medaglia.
There are all sorts of problems with this:
I shall therefore be replacing the text of this edit with something more consistent with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. I do agree, however, that the passage of the article which was replaced by this edit is unsatisfactory, and I have no intention of simply reverting back to it.
The passage of Plutarch's under discussion occurs in his On the Apparent Face in the Orb of the Moon. The earliest records of this work which are known to have survived are two corrupt manuscripts dating to the 14th and 15th centuries. All modern versions of the work are thus, at best, proposed reconstructions from these and later printed editions of the Greek text. This makes Russo's assertion (on p.82 of The Forgotten Revolution) that "Gilles Ménage ... changed a passage in Plutarch" both misleading and, in my opinion, somewhat disingenuous. What Ménage did was propose emendations to the clearly erroneous surviving manuscripts of Plutarch's work. He no more "changed a passage in Plutarch" than Silvio Medaglia did when he proposed alternative emendations with the specific aim of producing a reading of the manuscripts that would be compatible with Russo's views.
The Greek text of the passage under discussion, from the Loeb Classical Library edition of On the apparent face in the orb of the moon, edited and translated by Harold Cherniss, reads as follows:
The highlighted text here indicates emendations of the primary manuscripts, those highlighted in pink being insertions, and those highlighted in pale blue being substitutions. Cherniss gives the following translation into English:
Without the emendations accepted by Cherniss, the English translation would be something like the following:
The emendations rejected by Russo are the first two: the replacement of the manuscripts' nominative form, "Ἀρίσταρχος", of Aristarchus's name with its accusative, "Ἀρίσταρχον", and the replacement of the accusative form, "Κλεάνθη", of Cleanthes's name witn its nominative, "Κλεάνθης". However, these emendations are merely the simplest and most obvious way of modifying the text of the manuscripts to make it no longer falsely label Cleanthes as "Samian", nor appear to misattribute the theory of heliocentrism to him. Also, contrary to Russo's assertion (again on p.82 of The Forgotten Revolution) that this reading of Plutarch's text "originated" with Gilles Ménage, it had in fact already been adopted by Johannes Kepler in his Latin translation, made some time before 1629—around 35 years before the publication of the 1664 edition of Diogenes Laertius's Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers in which Ménage reportedly proposed his emendations to the Greek.
The Greek text proposed by Medaglia as being consistent with Russo's theory is the following (with the same highlighting conventions as above used to indicate emendations of the primary manuscripts):
The first, second and fourth of Medaglia's proposed emendations are those which have replaced the two traditional ones. Medaglia's translation into Italian is the following:
My English translation of Medaglia's Italian is:
David Wilson ( talk · cont) 14:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
In the first phrase, I reverted, for the second time, "Solar System" to "Universe". I detail here, open for the discussion, what I hinted in the two previous changes' comments.
What contemplated Heliocentrism is immediately evident to anyone who looks at the initial image on the page. It contains the Sun, the planets, the zodiac, and the stars' sphere ("sphera stellarum"). The model contains everything, all the known Universe.
The Solar System is a recent concept. The Sun and the planets (what we know today as the “Solar System”) were not a separated entity in the heliocentric models. In Heliocentrism, the Sun was the center of everything (as implied by the name), similarly to Geocentrism, which put the Earth at the center.
The introductory section is a short overview of Heliocentrism's history. Talking about "Universe" and not "Solar System" in the first phrase makes the section consistent. The summary starts with the Heliocentrism's origin as a model of the Universe in ancient astronomy, while the final sentence ("With the observations of William Herschel, Friedrich Bessel, and other astronomers, it was realized that the Sun, while near the barycenter of the Solar System, was not at any center of the Universe") marks the end of Heliocentrism as a model of the Universe. At the same time, the final sentence introduces the Solar System as a new entity with its own identity, separated from the rest of the Universe.
-- Bg69 ( talk) 20:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I put a note to clarify between Universe and Solar system heliocentrism. 207.96.32.81 ( talk) 00:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
This article says that Aristarchus was the first to propose heliocentrism. But at /info/en/?search=Heraclides_Ponticus#Work it says "Simplicius says that Heraclides proposed that the irregular movements of the planets can be explained if the Earth moves while the Sun stays still". Why isn't Heraclides considered to have proposed heliocentrism (he was in the same time and it's hard to know who was first)? George Albert Lee ( talk) 17:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
can anyone explain about the alleged Vedic heliocentrism which was readded in the subsection of ancient India
Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres
and the reference provided isn't reliable as the reference is based on the work Discovery that changed the world by a person named Rodney castleden who isn't even a historian nor a physicist nor his work isn't even an scientific journal.
It was already removed back in 2018 but was been added again??.If the Vedas did talk about heliocentrism then we need to change the entire astronomy article to add this information. Myuoh kaka roi ( talk) 11:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The Aitareya Brahmana (dated to c. 800–500 BC) states that "The sun does never set nor rise. When people think the sun is setting (it is not so)." [1] [2]
The Tamil classical literary work Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai from Sangam period by Nattattaṉār uses "sun surrounded by planets, in the shining, bright sky" as an analogy for food served by a king in golden plates surrounded by sides. [3] [4]
However he also stated the sun has motion.
References
Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres". [1] [2]
References
Information available from Google Books on Rodney Casdeden: a geographer and geomorphologist by training and has been actively involved in research on landscape processes and prehistory for the last twenty years. He has written books such as Inventions that changed the World, discoveries that changed the World, People that changed the World etc. Should scientific matters such as Heliocentrism be used from author of such books as he isn't clearly a subject expert on the matter, also Vedic-heliocetrism relation is a disputed issue and not widely published in any reliable scientific materials(Indians sources regarding the matter is subject to further reliability check as plethora of works produced from India are heavy embellishments of the actual fact). The second source clearly states it is a paper done for the completion of MSc degree by an individual sans peer review. So it is explicit that citation is unreliable അദ്വൈതൻ ( talk) 15:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
contemporary Brahmans believed in a spherical Earth as the center of the universe.
There is now a deletion discussion here 1 going on about the article Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism that may be of interest to readers of this page. അദ്വൈതൻ ( talk) 15:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Heliocentrism 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 |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 100 days
![]() |
![]() | Heliocentrism was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization: |
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
A passage in the article dealing with Plutarch's supposed assertion that the stoic philosopher Cleanthes thought Aristarchus should have been charged with impiety was recently replaced with an alternative, stating categorically that this is a "common misconception" and that Plutarch's assertion was instead that Aristarchus had (jokingly) suggested that Cleanthes should have been charged with impiety. The two sources cited for this assertion are Lucio Russo's book The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had to Be Reborn, and a scholarly paper, Sulla presunta accusa di empietà ad Aristarco di Samo, by Russo and a scholar of classics, Silvio Medaglia.
There are all sorts of problems with this:
I shall therefore be replacing the text of this edit with something more consistent with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. I do agree, however, that the passage of the article which was replaced by this edit is unsatisfactory, and I have no intention of simply reverting back to it.
The passage of Plutarch's under discussion occurs in his On the Apparent Face in the Orb of the Moon. The earliest records of this work which are known to have survived are two corrupt manuscripts dating to the 14th and 15th centuries. All modern versions of the work are thus, at best, proposed reconstructions from these and later printed editions of the Greek text. This makes Russo's assertion (on p.82 of The Forgotten Revolution) that "Gilles Ménage ... changed a passage in Plutarch" both misleading and, in my opinion, somewhat disingenuous. What Ménage did was propose emendations to the clearly erroneous surviving manuscripts of Plutarch's work. He no more "changed a passage in Plutarch" than Silvio Medaglia did when he proposed alternative emendations with the specific aim of producing a reading of the manuscripts that would be compatible with Russo's views.
The Greek text of the passage under discussion, from the Loeb Classical Library edition of On the apparent face in the orb of the moon, edited and translated by Harold Cherniss, reads as follows:
The highlighted text here indicates emendations of the primary manuscripts, those highlighted in pink being insertions, and those highlighted in pale blue being substitutions. Cherniss gives the following translation into English:
Without the emendations accepted by Cherniss, the English translation would be something like the following:
The emendations rejected by Russo are the first two: the replacement of the manuscripts' nominative form, "Ἀρίσταρχος", of Aristarchus's name with its accusative, "Ἀρίσταρχον", and the replacement of the accusative form, "Κλεάνθη", of Cleanthes's name witn its nominative, "Κλεάνθης". However, these emendations are merely the simplest and most obvious way of modifying the text of the manuscripts to make it no longer falsely label Cleanthes as "Samian", nor appear to misattribute the theory of heliocentrism to him. Also, contrary to Russo's assertion (again on p.82 of The Forgotten Revolution) that this reading of Plutarch's text "originated" with Gilles Ménage, it had in fact already been adopted by Johannes Kepler in his Latin translation, made some time before 1629—around 35 years before the publication of the 1664 edition of Diogenes Laertius's Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers in which Ménage reportedly proposed his emendations to the Greek.
The Greek text proposed by Medaglia as being consistent with Russo's theory is the following (with the same highlighting conventions as above used to indicate emendations of the primary manuscripts):
The first, second and fourth of Medaglia's proposed emendations are those which have replaced the two traditional ones. Medaglia's translation into Italian is the following:
My English translation of Medaglia's Italian is:
David Wilson ( talk · cont) 14:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
In the first phrase, I reverted, for the second time, "Solar System" to "Universe". I detail here, open for the discussion, what I hinted in the two previous changes' comments.
What contemplated Heliocentrism is immediately evident to anyone who looks at the initial image on the page. It contains the Sun, the planets, the zodiac, and the stars' sphere ("sphera stellarum"). The model contains everything, all the known Universe.
The Solar System is a recent concept. The Sun and the planets (what we know today as the “Solar System”) were not a separated entity in the heliocentric models. In Heliocentrism, the Sun was the center of everything (as implied by the name), similarly to Geocentrism, which put the Earth at the center.
The introductory section is a short overview of Heliocentrism's history. Talking about "Universe" and not "Solar System" in the first phrase makes the section consistent. The summary starts with the Heliocentrism's origin as a model of the Universe in ancient astronomy, while the final sentence ("With the observations of William Herschel, Friedrich Bessel, and other astronomers, it was realized that the Sun, while near the barycenter of the Solar System, was not at any center of the Universe") marks the end of Heliocentrism as a model of the Universe. At the same time, the final sentence introduces the Solar System as a new entity with its own identity, separated from the rest of the Universe.
-- Bg69 ( talk) 20:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I put a note to clarify between Universe and Solar system heliocentrism. 207.96.32.81 ( talk) 00:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
This article says that Aristarchus was the first to propose heliocentrism. But at /info/en/?search=Heraclides_Ponticus#Work it says "Simplicius says that Heraclides proposed that the irregular movements of the planets can be explained if the Earth moves while the Sun stays still". Why isn't Heraclides considered to have proposed heliocentrism (he was in the same time and it's hard to know who was first)? George Albert Lee ( talk) 17:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
can anyone explain about the alleged Vedic heliocentrism which was readded in the subsection of ancient India
Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres
and the reference provided isn't reliable as the reference is based on the work Discovery that changed the world by a person named Rodney castleden who isn't even a historian nor a physicist nor his work isn't even an scientific journal.
It was already removed back in 2018 but was been added again??.If the Vedas did talk about heliocentrism then we need to change the entire astronomy article to add this information. Myuoh kaka roi ( talk) 11:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The Aitareya Brahmana (dated to c. 800–500 BC) states that "The sun does never set nor rise. When people think the sun is setting (it is not so)." [1] [2]
The Tamil classical literary work Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai from Sangam period by Nattattaṉār uses "sun surrounded by planets, in the shining, bright sky" as an analogy for food served by a king in golden plates surrounded by sides. [3] [4]
However he also stated the sun has motion.
References
Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres". [1] [2]
References
Information available from Google Books on Rodney Casdeden: a geographer and geomorphologist by training and has been actively involved in research on landscape processes and prehistory for the last twenty years. He has written books such as Inventions that changed the World, discoveries that changed the World, People that changed the World etc. Should scientific matters such as Heliocentrism be used from author of such books as he isn't clearly a subject expert on the matter, also Vedic-heliocetrism relation is a disputed issue and not widely published in any reliable scientific materials(Indians sources regarding the matter is subject to further reliability check as plethora of works produced from India are heavy embellishments of the actual fact). The second source clearly states it is a paper done for the completion of MSc degree by an individual sans peer review. So it is explicit that citation is unreliable അദ്വൈതൻ ( talk) 15:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
contemporary Brahmans believed in a spherical Earth as the center of the universe.
There is now a deletion discussion here 1 going on about the article Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism that may be of interest to readers of this page. അദ്വൈതൻ ( talk) 15:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)