Talk:Astronomy

message: There is an article at AfD that may interest you. Please comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertinventor (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion - Article for deletion on Modern Mars habitability 

message: There seem to be sources that take me to an organization's website, but not necessarily any information pertaining to the main topic of the page itself. 
     example:  http://www.sydneyobservatory.com.au/[permanent dead link] Official Web Site of the Sydney Observatory
It would also be beneficial, I think, to include as much of the earliest instruments that were used in astronomy by early astronomers like Copernicus, Aristotle, etc. 
Overall, the article is relatively neutral and does explain the basic idea of astronomy.  107.77.199.213 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with sources and overall eval 

message: The article, as it is, offers absolutely zero space to any of the astronomical progress in medieval Europe on the basis that it was "stagnant", in other words, implying there was none. But this is an old view and modern historians are certainly aware of progress in astronomy in Europe during the Middle Ages, if not major. The page fails to name a number of medieval European astronomers who made contributions to the study of astronomy, including William of Hirsau, Georg von Peuerbach, or even Richard of Wallingford who, among many things, invented the first astronomical clock.64.231.43.14 (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that you removed: "During the Middle Ages, astronomy was mostly stagnant in medieval Europe, at least until the 13th century" does really contradict what you added - all these astronomers lived in the 13-th century or later. So, I reinstated it. Ruslik_Zero 20:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stagnant in medieval Europe? Not really 

message: Someone () asked if this article was ready for a FAR. That inspired me to look at the article, which I had not looked at before. I'd like to discuss one sentence:
The first obvious question is why would someone include a statement that someone measured the distance to a star. This happens all the time, so mentioning this example would be encyclopedic if it were notable in some way - the first, or especially significant for some reason.
I looked at 61 Cygni and it does state:
That makes it worthy of mention, but that article doesn't have a source. (There are cites at the end of the paragraph, but they support other facts.)
The Astronomy article does have a source: Forbes, 1909, pp. 147–50
However, that source states:
So while the 61 Cygni has a date of 1838, that date is not supported in that article, and the source in the astronomy article gives a range, not a specific year. I won't be surprised if 1838 is the right date, but a proper source is needed.
The 61 Cygni article claims it was the first distance estimate (other than the sun), which justifies the inclusion of the statement, but again, that article is unsourced. The source in the astronomy article says:
That means Bessel wasn't the first, although he was one of the first. Henderson's calculation in 1832–33 predate Bessel's. Perhaps there's a reason to mention Bessel while not mentioning Henderson, but we need some rationale.
The Wikipedia article on Henderson is Thomas Henderson (astronomer). It states that he was:
That article suggests he did the calculations before Bessel, but did not publish until after Bessel, (in 1839) which may be why some credit Bessel as the first.
 
This source: A letter from Professor Bessel to Sir J. Herschel may help nail down the date, but 1838 is clearly the date of the letter. The source talks about his work in 1834, and 1837, but just when he starts talking about the final steps, the excerpt ends, so we need someone with access to the full article to see whether he completed the task in 1837, or 1838, or whether convention suggests that the discovery date is the date of publication.
It might be that Bessel deserves the credit for first publication, but, even if so, the sentence in this article refers to the "first star to have its stellar parallax measured" which isn't literally true.
I don't doubt that there is a relatively easy fix, but I do suggest that the current statement may be literally wrong, and if not wrong, is not supported by the citations provided, plus needs some motivation for inclusion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance to a star 

message: — Assignment last updated by Sugar Tian (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B