Talk:Galileo Galilei/Archive 7

message: The introduction requests a citation for "father of modern astronomy". One might fuss somewhat about singling out a father of anything; but hey. I think Galileo stands out for his use of the telescope and empirical data to constrain models. Hence a better phrase might be father of modern observational astronomy. I believer Singer has a high level of credibility. This accolade was applied in  (page 217). I cannot edit the article due to protection. The context reads:
With such instruments in his hand Galileo was in a position to  observe with an accuracy and a detail that had previously been quite unknown. He is the effective inventor of the telescope and the father of modern observational astronomy. ...
 -- Duae Quartunciae 16:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woo hoo. I'm an "established editor". I have added the reference, and added the word "observational". -- Duae Quartunciae 00:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Father of Modern Observational Astronomy

message: Someone should explain in the intro why is first name, rather than his last name (Galilei) is famous (used commonly)? --Sadi Carnot 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First name use?

message: ====Automated Review====
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**correctly
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 21:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Auto review

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**correctly
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 21:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated Review

message: I have altered the following statement,
in the preceding version of the article as inaccurate. Geocentrism did not become an "article of faith" until heliocentrism was condemned in 1616. Before Copernicus revived it the Church had no reason to even consider the matter as a doctrinal question. There was very little sign of official opposition to Copernicus's theory by the Church until after De Revolutionibus was published. On the contrary, Copernicus was encouraged to publish by his friend, Bishop Tiedeman Giese, as well as by Nicholas Schönberg, the Archbishop of Capua. After Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter had delivered lectures on Copernicus's theory to Pope Clement VII and an assembly of Cardinals the Pope was sufficiently pleased to reward him with the gift of a book.
It was only after the publication of De Revolutionibus that theological opposition to heliocentrism started to build up.  Even so, there were at least two professional theologians who defended it, and the Church made no official pronouncement on the matter until the decree of the Congregation of the Index in 1616.
David Wilson 08:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geocentrism as an article of faith

message: Above, I mistakenly wrote:
See my talk page for details about the correction.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction