Talk:Astronomy/Archive 1

message: Would anyone be interested helping with a Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Telescopes?  Should a telescopes template include space telescopes?  It/they could be modeled after the following articles:
* Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical Objects
* Hubble Space Telescope
* Spitzer Space Telescope
* Arecibo Radio Telescope
--zandperl 15:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: telescopes

message: :: During part of the 20th century astronomy was considered to be separated into astrometry, celestial mechanics and astrophysics. The current high status of astrophysics can be seen reflected in the naming of University departments and institutions involved in astronomical research: the oldest ones are invariably Astronomy departments and institutes, the newest ones tend to include astrophysics in their names, sometimes excluding the word astronomy, to emphasize the nature of its research. Furthermore, astrophysical research, especially in theoretical astrophysics can be carried out by people whose background is in physics or mathematics rather than astronomy.
:I believe it is true.  At least the part about the traditional three branches being enumerated as astrometry, celestial mechanics and astrophysics, and how astrophysics has more or less come to be synonymous with astronomy in the last few decades.  Is it the wording you want to change?  Curps 22:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: From my experience, the content of that paragraph is true.  In the Western world today, astronomy and astrophysics are mostly synonymous, and students are encouraged to learn theory (astrophysics) as well as observation techniques (astrometry).  Within the modern astronomy/astrophysics community, I have definitely observed a rivalry between those specializing in theory and observation.  However, in less industrialized countries they are sometimes different departments, or different concentrations within one department, with the highest astronomy degree being a Master's (or equivalent), and the highest in astrophyiscs being PhD.  Wording-wise, I think I might say that it was two branches, astrometry==celestial mechanics, and astrophysics.  --zandperl 23:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't think this is true

message: I reported the recent vandalisms, along with IP addresses on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress.  If there was a more appropriate place for me to do so, please let me know or feel free to correct it yourself.  --zandperl 01:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this page and star as well. I'm not sure why. — RJH (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Vandalisms

message: There has been some discussion on Talk:Astrophysics about the fact that there is presently considerable redundancy between the astronomy and astrophysics entries, and several more. Perhaps watchers of this page would be interested in joining the discussion. Rkundalini 07:52, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrophysics and other overlapping entries 

message: Hello astronomists - question: Is there a page on here thats named something like skygazing? Because there's a French article, found at :fr:Observation du ciel (observation of the sky) that in WP:TIE, and before I start translating it, I'd like to know if there's already an article here? Reply here, but could u drop me a note on my talk page, Thanks --Thewayforward 15:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frenchised 

message: A related topic, Astrophysics is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Come and support the nomination or comment on it.--Fenice 07:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: Hello, there is a content dispute at Methodological naturalism that I've filed an article RFC for 
The original question is whether or not the scientific method is a natural method or a supernatural method of scientific investigation. One editor (Markus Schmaus) refuses to allow the scientific method be listed as a natural method unless a link can be provided to support the claim. I assume he is a proponent of Intelligent Design which pushes the view that ID is "scientific" even though it investigates supernatural causes such as how God must have creaeted life on earth. I assume it is this POV that is getting pushed, and Schmaus will not allow the scientific method be listed as an example of MN because then ID would not fit in the scientific method.
In an attempt to resolve the dispute until some sort of consensus was reached, I removed the mention of the Scientific Method as an example of methodolgical naturalism and instead inserted "astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics" are examples of methodological naturalism. Schmaus is now disputing that these are examples of MN and insists on a URL to prove that they are natural methods rather than supernatural methods of scientific investigation.
Since methodological naturalism is a minor article with only a few editors, the dispute has remained unresolved for lack of any sort of consensus. Please weigh in with your comments at the following links: 
Scientific method is natural or supernatural
astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics are natural or supernatural methods
If you have links to support whether it is supernatural or natural, that would be greatly appreciated. FuelWagon 18:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, super-nature refers to phenomena beyond the realm of "nature" (whatever that means) whether they are measurable or not, or measurable in ordinary ways or not.  So this doesn't settle the fights on the scientific method, again see the extensive work at scientific method.  For that matter numbers and geometeric forms have been considered outstanding examples of supernatural entities in some time periods, and the modern scientific method relies rather heavily on them.  This is simply not a slam-dunk quick fight either way. Bmorton3 21:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: supernatural?

message: Make notice of astronomy for beginners. Is it useful? Karol 09:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, for beginners, where is it - I see red? Vsmith 13:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Spelling error, sorry. Karol 17:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomy for beginners for my deep thoughts :-) Vsmith 18:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx, I didn't want to be the nominator. Karol 08:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astronomy for beginners 

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: Would someone please check the accuracy of Green Fireballs.  In particular, it concludes "Green fireballs continue to be reported now and then, but their origins remain a mystery."  According to Watch the Skys, by Curtis Peeples, 27-29, there was a two-day meeting about them in 1949 which concluded that they were a natural phenomenon (a meteor, I presume).  Thak you, Bubba73 (talk), 00:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Fireballs - request for help 

message: I removed some excessive astrology comments and fixed some wording problems along with removing a circular link. User:theodore7 (who claims to be a professional astrologer) then reverted with the edit comment This version is more historically balanced and does not treat astrology as redundant. If you feel I have unbalanced the historical parts, then edit that - don't just revert other errors back in. I feel the previous version included a bit more astrology than needed. Astrology is not a field of study in the science of astronomy as the previous version stated. Vsmith 14:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately Theo has been doing the same thing in several other articles on Wikipedia at this point and he continues to do so even after dozens of reverts.  The astrology article has sustained the most damage at this point, but I know that he has been going around to every other related article on astrology, astronomy and various biographies and commiting the same sort of vandalism.  You guys would be well advised to keep an eye on the astronomy article to make sure that the same sort of "balanced" edits from him don't creep into the article.
I don't "claim" - I am a professional astrologer, astronomer, and teach on the subject. I also do NOT have a problem with ASTROLOGY as some have; and who clearly show their lack of knowledge on the history of astrology and astronomy because it upsets them so much. I also take exception to the "view" that because I do not agree with some rather sharp conventional scientific perspectives on astrology that clearly is POV and tries to steer the reader toward a view of astrology as a pseudo-science. If you MUST have astrology and pseudo-science in the same sentence - come with proof that it is not a science, nor is considered one by those who practice it. You will find that history tells you otherwise. And yes, I am keeping an eye on what is some of the most biased POV on this subject as it relates to astronomy. Obviously, there are some who should re-take a history lesson on this subject - astronomy/astrology before running around crying "vadalism" when they read something that upsets their preconceived sensibilities or point-of-view. Moreover, the term -astrology - seems to be thought as being some silly, outlandish "belief" that ancient astronomers had when the facts show clearly that this is not so. Saying, as you do in the above statement that "astrology is not a field of study" shows that you are not versed in this science to make that statement at all. One more thing: to claim that balanced rewrites, or edits by me are "vandalism" is not true, but clearly an attempt to keep out materials that run counter to your pwn personal POV on this subject. Astrology is one of the world's oldest sciences, and has many links to other sciences, including mathematics, as well to numerous famous astrologers. But, when you look at this subject, and those who clearly practiced astrology, you will find the term ASTROLOGY missing, or placed second to astronomy, as in an after-thought. (Oh, weren't they silly?) Obviously, some modern conventional thinkers continue to avoid the "logy" in "astro" - and I suggest they focus more on why this is so. So, in following the English rule for placing the word that comes earlier in the alphabet - astrologer, or astrology appears first where appropriate, then astronomy. The "l" comes before the "n". Suggest you discover the factual history of astrology/astronomy before running around "correcting" things connected directly to astrology. Balance is not claiming that your POV versions are so because you say astrology is not a science. Define what makes astrology not a science? Try actually telling us here what knowledge you have of astrology so we can then take what you say with some weight, rather than throwing around insults on others you do not know because you personally disagree with astrology being considered a science. The facts do not support this view - despite how upsetting they may be to your POV.Theo 08:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Theo, I've looked over your edits and reverts, but it seems here the problem isn't so much PoV issues regarding astrology, but its relevance to this article. Specifically the second paragraph of the introduction: while it's justifiable to briefly differentiate astrology and modern astronomy, detailed explanations of astrology and astronomy's links to it belong in the sections on astrology and history of astronomy respectively. Also, please edit pages instead of reverting to your preferred version. There are a number of errors and corrections unrelated to the content that are restored or lost.
--A brisson 07:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology & Astronomy: the True History versus Conventional POV 

message: Is the discussion about Clyde Tombaugh's opinions of UFOs accurate?  Bubba73 (talk), 07:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clyde Tombaugh

message: The continued unmarked reverts to a ~two week old version that plainly pushes one users POV are simply vandalism and will be treated as such. This article is about the modern science of astronomy. There exists an article on astrology and it is linked from the astronomy page with an appropriate short comment. There also exists an article on the history of astronomy, plainly linked, therefore extensive details of astronomy history do not belong in the astronomy page. There is also an article astrology and astronomy for comparison of these fields for those who may be confused by the terms. Vsmith 14:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unmarked reverts and vandalism 

message: I'm sorry, but does anyone really know what astrophilosophy might be? Or more objectively: does this really exist as an active or expressive area of research and if so, should we include it as a "discipline"? Leschatz 03:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be included at all. A Google search of the term reveals pathetically few links and none of them seem particularly valuable...they don't even really define what the subject 'is'. As far as I can tell (from the one slightly coherent search result I found), it seems to be the study of the "philosophy of the Universe." Somewhat fishy... It should probably be removed. Any objections? Splat 02:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrophilosophy 

message: There is a proposal up that will affect a few articles under the umbrella of Astronomy that needs input. If you are interested, please see Wikipedia:Locations in fiction, fictional locations, and settings.—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 07:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal