Talk:Copernican Revolution

message: "The “epoch-making work, the De revolutionibus”[2] is not the spider at the center of the web."
What does this mean?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.117.126.98 (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear Text

message: I propose to start with Kuhn's "The Copernican Revolution" 1957
to see what can be added. (MihalOrela (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intext citations 

message: I have added both a (foot)notes section and a references section (MihalOrela (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and Notes 

message: There is already a huge amount of material available on the details of Copernicus' life and work.
I have introduced a different perspective: geography which focuses not on the political divisions
of land masses (Poland, Prussia, or whatever) but on the latitude of the region with respect to the equator
in the northern hemisphere
and what can be seen in the sky at night; and history, not that thing nicely wrapped up in dates after the fact
but the meandering time lines sometimes criss-crossing, often in parallel. Some converge. Some diverge.
(MihalOrela (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't import the ridiculous dispute about Copernicus' nationality onto this page. It is not about Copernicus the person, but about the scientific revolution he initiated. Biographical details of Copernicus, Tycho et al belong on the pages for those people (that's why we have links). PaddyLeahy (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography and History 

message: Does anyone know why the fine animated figure by Cleonis does not work on the article (while it works in Apparent_retrograde_motion.gif)? --GianniG46 (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is working now, after the substitution of "thumb" with "frame", which gives no option for choosing the dimension (it was 400px) --GianniG46 (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animation 

message: In relation to:
:"which postulated the Earth at the center of the galaxy"
There is not concept of "galaxy" in the 16th and 17th Centuries nor earlier. In the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology the Earth is the center of the world.
--Gonzalcg (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Galaxy" is a contemporaneous concept 

message: Added pictures of the Copernican system, Tycho's drawing of the comet he saw, and Kepler's system.
Meganjeanne1 (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: The article says "...Mars and its orbit, the most eccentric of the six known planets at the time".
Actually, with modern figures, the orbit of Mercury has an eccentricity of 0.205630. That of the orbit of Mars is 0.095515.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.199.137 (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The old version has now been corrected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.186.206 (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight mistake 

message: The article says, "In 1596, Kepler published his first book, the Mysterium cosmographicum, which was the first to openly endorse Copernican cosmology by an astronomer since 1540."  Copernicus published his book in 1543.  How could anyone have said anything about it in 1540?  -- ke4roh (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1540 comes from Margaret Osler. Which book it refers to, I don't know. She might have found something earlier than 1543.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.8.170.5 (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1540? 

message: Margaret Osler made feeble excuses for Copernicus's "shortcomings". She implied that Copernicus was entirely dependent on ancient observations. Actually, he made a few of his own, often with severe errors.
:Aristarchus put forward the same theory, without instruments, other than the unaided eye.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.12.55.1 (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osler 

message: We have a request to "globalise" this article; right on. The inline comment asserts we're missing Missing Mu’ayyad al-Din al-’Urdi and Ibn al-Shatir. I've just stripped them back, because all the relevant stuff was added by... can you guess who... oh go on, have a guess... yes! You're right. It was Jagged William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the memories. It seems like yesterday. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

text: added ref in leadScientus (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You'll need much better than that William M. Connolley (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:William M. Connolley, can you explain what exactly is wrong with the reference "V. Roberts and E. S. Kennedy, "The Planetary Theory of Ibn al-Shatir", Isis, 50(1959):232-234" ? It seems to have appeared in a reputable venue. Tkuvho (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I even had a link to JSTOR. How can a source be any better than being inaccessible to the general public?Scientus (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I'm sure the ref is as good as any of User:Jagged 85's were. What's less clear is that it directly supports the assertion that the revolution began "with the publication of Ibn al-Shatir's kitab nihayat al-sul fi tashih al-usul" William M. Connolley (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

text:  User:Scientus, the jstor reference you provided is to a different article, namely "The Planetary Theory of Ibn al-Shatir: Latitudes of the Planets," Author(s): Victor Roberts. Source: Isis, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Summer, 1966), pp. 208-219. This article acknowledges that Ibn al-Shatir's model is "geostatic." Copernicus' model is on the contrary heliocentric. Based in this article by Roberts, the inclusion of your sentence in the lede may be inappropriate. Tkuvho (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalise? 

message: See www.demokritas.org/Aristarchus%20and%20Copernicus-Petrakis.htm Leonidas Petrakis makes the obvious point that this article should be called "The Aristarchan revolution".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.59.207.163 (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Is Petrakis published in a refereed journal? Tkuvho (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Except of course, when Aristarchos proposed it, it didn't cause a revolution. Chris55 (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is difficult to estimate the size and permanency of revolutions. It is a waste of time to use metaphors, anyway.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.2.28.40 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Pythagoras's moving earth lasted until the time of the Michelson Morley experiment in 1887.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.126.220.77 (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petrakis 

message: I called Nova a fraudulent treatise and cited a New York Times article which itself cited a paper published by Harvard.  My edit was undone.  I will undo this undoing soon if I don't get a good explanation as to why I shouldn't.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.168.129 (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kepler's Fraud 

message: The article reads "Aware of the recent criticism of the Ptolemaic model, led by the arguments made by Arabic astronomer Averoes". But Ibn Rušd died in 1198 and Copernicus was born in 1473. By my calculations they lived 275 years apart. How does this qualify as recent? Jayarava (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have improved the article, as suggested.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B37C:2800:A1C4:CCA4:B55F:CCFA (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This may or may not be an "improvement" depending on what Osler (2010) says on  p.42. Does your edit, or does it not, accurately reflect the content of the reference cited?  Did you even bother to check? --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Averroes 

message: Compare:
*Heliocentrism
*Copernican heliocentrism
*Copernican Revolution
I realize the topics are strictly speaking different, or at least only partially overlapping. But if you look at the article, about half of "Copernican heliocentrism" is about Heliocentrism in general, and about half of "Copernican Revolution" is either about Heliocentrism in general, or about Copernican heliocentrism specifically. 
The "Copernican Revolution". 
The little that is actually on-topic in this article can easily become part of Copernican_heliocentrism#Acceptance_of_Copernican_heliocentrism.
Hence the suggestion: 
#merge parts of Copernican heliocentrism not about Copernican heliocentrism (Copernican_heliocentrism#Earlier_theories_with_the_Earth_in_motion, Copernican_heliocentrism#The_Ptolemaic_system) into Heliocentrism
#merge Copernican Revolution into Copernican_heliocentrism#Acceptance_of_Copernican_heliocentrism (could be re-titled to just "Reception" or similar). 
Reason: there is material for two articles here, at present awkwardly spread out over three pages. --dab (𒁳) 05:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds sane. I have a slight preference for merging CH into CR rather than the other way round, on the grounds that CH is a subset of H, if you like, but CR emphasises the R aspect William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I disagree, this article shouldn't be moved. As you said, the two topics are not the same. This article looks quite good on it's own already, and there's still much room for improvement. There's more than enough to say about the topic. Maybe we'll have to think more about how both articles fit together, but a merge would be wrong. Karlpoppery (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: well, "CFORK" does not mean either article isn't "good", or that the topics are identical, but just that the topic overlap is so extensive that large part of both articles are essentially discussing the same thing. I suppose there we could make an effort to separate the article scopes better instead of merging, but first we need to identify the content overlap and cut it down to WP:SS summary style in either direction. I would argue that a merger is the rather more easy task, especially taking into account future buildup of article deterioration and drift introduced by well-meaning editors. On Wikipedia, you don't just try to write good articles, but you try to write them in a way that makes them hard to break by well-intentioned but poorly informed passers-by (because this is what is going to happen in any case). --dab (𒁳) 05:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Agree, but I also prefer to merge CH into H and CR. The majority of information in CH refers to geocentrism or reception of heliocentrism. Every section of CH (including the main point of the article, the theory itself) refers to another main article and only provides a small overview. It perfectly fits the definition of WP:CFORK and I see it as the easiest one to be rid of with the least amount of potential for missing info after merging. CAF RCN MARS (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I want to merge CR into CH because they are both related, and the content overlaps. One (CR) was the result of the other (CH), and an article that covers both related topics would provide a complete picture of the Copernican Revolution. The CH article does a better job at providing a full explanation of CH, before Copernicus, and the CR.Dpvalade (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

text: I want to remove the "Heliocentrism" section and replace it with "Before Copernicus" section to include an "Antiquity" sub-section and "Medieval Islam" or "Islamic Golden Age" sub-section. I also want to add a "Copernican Heliocentrism" section after the "Nicolaus Copernicus" sub-section. Also, include an in "Chinese Astronomy" sub-section in the "Sphere of Fixed Stars" section, and create another sub-category "European Astronomy" in that section.Dpvalade (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:CFORK]]

message: We have an excellent article on Chinese astronomy. Why repeat this here, with a content that is almost completely irrelevant to the topic of this article – the reception of Copernicus' heliocentric model?  --Lambiam 04:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese astronomy 

message: Why is there no section on Indian astronomy? Sooku (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Astronomy