Talk:Galileo Galilei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Galileo Galilei is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Galileo Galilei has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 24, 2004.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Scripture with capital S?[edit]

Isn't the use of Scripture with a capital S a little Christian-centric and loaded? Would "Biblical texts" be better? What's standard Wiki usage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talkcontribs) 08:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Squabbling over capital and small letters can go on indefinitely. Shall we spell "Quran" with capitals or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.9.123 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
To answer what standard usage is MOS:CAPS#Religion states "The names of major revered works of scripture like the Bible, the Qur'an, the Talmud, and the Vedas should be capitalized". It doesn't specifically mention "Holy Scripture", but as a synonym for the Bible, I think it should stay capitalized. This is hardly "Christian-centric" in an section referring to Galileo's problems with the church. Arjayay (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. There are a number of issues with that section. I've gone with biblical texts (lower case), but would be happy if anyone wanted to edit it back to "the Bible"; I'd always capitalise Bible/ Qu'ran / Talmud, but not cap The. Using the capitalised Scripture to refer to the generic "scriptures" Religious_text of Christianity suggests that there's something special about the Christian scriptures, and that they alone are synonymous with religious truth. Which is like capping The on The Bible. It's particularly egregious in British English, which this article is written in. AdventurousMe (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Giordano Bruno in Galileo's Timeline[edit]

The timeline of Galileo includes the event of Giordano Bruno being burnt at the stake. Every other event on the timeline relates to important events in Galileo's life, in the lives of his close friends and family, to scientific works published by his known collaborators and rivals, and to scientific works that would eventually have an impact on his work, or which his work would have an impact on. But the only relationship between Galileo and Bruno was that they both supported the Copernican system. There is no evidence that Galileo knew who he was prior to his trial and execution, nor is there any evidence that Galileo gave Bruno much thought after his death, even during his own trial. One could argue that they both were put on trial for supporting the Copernican system, but this is not supported by modern historians; Bruno was put on trial for "denial of the Trinity, denial of the divinity of Christ, denial of virginity of Mary, and denial of Transubstantiation", not for Copernicanism. Copernicanism did play a role in Bruno coming to these beliefs, but that is an extremely tenuous link between the two men. I think the dot point on Bruno should be removed from the article, because it suggests a connection between these two men which did not exist. Max (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor Sing 08:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Endless attempts have been made by Andrew Dickson White and others to prove that Bruno was executed for supposedly scientific Copernicanism. As a result, it is impossible to take the reference to Bruno out of this article, despite the lack of any logical connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.97.203 (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
White even used a complicated fall-back theory. See Andrew Dickson White and his main book. (unsigned)
You may be right, but you still have the problem that people may still some to this article looking for the Galileo-Bruno connection. Roger (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
A Galileo-Bruno connection should not be given if it didn't exist, regardless of whether people come to the page looking for it Max 00:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.233.212 (talk)

Fake source[edit]

A fake source is being used here. It should be deleted. I am suprised that anyone allowed it to appear at all. Unproveable remarks should play no part in Wikipedia or outside it, for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.212.77 (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It is also appearing in the article on the Galileo affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.212.77 (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Please identify the source you're referring to
David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The fake source appeared in the article on the Galileo affair on 8/5/2013 and 19/7/2013. It appeared in the article on Galileo Galilei on 18/2/2014. The source, said to be Black and Blackwell, claims to know the unrecorded opinions of the large number of the "educated". Only opinions actually written down in the 17th century are known to us. Many of these recorded opinions are already quoted in the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.168.153.124 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I presume this comment refers to these edits:[[1]],[[2]][[3]], all of which cite a book by the historian Richard Blackwell. The opinion that the geocentric view was common before the time of Galileo is not controversial, and the citation seems perfectly appropriate. It is certainly a reliable source, not a "fake source". SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The astronomical opinions of those living in Japan in 1,000,000 B.C. were not recorded and can only be guessed at.
Readers of Wikipedia are perfectly capable of guessing this without the advice of a fake source such as Blackwell. All alleged sources referring to unrecorded opinions are not sources at all, reliable or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.65.249 (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Unlike the population of Japan in 1,000,000 B.C., that of educated 17th-century Europe has left us mountains of documents from which we can draw reasonable inductive inferences about its general beliefs, even though the specific beliefs of many of its individual members might remain unknown to us. If a source had to be regarded as "fake" merely because its author drew conclusions based on such inductive inferences, then just about every history book ever written— and, for that matter, just about every scientific treatise ever written—would have to be considered "fake".
David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Another member of the tag team, partly using the fake source, is IP 67.187.10.239. This might be a sock-puppet of Darouet or Thucydides411 or another individual. IP 67.187.10.239 is used by three unrelated people. Only the last is a tag team member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.65.249 (talk) 09:10, April 8, 2014‎ (UTC)

Fake source (2)[edit]

Both these articles have been hijacked by a POV tag team, using self-contradiction, lying, faked sources etc. Something will have to be done about this. Otherwise, the reputation of Wikipedia for accuracy will be ruined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.159.115 (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

See section #Fake source. - DVdm (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
First off, see User talk:Vsmith#Interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.159.115 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
See User_talk:Vsmith/Archive22#Interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.197.201 (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
For further information, see Talk:Galileo_affair#Hijack, Talk:Galileo_affair#Self-contradiction and Talk:Galileo_affair#Tag team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.159.115 (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Heliocentrism Controversy - Move Some Content to Galileo Affair???[edit]

The Heliocentrism section seems really long now. I split some of the paragraphs for readability, but I wonder whether it could be divided by someone who knows the topic into more accessible sub-headings? There's already an independent article on the Galileo Affair, so maybe some of the stuff in this -- the recanted beliefs, the Augustinian thinking section, the details on the Inquisition, the disputed painting etc. -- could go over there, and then this could be a shorter piece with links to the relevant sections in the main article? AdventurousMe (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

In artistic and popular media[edit]

Suggested addition... Galileo's contributions were respectfully remembered by the American television series Star Trek. Decades before a real-world spacecraft bore Galileo's name, the starship Enterprise carried several smaller craft, one of which was named the Galileo 7. It is unclear whether Gene Roddenberry consciously chose to name a satellite vessel after the first discoverer of satellites orbiting another world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.111.14.11 (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)