Talk:Sun

Sun v Sol

This is observation not limited to just this article, but there seems be a lot of usage of the term 'Sol' within several articles (eg Stellar_classification#Class_G - I only just added the clarifying edit "(the Sun)" to that article.)

This article doesn't mention the term 'Sol' until very near the end, which is unhelpful to those who aren't aware of the meaning. We should either standardize the usage of 'The Sun' over 'Sol' in the other articles, or else make a reference to 'Sol' in the lead paragraph, so that people (like me) don't get confused. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable on the topic to decide. Manning (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be changed to "Sun" whenever encountered. The proper name of our star, as has been the case through the entire history of the English language, is "Sun". :bloodofox: (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why we should shy away from using the correct terminology in the manner used by experts in the field. To do otherwise is not serving our reader base, it is dumbing down. Sol is a term in wide use and it does have legitimate use to disambiguate our Sun in particular. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC).

We're talking about stars here. If you speak a Romance language, Sol is the correct name of the star at the center of our solar system, but Sol is not and has never been what we've called this star in English. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an English encyclopaedia designed for general readership, not a Latin publication, or a reference designed for specialist usage in one particular field. Only Science Fiction writers consistently use "Sol". Dbfirs 06:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only person here to make the (microcosmic) leap of wisdom that 'every star system has a sun', but only the 'solar system' has Sol? I mean, I'm sure not one for all the book learnin' and stuff (I lie, dual bachelors, two masters and a doctorate, you're all unworthy of my astounding brilliant (really)), but I believe Sol -is- and has up until the last seven to eight hundred years been the most commonly used (and is still, within any academic field) to refer to the sun that lies within our star system. I actually came here originally with the intent to double check before starting a White House petition to enforce the mandatory usage of the term Sol, given that you sound like a 5 year old making daisy chains and drawing with crayons up your nose when you say 'Sun' when every star system has one. 211.30.150.155 (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many suns (small s), but only one Sun (captialized S) which is sometimes called Sol. Likewise, there are many moons, compared to our Moon. --Iantresman (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think perhaps a look would be wise before your "leap of wisdom". Sol was a sun god (or goddess in Norse mythology), or a word for gold, and is a currency unit. The word has several other meanings uncapitalised. In everyday English suns are called stars, and our nearest example is called the Sun by the majority of academics. You cannot change the English language just because you prefer a Latin term. Dbfirs 23:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Observation and effects

This section (or another) should include the fact that, because of his huge radius, photographs of the sun are not simultaneous on all of his points, as intuition should suggest. The center of the sun is 2 seconds light nearer to the camera than the borders, so a photograph shows the borders 2 second older than the center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.14.198 (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this section ought to have the new visible light sunspot image taken by the NST at the Big Bear observatory featured here: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=39004

Center of the Solar System

The article begins by stating that "The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System" — this is not true. The center of the Solar System lies somewhere outside the surface of the star. The Sun is not a fixed object in our star system, it too is affected by the gravity of the planets and it wobbles (orbits) around the center of the Solar System. I've changed the article to say "approximately at the center". -- Diego_pmc ^Talk 18:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've had to revert your change as it does not work in the lead sentence. Such a point would be better suited to the body of the article; in the lead, it will only confuse the average reader. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I still think it's better to try to rephrase that, that sentence is wrong as it is right now. Maybe we should remove any reference to the center of the Solar System in the first phrase? Maybe something like "The Sun is the only star in the Solar System." -- Diego_pmc ^Talk 19:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, we have to look at this from the perspective of the average reader. From what I can find, the barycentre of the Solar System may sometimes be above the Sun's photosphere, but never outside of the corona. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

How about "The Sun is the star at the approximate center of the Solar System." ? It's correct on all points, and it may intrigue the new student of this topic into reading further. Jeh (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Although it wobbles, averaged over time, it is at the center. I agree with Ckatz that, for the opening of the article, saying it is "at the center" is perfectly reasonable in conformance with the straightforward tone of the first paragraph. Similarly, the Observational Data says that light takes 8 minutes 19 seconds to reach the earth although, as pointed out elsewhere, this is also an average, with light from the edge taking longer due to its greater distance from the earth. Henrodon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

neutrino detector locations

In the section on the neutrino problem, the article states "Several neutrino observatories were built in the 1980s to measure the solar neutrino flux as accurately as possible, including the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory at Kamiokande". In fact, Sudbury is in Canada, whereas Kamiokande is in Japan. A better phrasing might be "...including the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in Canada and the Kamiokande observatory in Japan" (but the article is semi-locked, so I can't change it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.177.207 (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I have fixed it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Sol" at end of article ??

I'm absolutely baffled by the placement of the term "Sol" at the very end of the article. I was under the impression it was the technical scientific name for the sun. I thought the first line of the article would be, "The sun, officially known as Sol..." Where did I get this notion if it's so off? Science fiction, perhaps? Even if I got a false notion from science fiction, sci-fi is so prevalent that I figure other people will be looking for the same thing. I had to search for "Sol" and click "next" throughout the whole article to find mention of the term. Perhaps the first line could be, "The sun (derived from the Latin "Sol", a rare term for it)", or something like that? Squish7 (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Rare terms should not be mentioned in the lead, and the English word "sun" is not derived from the Latin "Sol". I'm baffled by your impression that "Sol" is the "official name", though, like you, I'm familiar with the usage. Perhaps we have read too much science fiction? Did Asimov invent the usage? Dbfirs 20:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I raised this issue a few months back (see earlier comment above or in archive) because I found that there were numerous other articles that were presenting 'Sol' as if it were a technical term. The consensus decision was there was no basis for this, and an effort was then made to correct the other articles. Manning (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an anonymous editor had been adding this term as if it was "the technical scientific name for the sun". I can't find any remaining instances. Dbfirs 03:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well then, how about a line that Sol is not the technical word for sun? Could there be precedent that it's a myth somewhere? For instance... "Science fiction frequently refers to 'Sol' as a scientific name for the sun[references; Asimov, etc.], but this is a myth." My annoyance is not being able to find that information on the page. If it's not official, that's fine, but I really think the issue should be mentioned.(?) Squish7 (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Squish on this point. A lot of people (myself once included) are falsely under the impression that "Sol" is a genuine technical term, chiefly due to science fiction, so it would be worth clearing this up. I've been able to find "Official" evidence about the name of the Moon, but nothing unambiguous for the Sun. This page of the IAU makes it clear that the Sun should be capitalised, but doesn't categorically state "the official name is the Sun". Manning (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd put forth that it can be difficult to get the opinion of a real reader into these discussions. I think all this evidence strongly indicates a wider myth that more people than we know want addressed. If editors are randomly going around putting in Sol in multiple articles "as if it were the scientific name", then how many middle/high school kids think the same thing, i.e. who might look up this article specifically to see if the name "Sol" in the sci-fi book they're reading is fact or fiction. I honestly think the issue should be addressed right at the top. A simple parenthetical can be extremely space-efficient when clarifying terminology. I think a very careful parenthetical that gets at the heart of the issue would be warranted. How about this for the first line:

The Sun (often Sol in myth/fiction)...

Squish7 (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I made the change (if this was inappropriate, let me know; I just can't get a handle on the precise procedure for such things; editors often remove my edits yet absolutely refuse to discuss an issue and the points I make). There should be something in the article clearly addressing the issue. I think this is an elite tentative. Using "myth" and "fiction" gives a great blanket summary of the term and its status. A) They both declare "Sol" is not scientific, while explaining the source of the confusion to boot. B) They hint for readers to investigate the matter further. C) They suggests to editors that more heavy addressing may be in line (a section on "use in sci-fi", for instance.) D) It warns that editors not start going around adding "Sol" everywhere. This is the best place to ward off that problem. Squish7 (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The lede is not a place to "ward off problems." The lede is supposed to summarize the most important points of the article and I cannot at all agree with the notion that this is one of the most important points. I would support moving the "terminology" section to immediately follow the lede. Jeh (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. I just reverted this change on that basis. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Folks, this is really all very simple. In English, Moon is the name of our natural satellite, and Sun is the name of our star. All other Germanic languages have cognate terms that, like English, ultimately go back to a Proto-Germanic ancestor, Proto-Germanic itself a descendent of Proto-Indo-European. Sol, the Latin proper name for the star, may be employed by a few modern writers, but this is either out of sheer confusion or preference for the Latin term, which itself is connected to the Germanic terms on the Indo-European level. If Sol is to be mentioned as employed by some writers, then it should probably go in the etymology section. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not just that it's employed, it's that it's a common misconception that's it a technical term. The word "Sol" doesn't even occur in the content index. It's very difficult to even find the word "Sol" on the page, and still, none of it addresses where this confusion comes from (probably sci-fi). Squish7 (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(new indent) - Gotta agree with Squish here. I started this discussion a few months back, because (despite being fairly well educated) I was also under the misapprehension that Sol was a legitimate technical term. I just did a google search and easily found several sources asserting that Sol is the "Official" name of the sun (eg. this one). These obviously aren't WP:RS but they serve to illustrate that the misconception is potentially widespread. Hence a simple section establishing that "Sol" is NOT a legitimate term is definitely warranted here. Manning (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about having the "Terminology" section immediately follow the lede? Note that this is the pattern followed by Moon, and it flows well there. Speaking of which, I imagine a similar number of people believe that "Luna" is somehow the official name for Earth's Moon, and for similar resaons. I don't think WP articles should be written from a standpoint of disabusing false beliefs, but it looks to me as if this change in sequence would address Squish's and Manning's concerns. Come to think of it I think the "history of observations" material could come earlier as well. Also, the lede is too long. Jeh (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above in my agreement to Jeh's earlier comment, I agree that moving the terminology section to follow the lead does no harm, but dwelling on semantics still seems unnecessary for the lead section.

As for being a common misconception, the burden of proof for that assertion is finding a source that explicitly says that it's a common misconception that Sol is the official name of the sun. I disagree that this is a common misconception, but I could be wrong. Finding a few misguided non-reliable sources that say this isn't sufficient. This is the same burden that all entries must meet before inclusion in the article list of common misconceptions. If anyone can find a source for that, it would be a good entry for that article too. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I was also surprised to find that a name and etymology section wasn't front and center as is normally convention. Indeed, this is crucial for the very reasons illustrated here on this talk page; one can't expected to get any further without having a handle on the terminology. I've now bumped the section up and added to it. This should have ward off any further confusion on the matter. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Er, can I add my 'nutty' tuppenceworth? Please? Um, well <ahem> I myself personally reckon that, hmph, and I'm listening to "Zadok the Priest" by old what's his face as I type this, Phew! Right. Yes, I think that the true name of the Sun is most likely SOLomon, or something along those lines. Just to let y'all know, you understand? No particularly verifiable 'evidence' as it were; or 'reliable' sources, as such: just that, well, Sol = Sun = Son. Of God, you know? Oops, didn't think you'd like that! Hmmm, well, it's done. Know what is playing on my iTunes now? Vangelis's "Albedo 0.39" - a very significant and entertaining track, if you ask me. Which you weren't. Thanks anyway, 'twas fun. Ciao. Tempus fugit, etc. Et al. Ad infinitum. La la laa. Halcyonhalogen (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC) PS I should add this link [[1]] and mention the commonly known Christian idea (if it's of any interest) that "it's all in the Blood". Does that make any sense to anybody? It ties in with particle physics I believe. Still, the point was sol/sun/son, so make of it what you will and all the best. Halcyonhalogen (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The new layout absolutely satisfies my concerns with the article - well done. Cheers Manning (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, much better with the terminology section first. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The sun in New Astronomy

See Croatian Wikipedia: http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razgovor:Sunce -- 78.0.187.91 (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The text over there is ref'd from a facebook page. I don't think we can do anything useful with that. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is "New Astronomy"? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a new and exciting form of Astronomy, free of those pointless and irritating restrictions imposed by verifiable evidence and accountability. It has nothing to do with Astrology and New Age Cosmology because... um... the name is different. (PS - just for the record, there actually is a legitimate science journal named "New Astronomy". But that's not what the above refers to. ) Manning (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Pedant point: The Croatian Wikipedia is hr.wikipedia.org. The domain bs.wikipedia.org is the Bosnian one. I don't see any mention of a modern subject of "New Astronomy" there, although I note that "New Astronomy" is the English translation of the title of Kepler's book Astronomia nova. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)