User:David J Wilson/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Template:seemore


Michael Sharratt, Galileo: Decisive Innovator, Chapter 6, pp.107–131 "the condemnation of Copernicanism"

Ernan McMullan, Introduction to The Church and Galileo, p.4 "the condemned Copernican view" and The Church's ban on Copernicanism, 1616 p.150 "condemned opinions" p.151 "harder line" & "resolved" in 1633 p.153 "condemned Copernican claims"

Irving A. Kelter, The Refusal to Accomodate in The Church and Galileo, pp.44, 47 "... the condemnation of 1616"

Richard Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible, p.126 "Did Galileo agree to abandon Copernicanism in light of the Church's condemnation ...", p.131 "the condemnation of heliocentrism in 1616"

Maurice Finocchiaro The Galileo Affair pp.38, 329 implies that the Inquisition considered the doctrine "the sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the centre of the world, and that one may hold as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture." to be heretical.

Annibale Fantoli, The Disputed Injunction and its Role in Galileo's Trial in The Church and Galileo p.138, attributes the view that the heliocentric theory had been previously condemned to the Inquisition. Not entirely clear that he himself has adopted that view pp.140,141 Copernican opinion now erroneous in faith

Francesco Beretta, The Documents of Galileo's Trial in The Church and Galileo. p.203 not "condemnation" but attribution to the Holy See. p.204 "condemnation of heliocentrism" Galileo, Urban VIII, and the Prosecution of Natural Philosophers p. 243 "Proscription of Heliocentrism in 1616" pp. 252, 253 states that Galileo's sentence "insists that heliocentrism" had been declared contrary to Scripture by the Holy See in 1616"" and then refers to the declaration as "this condemnation".

Other formulas involving Euler's function[edit]

\;\varphi\left(n^m\right) = n^{m-1}\varphi(n)\text{ for }m\ge 1
\sum_{d \mid n} \frac{\mu^2(d)}{\varphi(d)} = \frac{n}{\varphi(n)}
\sum_{1\le k\le n \atop (k,n)=1}\!\!k = \frac{1}{2}n\varphi(n)\text{ for }n>1
\sum_{k=1}^n\varphi(k) = \frac{1}{2}\left(1+ \sum_{k=1}^n \mu(k)\left\lfloor\frac{n}{k}\right\rfloor^2\right)
\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{\varphi(k)}{k} = \sum_{k=1}^n\frac{\mu(k)}{k}\left\lfloor\frac{n}{k}\right\rfloor
\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{k}{\varphi(k)} = \mathcal{O}(n)
\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{1}{\varphi(k)} = \mathcal{O}(\log(n))
\sum_{1\le k\le n \atop (k,m)=1} 1 = n \frac {\varphi(m)}{m} + 
\mathcal{O} \left ( 2^{\omega(m)} \right ),

where m > 1 is a positive integer and ω(m) designates the number of distinct prime factors of m. (This formula counts the number of naturals less than or equal to n and relatively prime to m, additional material is listed among the external links.)


Links[edit]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]


[22]


Rfc at Talk:Celestial spheres[edit]

The mathematics of measurement: a critical history John J. Roche, p.42 Pierre Varignon first to introduce definition of velocity p.101

Greek Science in Antiquity, Marshall Clagett p.67

Euclid's Elements, Book 5, translated by Thomas Heath, p.114

Introduction to Aristotle Physics, translated by Robin Waterfield p.xlii

David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[23] ---- Challenge to some material

[24] --- First (?) challenge to inertia 19:38, June 13, 2008 Steve McCluskey

Discussion June 14 Deor agrees with McCluskey that the material is irrelevant. Logicus disputes this but provides no argument

[25] --- Second (?) challenge 15:06, June 20, 2008 Deor impetus dynamics, not inertia

[26] Deor 16:37, June 27, 2008 impetus dynamics rm as unsourced

[27] Deor 18:33, July 3, 2008 impetus dynamics

[28] Graymornings 04:28, May 4, 2009 Dynamics of Celestial Spheres article as Synthesis

[29] Steve McCluskey 22:02, August 20, 2009

[30] Steve McCluskey 16:30, September 11, 2009

[31] IP 74.98.43.217 22:12, October 1, 2009 (edit) (undo)

[32] Deor 04:24, November 1, 2009 inertia

[33] McCluskey 15:00, November 1, 2009 inertia

[34] Logicus removes sourced material because it is "ludicrous" (in his opinion) and "requires a quotation"

[35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

[41] Aquinas translation 1

"But several difficulties arise against this reasoning of Aristotle. The first is that it does not seem to follow that if motion takes place in the void that it has no ratio to motion in the full. For every motion has its definite velocity from the ratio of the motive energy to the mobile, even if no obstacle exists. And this is evident both from an example and from reason. From an example, indeed, in the heavenly bodies, whose motion encounters no obstacle and yet they have a definite velocity depending on the amount of time. From reason also: for, since it is possible to point out a “before” and “after” in the magnitude through which the motion takes place, so also one can take a “before” and “after” in the motion from which it follows that motion is in a determined time. But it is true that this velocity can be diminished on account of an obstacle. Yet it is not necessary therefore to make the ratio of motion to motion in respect of velocity be as the ratio of obstacle to obstacle, so as to make the motion occur in no time, if there be no obstacle; rather, the ratio of one slowing up to another slowing up must correspond to the ratio of obstacle to obstacle."

[42]

"Sed contra hanc rationem Aristotelis insurgunt plures difficultates. Quarum quidem prima est, quod non videtur sequi, si fiat motus per vacuum, quod non habeat proportionem in velocitate ad motum qui fit per plenum. Quilibet enim motus habet determinatam velocitatem ex proportione potentiae motoris ad mobile, etiam si nullum sit impedimentum. Et hoc patet per exemplum et per rationem. Per exemplum quidem in corporibus caelestibus, quorum motus a nullo impeditur; et tamen eorum est determinata velocitas, secundum determinatum tempus. Per rationem autem, quia ex hoc ipso quod in magnitudine, per quam transit motus, est accipere prius et posterius, contingit etiam accipere prius et posterius in motu; ex quo sequitur motum esse in determinato tempore. Sed verum est quod huic velocitati potest aliquid subtrahi ex aliquo impediente. Non igitur oportet quod proportio motus ad motum in velocitate, sit sicut proportio impedimenti ad impedimentum, ita quod si non sit aliquod impedimentum, quod motus fiat in non tempore: sed oportet quod secundum proportionem impedimenti ad impedimentum, sit proportio retardationis ad retardationem. Unde posito quod motus sit per vacuum, sequitur quod nulla retardatio accidat supra velocitatem naturalem; et non sequitur quod motus qui est per vacuum, non habeat proportionem ad motum qui fit per plenum."

[43] "But any motion has a determined speed because of the proportion of the power of the mover to the moved, even if there is no impediment.

[44] Duhem as in Ariew


[45] James Evans
[46] Neugebauer
[47] David North

Number of Spheres[edit]

[48] Aristotle on teleology, Monte Ransome Johnson. " ... there is a plurality of heavenly unmoved movers, fifty-five or fifty-six".
[49] Science and technology in world history: an introduction, James Edward McClellan, Harold Dorn. " ... increased their number to fifty-five or fifty-six"
[50] Aristotle: the growth and structure of his thought, Geoffrey Ernest Richard Lloyd. fifty-six, including the sphere of fixed stars.
[51] The Beginnings of Western Science, David C. Lindberg fifty-six, including the sphere of fixed stars

[52] Cosmos: an Illustrated History of Astronomy and Cosmology, John David North fifty-five. unclear if this includes fixed stars. gives explanation of 47 vs 49
[53] The Foundations of Modern science in the Middle Ages, Edward Grant fifty-five "unmoved movers"

[54] Theories of the World from Antiquity to the Copernican Revolution, Michael Crowe 56

[55] Hugh Tancred-Lawson's commentary on his translation of Aristotle's Metaphysics. 55 "movers"
[56] Greek Science in Antiquity, Marshall Clagett. 55
[57] History of the Planetary Systems, J.L.E. Dreyer. 55, Not entirely clear that this included the sphere of fixed stars


Yes, those were precisely the passages from Dreyer that I had in mind when I added

p.160 Hipparchus, who in this [theory of the moon] as well as in other departments of astronomy advanced science more than any other ancient astronomer before him had done.

p.89 The systems of Hipparchus and Ptolemy eventually superseded it [the Eudoxan-Kalippan systm], and the beautiful system of Eudoxus was well-nigh forgotten.
p.99 If we now ask how far this theory could be made to agree with the actually observed motions in the sky we must first of all remember that we possess no knowledge as to whether Eudoxus had made observations to ascertain the extent of the retrograde motions, or whether he was merely aware of the fact that such motions existed, without having access to any numerical data concerning them.
p.101 The theory of Eudoxus fails therefore completely in the case of Mars.
p.102 And a much worse fault is, that Venus ought to take the same length of time to pass from the east end of the hippopede to the west end and vice versa, which is not in accordance with facts, since Venus in reality takes 440 days to move from the greatest western to the greatest eastern elonga- tion, and only about 143 days to go from the eastern to the western elongation, a fact which is very easily ascertained. The theory is equally unsatisfactory as to latitude, for the hippopede intersects the ecliptic in four points, at the two extremities and at the double point; consequently Venus ought four times during every synodic period to pass the ecliptic, which is far from being the case.
p.104 He [Kalippus] considered the theories of Jupiter and Saturn to be sufficiently correct and left them untouched, which shows that he had not perceived the elliptic inequality in the motion of either planet, though it can reach the value of five or six degrees.
p.192 But in the astronomy there was absolutely nothing done after Hipparchus until Ptolemy undertook to complete his work and to present to posterity the first complete treatise embracing the entire range of astronomical science.
p.196 The man who was capable of advancing the lunar theory so much was naturally not disposed to leave the theories of the five other planets in the unsatisfactory state in which he found them.
p.200 That the system as a whole deserves our admiration as a ready means of constructing tables of the movements of the sun, moon, and planets cannot be denied. Nearly in every detail (except the variation of distance of the moon) it represented geometrically these movements almost as closely as the simple instruments then in use enabled observers to follow them, and is a lasting monumnent to the great mathematical minds by whom it was gradually developed.

More links[edit]

[58] --- addition of phases of Venus promoting heliocentrism.

[59] "enlightenment-positivist"

[60] "positivist-enlightenment"

[61]

  • " ... thus speed must be infinite given Aristotle's mathematical law of natural motion that average speed v @ W/R, which becomes v @ W/0 in the case of free-fall, whereby v is infinite."
  • "Hence for all other things to be equal, the two bodies must therefore be of the same shape and size. Hence they can only differ in weight by virtue of being of different density or specific weight. This entails Aristotle is saying the speed of gravitational fall of bodies in a resistant medium increases with their specific weight or density."
  • "... he [Aristotle] maintained it is proportional to specific weight or density ... as does modern physics in such as Stoke's Law for terminal speed of gravitational fall in a fluid medium."

Al-Battani[edit]

edit responsible for initial addition
edit responsible for supplying direct quote from Zaimeche similar edit
similar lesss objectionable edit
edit on anticipation of gravity
modification of previous modification ditto by another editor

A cursory review of Muslim Observatories, p.2, by Salah Zaimeche
"His improved tables of the sun and the moon comprise[sic] his discovery that the direction of the sun's eccentric as recorded by Ptolemy was changing2. This, in modern astronomy, means the earth moving in varying ellipse[sic]. He also worked on the timing of the new moons, the length of the solar and sidereal year, the prediction of eclipses and the phenomenon of parallax, carrying us 'to the verge of relativity and the space age,' Wickens asserts3."
Astronomical Observatories in the Classical Islamic Culture, by the "FSTC Research Team". Web (html) copy of above.
A short history of scientific ideas to 1900"
A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century, p.135, by Charles Singer
"His improved tables of the sun and the moon contained his great discovery that the direction of the sun's excentric (p.83), as recorded by Ptolemy, was changing. Expressed in terms of modern astronomical conceptions, this is to say that the earth is moving in a varying ellipse (p.310)."

History of the Planetary Systems from Thales to Kepler, p.251, by J.L.E. Dreyer
The Middle East as a world centre of science and medicine, pp.117–18 in Introduction to Islamic civilisation, edited by R. M. Savory and Roger Savory, pp.111–19.

"Baţţānī worked on such matters as the timing of new moons, the length of the solar and sidereal year, the prediction of eclipses and the phenomenon of parallax. The latter is of fundamental concern for astronomers; it also brings us to the verge of relativity and the space-age[sic]."

Muhammad ibn Jābir al-Harrānī al-Battānī (Albatenius) (853-929) produced "improved tables of the orbits of the sun and the moon" that "comprise his discovery that the direction of the sun's eccentric as recorded by Ptolemy was changing," which in modern astronomy is equivalent to the Earth moving in an elliptical orbit around the Sun.[1] His times for the new moon, lengths for the solar year and sidereal year, prediction of eclipses, and work on the phenomenon of parallax, carried astronomers "to the verge of relativity and the space age."[2]

From The Making of Humanity by Robert Briffault, pp.190-191:

"Although the Ptolemaic system was repeatedly criticised by Moorish astronomers, although Al-Zarkyal[sic] declared the planetary orbits to be ellipses and not circles, although the orbit of Mercury is in [191] Al-Farâni's tables actually represented to be elliptical, although Muhammâd Ibn Mûsa glimpsed in his works on Astral Motion and The Force of Attraction the law of universal gravitation, those adumbrations of the truth were not fruitful of any great reform."

From ISLAM and The Origins of Modern Science by Khwaja Abdul Waheed, p.27:

"For instance, Sacrobosco (John of Hollywood) had drawn the material for his book (De Sphere[sic] Mundi) from al-Battani (Albategnius of Europe), but the thing was ascribed to Ptolemy. According to the Historians' History it was from Ibn al-Haitham's Twilight that the illustrious Kepler took his ideas of atmospheric refraction: "and it may be that Newton himself owes to the Arabs rather than to the apple in his archarat[sic] at Woolsthorpe, the first apperception of the system of the universe, for Mohammed Ben Musa seems, when writing his book on the movement of the celestial bodies and on the Force of Attraction, to have had an inkling of the great law of general harmony".

From The Historians' History of the World, Vol VIII, p.279:

"It was from Albategnius, more than from Ptolemy, that Sacrobosco (John of Hollywood) had drawn the materials for his book De Sphera Mundi; ... It was from Alhazen's Twilight that the illustrious Kepler took his ideas of atmospheric refraction; and it may be that Newton himself owes to the Arabs, rather than to the apple in his orchard at Woolsthorpe, the first apperception of the system of the universe; for Muhammed bin Musa (quoted in the Bibliot. arab. Philosophorum) seems, when writing his books on The Movement of the Celestial Bodies and on The Force of Attraction, to have had an inkling of the great law of general harmony."

add jas to Heliocentrism
add astron to jas
added phys and chem to jas
addition of islamic res centre
addition of minister
mod of Musa claim in science in medieval islam
Laplace in ibn Yunus
clarify r in iY
"fix" in iY
Laplace to astrometry
request clarify in astrometry
Laplace in Astronomy in medieval Islam
request for clarification in A in m I
"fixes" title in A in m I
i Y in a in E
clarify request in egyptian astronomy
"fix" in A in E
Mémoire sur les inégalités séculaires des planètes et des satellites
Théorie de Jupiter et de Saturne (in 2 parts)
Un mémoire sur l'inclinaison de l'écliptique
mod bop in Islamic cos
add bop in Islamic cos
bop in bop
mod bop in bop
bop in A in I
mod bop in A in I
bop in H

View by certifying editor David Wilson[edit]

I was initially reluctant to certify this dispute because until quite recently I had only had two brief exchanges with Jagged_85, neither of which had developed into any sort of dispute at the time. Nevertheless, my first exchange, concerning the edits described here and here, left me concerned about what appeared to me to be a very cavalier attitude towards the choice of unacceptable sources—which he admitted to not even having consulted.

Use of Infobox book[edit]

Animal_Farm Gives both city (London) and country (UK) in infobox. Gives a different country ("England" in the article proper). Publisher mentioned in article. 16
A_Clockwork_Orange All of publisher, city and Country of publication given in the article itself. 11
The Plague None of the publisher, city or country of publication is given in the article itself. In the infobox the country was mistakenly given as France (Algeria), until I corrected it (it was first published in Paris). 11
A Fire Upon the Deep City: no, Country: no, Publisher: no 16
All_Quiet_on_the_Western_Front no, no, no. 13
A Wizard of Earthsea no no no. 15
Blade_Runner_3:_Replicant_Night no no no. 15
Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Human no no no.15
The_World_Factbook no yes yes. 7
Crash_(1973_novel) no no no. 14
Children of Dune no no no.16
Candide yes no yes.11
Chapterhouse:_Dune no no no.17
Carmilla no no no. 6
The Cider House Rules no no no.15
Dracula no no yes.10
Don Quixote yes no yes.7
Dune Messiah no no no.16
Darwin's Dangerous Idea no no no.12
The_Time_in_Between no no no.11
Encyclopaedia Brittanica yes yes yes.12
Erewhon no no no. 5
Enchiridion of Epictetus no no no. 8
The Trial no no no (but city of publication put in Infobox). 12
The Metamorphosis no no no (but city of publication put in Infobox).9
Free to Choose no no no. 14
Fahrenheit 451 no no yes. 14
Flambards no no no. 14
Gaudy Night no no no. 13
God Emperor of Dune no no no. 15
Elements of Bibliography, pp.17-18, by Louis Nicholas Feipel of the Bibliographical Society of America.

"The unit of bibliographical compilation is the description of a single copy of a book. The unit is known as a book entry. In its most meagre form it consists of a transcript of the essential parts of the title page.
The essential parts of the title page are: the title proper (i.e. the name of the book) author, and imprint (place of publication, publisher and date)."

From Elements of Bibliography by Robert B. Harmon, p.100)

"The imprint (i.e., place of publication, publisher, and date of publication or copyright) should be given in full."

The Assayer
De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium
Two New Sciences

  • "We do not completely change infoboxes ... "
Since noone is proposing to "completely change" the infobox, I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of this comment.
  • "Again, please show how City is actually relevant ... "
As it currently stands, the proposal is not to add a parameter labelled "City", but one whose label can be chosen by the user but will default to "Location" (or "Place" in the current draft in my sandbox) if the user doesn't specify a label. Thus, if your objection (as it appears to be) is to the specific addition of a parameter labelled "City", it is no longer valid. Nevertheless, since the main purpose of adding the parameter is to give editors the option of entering the town or city of publication as a labelled item, and to encourage them to make use of it, . As I have already pointed out, has already been pointed out several times above, but to emphasize the it I shall expand a little on those previous contributions and supply some reliable sources as support.

chrysostom & Athanasius[edit]

[62] [63] [64] [65]

addition of van der Waerden to Aryabhata[edit]

[66]

"sockpuppet" refutations[edit]

11:23, 2 April 2009 Snow funn at tall on simple Requests for checkusership
11:56, April 2, 2009 me on enwiki article Ten string guitar;
11:56, April 2, 2009; Snow funn at tall on simple Requests for checkusership
13:15, 2 April 2009 Snow funn at tall on simple Requests for checkusership;
14:49, April 2, 2009 me on enwiki article Gravitation talk page.


08:19, April 18, 2009 me on enwiki languate help desk ;
08:46, 13 April 2009 Little Miss Ogynist creating article Slut on simplewiki;
08:52, April 18, 2009 me on enwiki article Galileo affair;
08:53, 18 April 2009 Little Miss Ogynist on his/her simplewiki talk page;
09:16, April 18, 2009 me enwiki Language reference desk

GregorianNexus
Created enwiki account on May 1, made 10 edits on en and es wiki between May 1 and May 6.
His simple wiki account was created automatically on May 3 and he never made any edits there.

Database Project Editcount Registration date Flags Blocked SUL status
(c)
wikiquote 0 2009041803145603:14, 18 April 2009 No autocreated
(c)
commons 47 2008100615190215:19, 06 October 2008 No merged by user
(c)
wikipedia 0 2009042509392609:39, 25 April 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikisource 0 2009042415351115:35, 24 April 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wiktionary 0 2009042509431809:43, 25 April 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikibooks 0 2009032511104511:10, 25 March 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikinews 0 2009040915381515:38, 09 April 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikipedia 2335 2006092013362813:36, 20 September 2006 No home wiki
(c)
wikiquote 0 2009040915381515:38, 09 April 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikisource 64 2007042120355720:35, 21 April 2007 No merged by user
(c)
wikiversity 0 2009040915381515:38, 09 April 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wiktionary 0 2009040915381515:38, 09 April 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikipedia 0 2010021702300802:30, 17 February 2010 No autocreated
(c)
wikipedia 0 2009050408323208:32, 04 May 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikipedia 1 2009031412582712:58, 14 March 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikisource 11 2007071213484213:48, 12 July 2007 No merged by user
(c)
wiktionary 0 2009082914120614:12, 29 August 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikipedia 0 2009031418103818:10, 14 March 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikimedia 0 2009040211361411:36, 02 April 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikipedia 0 2010042900261900:26, 29 April 2010 No autocreated
(c)
wikipedia 0 2010021912552412:55, 19 February 2010 No autocreated
(c)
wikiquote 0 2009052011405211:40, 20 May 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikisource 0 2009060803280503:28, 08 June 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikipedia 0 2009080912173312:17, 09 August 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikisource 0 2009042415364515:36, 24 April 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikipedia 0 2009050112100312:10, 01 May 2009 Yes (on 16:59, 18 July 2009 till infinity by Majorly; Reason: sockpuppet of Snow funn at tall) autocreated
(c)
wikiquote 0 2010052103122503:12, 21 May 2010 No autocreated
(c)
wikispecies 0 2009040915381515:38, 09 April 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikipedia 0 2010051515264115:26, 15 May 2010 No autocreated
(c)
wikipedia 0 2009070123263223:26, 01 July 2009 No autocreated
(c)
wikisource 0 2009042415343615:34, 24 April 2009 No autocreated
(c)
mediawiki 0 2009031912504112:50, 19 March 2009 No autocreated

Home wiki: enwiki_p

Total editcount: 2481

Edits by 203.194.34 & 203.194.35[edit]

203.194.34.1 3 edits on en
203.194.34.3 1 edit on en
203.194.34.7 7 edits on en in 2 obviously separate blocks
203.194.34.17 1 edit on en
203.194.34.19 1 edit on en
203.194.34.27 1 edit on en
203.194.34.32 2 edits on en
203.194.34.43 1 edit on en
203.194.34.44 2 edits on en
203.194.34.49 3 edits on en

203.194.34.52 1 edit on en
203.194.34.56 1 edit on en (me)
203.194.34.69 3 edits on en in 2 obviously separate blocks
203.194.34.76 1 edit on en (might have been me)
203.194.34.83 2 edits on en
203.194.34.90 1 edit on en
203.194.34.93 2 edits on en at 2 widely separated times
203.194.34.104 1 edit on en
203.194.34.113 1 edit on en
203.194.34.115 2 edits on en (me)

203.194.34.116 2 edits on en
203.194.34.123 1 edits on en
203.194.34.129 1 edit on en (me)
203.194.34.131 3 edits on en
203.194.34.133 1 edit on en
203.194.34.138 1 edit on en
203.194.34.139 2 edits on commons (me)
203.194.34.142 2 edits on en
203.194.34.157 1 edit on en
203.194.34.158 1 edit on en

203.194.34.160 1 edit on en
203.194.34.164 2 edits on en
203.194.34.166 2 edits on en (me)
203.194.34.173 1 edit on en
203.194.34.192 2 edits on en at widely separated times, and 1 edit on fr at another
203.194.34.196 1 edit on en
203.194.34.198 2 edits on en at widely separated times
203.194.34.199 2 edits on en, 1 mine, at widely separated times
203.194.34.206 3 edits on en in 2 obviously separate blocks
203.194.34.208 1 edit on en

203.194.34.213 5 edits on en
203.194.34.215 1 edit on en
203.194.34.217 1 edit on en
203.194.34.222 2 edits on en
203.194.34.224 2 edits on en (me)
203.194.34.227 1 edit on en
203.194.34.228 1 edit on en
203.194.34.239 2 edits on en, 1 mine, at widely separated times
203.194.34.241 1 edit on en
203.194.34.244 1 edit on it (me)

203.194.34.246 1 edit on en
203.194.34.252 1 edit on en
203.194.35.3 7 edits on en
203.194.35. 2 edits on en
203.194.35.6 3 edits on en
203.194.35.8 1 edit on en
203.194.35.29 1 edit on en
203.194.35.34 1 edit on en (me)
203.194.35.35 1 edit on en
203.194.35.40 2 edits on en (me)

203.194.35.45 1 edit on en
203.194.35.50 1 edit on meta
203.194.35.53 1 edit on en
203.194.35.64 4 edits on en
203.194.35.68 1 edit on en wikisource (me)
203.194.35.70 1 edit on en
203.194.35.78 2 edits on en (me, before I had an account)
203.194.35.81 1 edit on en (me)
203.194.35.82 1 edit on en
203.194.35.83 2 edits on en on widely separated dates

203.194.35.86 3 edits on en (me, on purpose)
203.194.35.98 1 edit on en
203.194.35.99 2 edits on en
203.194.35.104 1 edit on en
203.194.35.110 1 edit on en
203.194.35.120 3 edits on en
203.194.35.127 1 edit on en
203.194.35.140 2 edits on en on 2 widely separated dates
203.194.35.141 1 edit on en (me)
203.194.35.144 1 edit on en

203.194.35.148 4 edits on en
203.194.35.155 16 edits on en
203.194.35.156 1 edits on zh
203.194.35.164 2 edits on en
203.194.35.180 1 edit on en
203.194.35.188 1 edit to en Wiktionary
203.194.35.193 5 edits to en
203.194.35.201 2 edit on en, nearly a year apart
203.194.35.211 3 edits on en
203.194.35.215 1 edit on en (me)

203.194.35.225 1 edit on en
203.194.35.231 2 edits on en, 1 mine, nearly a year apart
203.194.35.232 4 edits on en
203.194.35.238 1 edit on en
203.194.35.247 1 edit on en
203.194.35.249 1 edit on en
203.194.35.253 1 edit on en

97 IPs used.

Subsequent edits in gaps
203.194.34.35 1 edit on en (me)
203.194.34.66 1 edit on en (me)
gaps finished tom 34.69

SPI J85[edit]

12 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by David J Wilson [edit]

Editor Jagged 85 was recently the subject of an RfC/U in which he accepted that he had been editing in an unacceptable manner at Wikipedia for several years, systematically misrepresenting sources to exaggerate the achievements of non-western scholars in general, and Muslim scholars in particular, in a huge number of articles.

In contrast to his previous intense editing activity on Wikipedia, as soon as the RfC/U was opened he almost entirely stopped editing via his account, saying, on his talk page, that "I'm in the middle of an RFC now, so I don't think it's a good idea for me to be editing articles right now". But within five hours of the RfC/U being opened, he began to edit from 93.97.55.135 and, among other things, began restoring some of those of his additions to Wikipedia that had been removed by other editors. Jagged 85 has now accepted that this is his IP and that (at least some of) these edits were his.

On June 11th Amalthea blocked the IP address as an apparently abusive sock puppet of Jagged 85 (see discussions here and here). Within 3 hours of this block—and contrary to an agreement he made at the conclusion of the RfC/U not to contribute to such topics—Jagged 85 made this edit to the Din-i-Ilahi article after not having made any edits for over a month.

Then on the very next day after having his IP blocked, he apparently begins to edit the Forced Conversion page (again) but this time from an open proxy, 193.164.132.6, subsequently blocked by Zzuuzz as a proxy (hidemyipaddress.org). Jagged 85 appears to have also accepted that these edits were again his.

Details of behavioural evidence

  • The information added in this sequence of 3 edits made by Jagged 85 to the article Forced Conversion, just before the RfC/U was opened, were reverted 3 days later by another editor as an allegedly "blatant misrepresentation of facts and distortion of sources". A day later they were restored from 93.97.55.135 with no edit summary or any prior discussion on the article's talk page.
  • Information added by Jagged 85 to the Rashidun Caliphate article with this sequence of 2 edits on February 25th and subsequently removed by other editors with this edit on March 15th and this edit on April 11th was re-inserted on May 11th from 93.97.55.135, again with no edit summary or discussion on the article's talk page.
  • Shortly after 93.97.55.135 was blocked, a new IP, 193.164.132.6, appeared and made edits very similar to the ones made by Jagged 85 on Forced conversion. A few days later the IP restored an old edit that had been made by Jagged 85 at History of calculus. The IP was subsequently blocked as a proxy by User:zzuuzz. Shortly after this edit, Jagged 85 alluded to the possible use of "proxy servers, which can easily be detected and banned."
  • Various versions of a piece of information were successively added by Jagged 85 to the article Reciprocating engine and removed and modified by other editors as inaccurate or improperly supported in the following sequence of edits:
    • initially inserted by Jagged 85 on June 11 2007;
    • removed by another editor later the same day;
    • re-inserted in slightly revised form, and with citation to a source, by Jagged 85 on June 22,2007;
    • modified by a third editor later the same day;
    • replaced with a different piece of information—characterised as more up-to-date—by a fourth editor on June 28th 2009;
    • reverted back into the article on May 3rd 2010 and re-reverted back out of it on May 6th 2010 by a fifth and sixth editor;
    • finally, on the same day, May 6th, an edit from 93.97.55.135 re-inserted a revised version of the information which is nevertheless still disputed by at least one other editor as a misrepresentation of the cited source (see below).

These edits exhibit features particularly characteristic of Jagged 85's modus operandi, as described by other editors during the recent RfC/U. When the accuracy of an item of information has been disputed and removed by other editors, the objections are circumvented by re-inserting a modified version, which turns out to be still unsupported by reliable sources, or even by re-inserting the same version after some delay, nearly always without prior discussion on the talk pages of the articles concerned.

Abusive nature of edits (on the assumption of sock-puppetry)

If Jagged 85 is responsible for the above-cited edits from 93.97.55.135 he would have not only—in the second and third cases at least—been surreptitiously making contributions to Wikipedia on topics relating to Islamic civilisation (Rashidun Caliphate) and on the history of science (Reciprocating engine#History), contrary to his agreement at the conclusion of the RfC/U not to do so, but also, in all three cases, he would have been re-inserting information that had been, and still is, disputed as inaccurate by other editors. These edits would therefore clearly constitute abuse of an alternative account. That he apparently then resorted to a proxy to continue his editing is a further sign of abuse.

Possibility of other users editing from the IP

Jagged  85 has said that "I'm not the only one editing from this IP" and there is some indication, particularly from this sequence of edits from the IP address, and this sequence of edits by Jagged 85 to a distinct range of articles over the same two-hour period, that someone other than Jagged 85 himself may have been editing from that IP address. Alternatively, Jagged 85 may have deliberately logged out to avoid the edits to "dubious" articles being recorded on his account.

Jagged 85 has also expressed a strong desire to avoid checkuser for privacy reasons. This fear seems to be misplaced, especially if he has edited only from the given IPs and account to which he has seemingly admitted, but this may need to be taken into consideration by any administrator involved in this.

Reason for requesting checkuser evidence

Since there appear to be some reasonable indications that someone other than Jagged 85 may have been editing from 93.97.55.135 (see above), it's possible that the suspiciously Jagged-like edits from that address might not have been made by him, but by someone else who holds similar views on a range of common interests. In my opinion, therefore, the WP:DUCK test cannot be regarded as decisive.

Another editor has advised me to request that the checkuser also search for sleeper accounts that Jagged 85 might have established, and other IP addresses that he might have been using to edit anonymously, especially as he now appears to have been editing via a proxy.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Reciprocating machines

I am the editor who originally introduced the material on reciprocating engines in Roman times. This material has also been introduced by me in a number of other articles such as Hierapolis sawmill, crank (mechanism), crankshaft and connecting rod where it has been unchallenged by other editors save Jagged 85 to this day. The last edit by 93.97.55.135, continues Jagged 85's pattern of inserting claims that are not supported by the cited source and violates the agreement to avoid such edits. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing profile

There is a striking similarity between the editing profile of IP 93.97.55.135 and that of Jagged 85. We need to find whether this similarity indicates a single editor. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Proxies

I haven't been involved in this discussion, but stumbled across the 193.164.132.6 IP while following up on an unrelated issue at Forced conversion. If this IP really is Jagged 85, it is most troubling that he's resorting to using sock IPs, including an apparent proxy. This is especially so in light of his comments about only using the one IP. We need to determine what the extent of this is.--Cúchullain t/c 12:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Checkuser    Requested by David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)



Further Hacked SPI J85[edit]

12 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by David J Wilson [edit]

Editor Jagged 85 was recently the subject of an RfC/U in which he accepted that he had been editing in an unacceptable manner at Wikipedia for several years. Other editors had characterised this as a systematic misrepresentation of sources to exaggerate the achievements of non-western scholars in general, and Muslim scholars in particular, in a huge number of articles.

As soon as the RfC/U was opened Jagged 85 almost entirely stopped editing via his account, saying, on his talk page, that "I'm in the middle of an RFC now, so I don't think it's a good idea for me to be editing articles right now". But within five hours of the RfC/U being opened, he began to edit from the IP address 93.97.55.135 and, among other things, began restoring some of his contributions to Wikipedia that had been removed by other editors. Jagged 85 has now admitted that this is his IP address and that many of these edits were his, including at least one which violated an agreement that he had undertaken to abide by at the conclusion of his RFC/U.

On June 11th Amalthea blocked the IP address as an apparently abusive sock puppet of Jagged 85 (see discussions here and here). Then on the very next day after having his IP blocked, he apparently began to edit the Forced Conversion page (again) but this time from an open proxy, 193.164.132.6, subsequently blocked by Zzuuzz as a proxy (hidemyipaddress.org). Jagged 85 appears to have also admitted that these edits were again his.

Abusive nature of edits

The following edits from the IP addresses 93.97.55.135 and 193.164.132.6 were made after the conclusion of Jagged 85's RFC/U:

Whichever of these Jagged 85 was responsible for (he has only explicitly admitted to the first, but has not so far denied making any of the others) constitute surreptitious contributions to Wikipedia on topics relating to Islamic civilisation (Rashidun Caliphate and Forced conversion) and to the history of science (Reciprocating engine#Historyand History of calculus) and which are therefore contrary to his agreement at the conclusion of his RfC/U on April 27th not to edit such articles. In all four cases, the re-inserted information had been disputed as inaccurate and removed by other editors. Therefore any of those edits which Jagged 85 was responsible for clearly constitute an abuse of the anonymity provided by the IP addresses. Resorting to the proxy 193.164.132.6 to continue editing anonymously after his own IP address was blocked is a further sign of abuse.

Reason for requesting checkuser evidence

Five days after another editor asked Jagged 85 on his talk page whether he was responsible for edits from the IP address 93.97.55.135, and 4 days after I began preparing a case for a sock-puppet investigation, Jagged 85 eventually admitted that "a sizeable portion" of the edits from that IP address had been his. In the ensuing discussion Jagged 85 wrote the following:

"I've had a look at David Wilson's SPI draft and noticed that one user thinks I'm using other IP addresses. If that were the case, then there would have been other IP addresses with "Jagged-like" behaviour as well, but the fact is that only one IP exhibits such behaviour and that's the one I've admitted to using. The only possible way for me to use other IP addresses is through proxy servers, which can easily be detected and banned. In other words, there is no possible way for me to use any other IP address unless I change my ISP, which I have no intention of doing as I'm more than happy with my current ISP ... "

which appeared to other editors reading it to imply (as it does to me) that he was claiming not to have used any other IP addresses (including proxies) to edit anonymously. After it was later discovered that he seemed to have also been editing from the proxy IP address 193.164.132.6, he seemed to admit that he had in fact been doing so, but vehemently denied that anything he had written had implied otherwise, or that he had been editing from any other accounts or IP addresses. These denials do not appear to me to be credible. I am therefore requesting for a checkuser to search for sleeper accounts that Jagged 85 might have established, and any other IP addresses that he might have been using to edit anonymously, especially as he now appears to have been editing via a proxy.

Jagged 85 has expressed a strong desire to avoid checkuser for privacy reasons. This fear seems to be misplaced, especially if he has edited only from his account and the two IP addresses which he has seemingly admitted to. Nevertheless, administrators who become involved with the case need to be made aware of it.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 20:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Reciprocating machines

I am the editor who originally introduced the material on reciprocating engines in Roman times. This material has also been introduced by me in a number of other articles such as Hierapolis sawmill, crank (mechanism), crankshaft and connecting rod where it has been unchallenged by other editors save Jagged 85 to this day. The last edit by 93.97.55.135, continues Jagged 85's pattern of inserting claims that are not supported by the cited source and violates the agreement to avoid such edits. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing profile

There is a striking similarity between the editing profile of IP 93.97.55.135 and that of Jagged 85. We need to find whether this similarity indicates a single editor. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Proxies

I haven't been involved in this discussion, but stumbled across the 193.164.132.6 IP while following up on an unrelated issue at Forced conversion. If this IP really is Jagged 85, it is most troubling that he's resorting to using sock IPs, including an apparent proxy. This is especially so in light of his comments about only using the one IP. We need to determine what the extent of this is.--Cúchullain t/c 12:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Checkuser   Requested by David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)



Galileo & theology[edit]

pp.159–163

p.161

"... I regard Mallet's bad-theologian thesis as worse than untenable and false; it is perverse insofar as it does not merely fall short of the truth but inverts and subverts the truth"

p.123

"By 1615 Galileo was primarily concerned to prevent an ill-judged condemnation of Copernicanism: he was not saying that it should not be condemned, but that it should not be condemned without being properly understood. It is perfectly true that he was over-confident and that he had been campaigning for some time to get the new system accepted. But his main preoccupation was to avoid a premature intervention by Church authority, a point he developed at some length."

Note here that the final sentence of this quotation shows that it's impossible to interpret the preceding one as asserting that Galileo had been campaigning to get the Church to endorse Copernicanism. Sharratt's account, like those of all other modern reputable historians of science, makes it quite clear that before Galileo's philosophical adversaries had dragged the Church into the matter by denouncing him to the Inquisition, his espousal of Copernicanism had been limited to providing physical (not scriptural or theological) arguments in its favour and rebutting the attacks of his adversaries—including those alleging that Copernicanism was contrary to scripture.

IP Junk[edit]

Country: AUSTRALIA
Region: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
City: CANBERRA
Lat/Long: -35.28204/149.12858
Time Zone: +10:00
Net Speed: DIAL
ISP: DIAL TPG INTERNET PTY LTD
Domain: COMINDICO.COM.AU
IDD Code: 61
Weather Station: ASXX0095 - QUEANBEYAN
MCC: 505
MNC: 21
Mobile Brand: SOUL

Browser: IE
Major Version: 8
Minor Version: 0
Platform: Windows Vista
GZIP: t
SSL support: t
Crawler: f
Gecko: f

Browser: Safari
Major Version: 5
Minor Version: 0.0
Platform: Windows Vista
GZIP: t
SSL support: t
Crawler: f
Gecko: t

Boniface and Virgilius[edit]

  • Bishop Vergilius of Salzburg (c.700 – 784) was accused by St Boniface for teaching "a perverse and sinful doctrine ... against God and his own soul regarding the sphericity of the earth". Pope Zachary decided that "if it shall be clearly established that he professes belief in another world and other people existing beneath the earth, or in another sun and moon there, thou art to hold a council, and deprive him of his sacerdotal rank, and expel him from the church."[1] The issue as resolved was not the sphericity of the Earth itself, but his apparent belief that there were people living in the antipodes.[2] This raised the theological implication that these were not descended from Adam and hence were not in need of redemption. Vergilius succeeded in freeing himself from that charge; he later became a bishop and was canonised in the 13th century.[3]
  • St Vergilius of Salzburg (c.700 – 784), in the middle of the eighth century, discussed or taught some geographical or cosmographical ideas which St Boniface found sufficiently objectionable that he complained about them to Pope Zachary. The only surviving record of the incident is contained in Zachary's reply, dated 748, where he wrote:

"As for the perverse and sinful doctrine which he (Virgil) against God and his own soul has uttered—if it shall be clearly established that he professes belief in another world and other men existing beneath the earth, or in (another) sun and moon there, thou art to hold a council, deprive him of his sacerdotal rank, and expel him from the Church."[4]

Some authorities have suggested that the sphericity of the Earth was among the aspects of Vergilius's teachings which Boniface and Zachary had considered objectionable.[5][6] Others have considered this unlikely and take the wording of Zachary's response to indicate at most an objection to belief in the existence of humans living in the antipodes.[7][8][9][10][11] In any case, there is no record of any further action having been taken against Vergilius. He was later appointed bishop of Salzburg, and was canonised in the 13th century.
  1. ^ MGH, Epistolae Selectae 1, 80, pp. 178-9.[1]; translation in M. L. W. Laistner, Thought and Letters in Western Europe: A.D. 500 to 900, 2nd. ed., (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Pr., 1955), pp. 184-5.
  2. ^ Carey, John (1989). "Ireland and the Antipodes: The Heterodoxy of Virgil of Salzburg". Speculum 64 (1): 1–10. doi:10.2307/2852184. 
  3. ^ Catholic Encyclopedia
  4. ^ English translation by Laistner, M.L.W. (1966) [1931], Thought and Letters in Western Europe: A.D. 500 to 900 (2nd ed.), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 184–5). . The original latin reads: "De perversa autem et iniqua doctrina, quae contra Deum et animam suam locutus est, si clarificatum fuerit ita eum confiteri, quod alius mundus et alii homines sub terra seu sol et luna, hunc habito concilio ab ęcclesia pelle sacerdotii honore privatum." (MGH, Epistolae Selectae 1, 80, pp.178–9)
  5. ^ Laistner, (1966, p.184)
  6. ^ Simek, Rudolf (1996) [1993], Heaven and Earth in the Middle Ages (English ed.), Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, p. 53, ISBN 0-85115-608-8  Unknown parameter |translator= ignored (|others= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Carey, John (1989). "Ireland and the Antipodes: The Heterodoxy of Virgil of Salzburg". Speculum 64 (1): 1–10. doi:10.2307/2852184. 
  8. ^ Kaiser, Christopher B. (1997), Creational Theology and the History of Physical Science: the Creationist Tradition from Basil to Bohr, Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, p. 48, ISBN 90-04-10669-3 
  9. ^ Hasse, Wolfgang; Reinhold, Meyer, eds. (1993), The Classical Tradition and the Americas, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 3-11-011572-7 
  10. ^ Moretti, Gabriella (1993), The Other World and the 'Antipodes'. The Myth of Unknown Countries between Antiquity and the Renaissance, p. 265. In Hasse & Reinhold (1993, pp.241–84). 
  11. ^ *Wright, Charles Darwin (1993), The Irish Tradition in Old English Literature, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, p. 41, ISBN 0521-41909-3 

Bibliography

"a perverse and sinful doctrine ... against God and his own soul regarding the sphericity of the earth". Pope Zachary decided that "if it shall be clearly established that he professes belief in another world and other people existing beneath the earth, or in another sun and moon there, thou art to hold a council, and deprive him of his sacerdotal rank, and expel him from the church."[1] The issue as resolved was not the sphericity of the Earth itself, but his apparent belief that there were people living in the antipodes.[2] This raised the theological implication that these were not descended from Adam and hence were not in need of redemption. Vergilius succeeded in freeing himself from that charge; he later became a bishop and was canonised in the 13th century.[3]

Math in med Islam cleanup[edit]

Correction: In making a comment above on al-Zarqali's discovery of the precession of the Sun's apogee (now amended) I had been relying on a faulty recollection of J.L.E. Dreyer's account in his History of the Planetary Systems from Thales to Kepler. I had completely forgotten that Dreyer attributed this discovery to al-Battani rather than al-Zarqali. Al-Battani 's estimate for the celestial longitude of the Sun's apogee was 16°47′ larger than Ptolemy's, or some 5°23′ greater than he could account for by his estimate of 11°24′ for the westward precession of the vernal equinox over the intervening period. Although he did not explicitly conclude from this that the Sun's apogee was moving, Dreyer considered that his recognition of the discrepancy entitled him to be regarded as the discoverer of that motion. Al-Zarqali lived some 150 years after al-Battani and would have been able to, and almost certainly did, make effective use of the works of his Islamic predecessors as well as of Ptolemy's. My apologies for the error.

The entry on al-Zarqali in the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography merely says that his now lost work Suma referente al movimiento del sol "is based on twenty–five years of observations in which he discovered the proper motion of the solar apogee". Misunderstanding of such brief and incomplete summaries as this probably accounts for Masood's misleading statement that al-Zarqali had "measured" the "minuscule movement" of the Sun's apogee. In fact, it would have been impossible for al-Zarqali to recognise that the Sun's apogee was moving solely from his own observations taken over a period as short as 25 years. During that time the apogee moves only about 5 arc-minutes, which is less than the minimum observational error achievable even with the most advanced techniques available at that time.

  • You're wrong. People have provided plenty of examples of your errors / disinformation / misunderstandings. For example, this [67]. So your without ever bothering to fact-check these articles at all is just offensive: people *have* fact-checked the articles, and they have repeatedly failed those checks William M. Connolley (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to William M. Connolley's offering the material removed with this edit as an alleged example of Jagged 85's "errors / disinformation / misunderstandings", the latter replied:

"If that's the best example of "fact-checking" you can come up with, then it's a pretty poor example. I highly doubt you checked the original source, but it seems to me you deleted it simply because it sounded like "bollocks". If you did check the original source, Katz clearly mentioned a "dynamic function" stage of algebra and included Tusi in his discussion of it."

I have now checked this on-line copy of the source cited (Stages in the History of Algebra with Implications for Teaching by Victor J. Katz and Bill Barton in volume 66 of Educational Studies in Mathematics). In my opinion, William Connolley's unfavourable description of the text in question, if anything, somewhat understates how bad it is, since it is in fact yet another flagrant misrepresentation of a source.

It's evident from Jagged 85's comment—quoted above—that he intended the term "dynamic functional algebra" to refer to the concepts that appeared during what Katz referred to (on p.186 of the cited reference) as the "dynamic function" stage of the conceptual development of algebra. But nowhere in Katz's article does he say that any of al-Dīn al-Tūsī's work constituted "the earliest form" of any of those concepts, or anything remotely like that, as Jagged 85 has asserted in the text he added to the article. Nor does he—as Jagged 85 has asserted in the above-quoted statement—include Tūsī in his discussion of what he called the "dynamic function" stage of the development of algebra.

All the discussion from the bottom of page 190 to the bottom of page 194 in Katz's article—including that of al-Tūsī's work on page 192— description of that work (on p.192) attributes to it not a single one of the features which he later describes (on pp.194–6) as characteristic of his "dynamic function" stage. The material on these latter pages makes it perfectly clear that Katz considered the very earliest signs of that stage in the development of algebra to have appeared in Western Europe in the early 17th century.


And in reference to al-Dīn al-Tūsī's work he says explicitly on p.192:

"So this attempt in Islam to move to "functions" ultimately got nowhere."
The emphasis on "attempt" in this quotation was added by me. The scare quotes around "function", on the other hand, are in Katz's original text.

In the first place, nowhere in the source does Katz use the expression "dynamic functional algebra" or make anything at all like the statement "This was the earliest form of dynamic functional algebra" which was included in Jagged 85's text.

Stubbing the article (at least temporarily) seems to me to be the only reasonable way of dealing with the problems that still appear to plague the version that was supposedly "cleared up". Supposedly sourced material from that or earlier versions can—and, in my opinion, should only—be reinserted either:

  • after the sources cited have been identified as reliable and have been verified as supporting the material in question (possibly after appropriate modifications); or
  • some other reliable source has been found to support the material; or
  • it has been verified that the material was inserted by someone other than Jagged 85.

(+426) misprepesentation of Berrgren's review. Needs fixing
(+31) Formatting, reflist. No problems
(+71) Added descriptions "Islamic" and "of Islamic Golden Age". Can't see any POV or verifiability problems.
(+10) Added wikilink. No problems.
(+1156) Substantial sourced information added. Needs checking against source.
(+12). Added diacritics to names and a given name. Can't see any likely POV or verifiability problems.
(+2083) Added "astronomer" (need to check), account of solution of cubic equation from MacTutor (ok, but replace with Berrgren's example), and a description of his astrolabe (need to check).
(0) Shifted citation from biography section to the next. Can't see any POV or verifiability problems, but citation should probably be re-added to the biography section (if it checks out).
(-28) Modified wikilink in passage that needs re-writing anyway.
(+15) Added wikilink, diacritics and given name. Can't see any likely POV or verifiability problems.
(-13) Undid preceding edit.
(+478) Added paragraph on discriminant and Cardano's formula. Possible verifiability problems.
(+1334) "Developed the concept of a function" is probable editor opinion. Second solution of cubic equation (ref Katz) added. One of these is redundant and the other should be removed. Probably keep Katz & leave out Berrgren.
(+2) Trivial formatting change.

Mathematics in medieval Islam: (339 edits, 117 major, +19858)

(+57). Relatively trivial. Added probably redundant qualifier "Hindu-Arabic" in front of "numeral system" and probably redundant "important" in front of "concepts of algebra and geometry" as developed by Islamic mathematicians

(-16). Trivial. 2 instances of replacing "Ancient Greek" with "Greek"

(+155). No POV or verifiability issues. One might quibble with a replacement of "Greek" with "Hellenistic"

(+2354). Some information added without in-line citations. Not obviously dubious, but needs to be checked against reliable sources.

(+133). Mostly reorganization and addition of headers for sections on various mathematicians. No POV or verifiability issues.

(-1) (+1) (+1). Trivial typo fix & other copyedits.

(+2864). Probable POV issue. Some information added with no in-line citations, some of which looks like nothing more than editor opinion. MacTutor site added as reference.

(+1658). Added a list of translated works without in-line citations. Nothing obviously dubious, but info needs to be checked.

(0) (+5). Trivial reorganisation & copyedit.

(+1633). Added information about translation of texts. Nothing obviously dubious, but info needs to be checked.

(-8)(+93)(+12)(+62)(+83)(+4)(-1)(+3)(+3364)(+680)(+3669)(+1724)(0)(0)(+516)(-4)(+252)(+12)(+15)(+7)(0)(-34)(-34)(0)(+51)(+469)(0)(+463)(+8)(-1)(+80)(+1)(0)(0)(-1)(+32)(+29)(+4)(+1)(+8)(+109)(0)(0)(+64)(+7)(+412)(-4)(-31)(0)(0)(+16)(-154)(+37)(+93)(-2)(+173)(-200)(+8)(+18)(+8)(+38)(+50)(-20)(+4)(+5)(-12)(-18)(+145)(+24)(+165)(+6)(0)(+6)(+44)(+45)(-2)(+226)(+14475)(-3598)(-23)(+2240)(+5378)(+1619)(-24)(+1427)(-1294)(+767)(-13)(+9)(+1)(+569)(0)(+27)(-72)(+583)(-2)(-18)(-5)(+33)(+396)(+4)(-9)(+532)(+1)(+2531)(+5)(0)(+1)(+141)(+35)(-3)(+698)(+86)(+934)(+983)(-40)(-13)(+188)(-44)(+348)(+278)(+237)(+1001)(+13)(+106)(+1059)(+6)(-1)(+740)(+41)(+343)(+36)(+4)(+23)(+47)(-47)(0)(+1016)(-3)(+699)(+1886)(+2329)(0)(0)(+2604)(+218)(+28)(+44)(+1088)(+6)(+6)(+1167)(+122)(-17)(+88)(+983)(+12)(+581)(-2)(+5)(+5)(+1006)(+4)(+682)(+243)(+17)(+5)(+15)(+214)(+4)(+2)(+891)(+272)(+876)(+2864)(+47)(+34)(0)(+156)(+3250)(-2)(+11)(+814)(+157)(+11)(+313)(-6)(+232)(+131)(+551)(-3)(0)(+1743)(-26)(+190)(+703)(0)(+800)(+960)(+19858)(+181)(+15)(+101)(+10)(+1193)(+1738)(+370)(+5)(+246)(+148)(+18)(+351)(+745)(+281)(-9)(+648)(-11)(+564)(+608)(+8)(0)(+463)(+981)(-29)(+804)(+1076)(-34)(+3)(+1696)(+1)(+1718)(-5)(+17)(+5)(+18)(+27)(+43)(+1)(+38)(+13)(+566)(+60)(+990)(-17)(+951)(0)(-1)(+62)(-9)(+169)(-12)(-235)(+7)(-12)(+338)(+329)(+417)(+27)(+5724)(+4)(0)(+94)(0)(+5893)(0)(-67)(+12)(+716)(+20)(+365)(+11)(+1642)(-234)(+2)(+559)(-136)(+19)(+8)(-5)(+1830)(-4)(+1)(+48)(+16)(+15)(-6)(+53)(-1)(-17)(+19)(+17)(+84)(-4)(+13)(-1)(+1)(-9)(+1016)(-4)(-17)(-9)(+55)(+53)(-5)(+1677)(-735)(+647)(+23)(+32)(+641)(+1278)(+62)(-2)(+1)(-2)(-4)(+779)(-19)(+633)(-53)(-4)(-5)(+9)(+47)(+13)(-21)

Flat Earth[edit]

  • Flat Earth (35 edits, 13 major, +2875)

(+95) (+37) (-9) (+781) (+8) (+17). [1]. Red XN No trace of the only problematic material added here by Jagged 85 now remains in the article. This consisted of some tendentious alterations of headings, and the claim that ancient Indian contemporaries of Pythagoras already knew the Earth to be spherical, with citations to Dick Teresi's Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science - from the Babylonians to the Maya, Helena Blavatsky's Isis unveiled, and Hugh Thurston's Early Astronomy.

(+1). [2]. Red XN This was merely a trivial–if erroneous–insertion of comma. It has since disappeared.

(+2143) (-6) (0). (+705). [3] Red XN. These edits reintroduced material similar to that of the first series of edits listed above. None of it remains in the article.

(+1204) (+10) (0) (+2273) (+207) (0). [4]. Red XN. Introduced erroneous, but in part reasonably sourced, claim about the accuracy of Al-Biruni's measurement of the Earth's circumference. This no longer appears in the article. The hyperbolic assertion that Al-Biruni "solved a complex geodesic equation" to obtain his estimate for the circumference of the Earth was poorly sourced to a page at the MuslimHeritage website.

(+10) (-7). [5]. Red XN Unproblematic minor reformatting.

(+2875) (-437). [6] Red XN These edits reintroduced material similar to that of the first and third series of edits listed above, with extra references (need to be checked). None of it remains in the article

(+2116) (+1385) (+617) (+59) (+2) (+435) [7]

(+38) (+2151) (-698) (+76) (-71). [8]

(+1458). [9]

(-213) [10]

(-233) [11]

Teresi, Dick (2002). Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science—from the Babylonians to the Maya. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-83718-8. , pp.238–9:

Some one thousand years before Aristotle, the Vedic Aryans asserted that the Earth was round and circled the Sun.48 A translation of the Rig-Veda by J.Arunachalan goes: "In the prescribed daily prayers to the Sun we find ... the Sun is at the centre of the solar system.... The students ask, 'What is the nature ot the entity that holds the Earth?' The teacher answers, 'Risha Vatsa holds the view that the Earth is held in space by the Sun.' "}49

Thompson, Susan J. (1988). A Chronology of Geological Thinking from Antiquity to 1899. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. 

Iyam vedih paro antah prithivya ayam yajno bhuvanasyah nabhirayam somo vrisno asvasysa reto brahmayam vachah parmamvyoma.

— Vaidyanath Shastri's first roman transliteration of Rig Veda 1.164.35, Sciences in the Vedas, p.85

Iyam Vedih paroantah prithivya ayam yajno bhuvanasyah nabhih. Ayam soma vrisno asvasysa reto brahamyam vachah parmam vyoni.

— Vaidyanath Shastri's second roman transliteration of Rig Veda 1.164.35, Sciences in the Vedas, p.108

[http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv01164.htm 34. pṛchāmi tvā paramantaṃ pṛthivyāḥ pṛchāmi yatra bhuvanasyanābhiḥ | pṛchāmi tvā vṛṣṇo aśvasya retaḥ pṛchāmi vācaḥ paramaṃ vyoma || 35. iyaṃ vediḥ paro antaḥ pṛthivyā ayaṃ yajño bhuvanasya nābhiḥ | ayaṃ somo vṛṣṇo aśvasya reto brahmāyaṃ vācaḥparamaṃ vyoma ||]

[http://www.hindubooks.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=1866&page=164& 34. pRchAmi tvA paramantaM pRthivyAH pRchAmi yatra bhuvanasyanAbhiH pRchAmi tvA vRSNo ashvasya retaH pRchAmi vAcaH paramaM vyoma 35, iyaM vediH paro antaH pRthivyA ayaM yaj�o bhuvanasya nAbhiH ayaM somo vRSNo ashvasya reto brahmAyaM vAcaHparamaM vyoma]

This vedi is the centre of the earth and this yajna is the sustainer of the world. Thus [This?] soma, the electricity is the most powerful form of asva, the agni. The all-pervading space is the seat of all sounds and speeches.

— Acharya Vaidyanath Shastri's first "translation" of Rig Veda 1.164.35, Sciences in the Vedas, p.85

This point (any point) is the centre of the earth (as the earth is round). This yajna (performed in Vedi) is also centre of bhuvan, the space lit up by one Sun. This soma, electricity is the powerful potency of the fire and the other is the great source of sound and speech.

— Acharya Vaidyanath Shastri's second "translation" of Rig Veda 1.164.35, Sciences in the Vedas, p.108

This altar is the earth's extremest limit; this sacrifice of ours is the world's centre.

The Stallion's seed prolific is the Soma; this Brahman highest heaven where Speech abideth.

— Ralph T.H. Griffith's translation, Rig Veda 1.164.35

This altar is the uttermost end of the earth:

this sacrifice is the navel of the world:
this Soma juice is the fecundating power of the rain-shedding steed:
this Brahmá is the supreme heaven of (holy) speech.

— H.H. Wilson's translation, Rig Veda 1.164.35

Ayam gauh prishnirakramid asadan mataram purah. Pitaranucha prayantsvah.

— Vaidyanath Shastri's first roman transliteration of Yajur Veda 3.6, Sciences in the Vedas, p.85

Ayam gauh prisnirakramid asadanmat arampurah. Pitaramcha prayantsvah.

— Vaidyanath Shastri's second roman transliteration of Yajur Veda 3.6, Sciences in the Vedas, p.106

This spotted Bull hath come and sat before the Mother and before

The Father, mounting up to heaven.

— Ralph T.H. Griffith's translation, White Yajur Veda 3.6

This spotted Bull hath come, and sat before the Mother in the east,

Advancing to his Father heaven.

— Ralph T.H. Griffith's translation, Rig Veda 10.189.1

This spotted Bull hath come and sat before the mother in the east,

Advancing to his father heaven.

— Ralph T.H. Griffith's translation, Sama Veda 2.6.1.11.1

This moving many-coloured (Sun) has arrived, he has sat down before his mother (earth) in the east,

and advances to his father heaven.

— H.H. Wilson's translation, Rig Veda 10.189.1

Carey, Samuel Warren (1988). Theories of the Earth and Universe: A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.  p.16

From Science Age (New Delhi), I quote from J. Arunachalan's translation from the Sanskrit of the Rig-Veda (the earliest literary work in any Indo-Aryan language):

In the prescribed daily prayers to the Sun (sandhya vandanum) we find ... Sourya mandala madhyastham Sambam (The Sun is at the centre of the solar system.) The word mandala means curved, referring perhaps to the curved path of the planets at the centre of which the Sun is located ... The students ask, "What is the nature ot the entity that holds the Earth?" The teacher answers, "Risha Vatsa holds the view that the Earth is held in space by the Sun." In the sandhya vadhyana we find the phrase: Mitro dadhara pritivi. (The Sun holds the Earth.)


Debunked by Narlikar
pdf scan of above

page containing copies of appropriate part of Rudra yamala supposed translation of part of Rudra yamala

sUryamaNDalamadhyasthaM sAMbaM saMsArabheShajam.h I
nIlagrIvaM virUpAxaM namAmi shivamavyayam.h II

I bow to the three-eyed, blue-throated Shiva, who is situated in the center of the solar disc, who is accompanied by pArvatI, who is the medicine that heals the disease of saMsAra.


pp.13–4

Astronomy in India p.114 (p.317 in 2nd edition)

First link above is to the 1st edition version of the article, Acyuta Pisarati, whose 2nd edition version was originally but erroneously cited as the source of the following quotation. The second link is to the 1st edition version of the article, Astronomy in India, whose 2nd edition version was the actual source of the quotation, and which was correctly provided in a later edit.

According to K. V. Sarma: "One finds in the R.gveda intelligent speculations about the genesis of the universe from nonexistence, the configuration of the universe, the spherical self-supporting earth, and the year of 360 days divided into 12 equal parts of 30 days each with a periodical intercalary month."

Helaine, Selin, ed. (2008). Encyclopedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer. ISBN 0-978-1-4020-4559-2 Check |isbn= value (help).  The URL here points to the first edition, not the second

Columbus[edit]

A lookout on the Pinta, Juan Rodriguez Bermeo (also known as Rodriguez de Triana), spotted land about 2 a.m. on the morning of October 12, and immediately alerted the rest of the crew with a shout, whereupon the captain of the Pinta, Juan Alonso Pinzón, verified the discovery.[4] Columbus later maintained that he himself had already seen a light on the land a few hours earlier, thereby claiming for himself the lifetime pension promised by Ferdinand and Isabella to the first person to sight land.

Here is a link.

Recent changes to thelead[edit]

Part of the lead was recently replaced with the following text:

"He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[11] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could only be supported as a possibility, not as an established fact.[12][13]Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[14]"

The reference cited as supposedly supporting the revisions to the text was "New Philosophy and Old Prejudices: Aspects of the Reception of Copernicanism in a Divided Europe", by Isabelle Pantin in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 30 (1999, pp.237–262). However, neither that reference nor the others which were already cited for the pre-existing passage in any way support most of those revisions. To take them in turn:

  • " ... He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax. "
Pantin doesn't mention stellar parallax anywhere at all in the above-cited article. The only place in her article where she offers a reason for any astronomers' opposing heliocentrism is at the bottom of page 240 where she observes that Erasmus Reinhold agreed with Philipp Melanchthon that "the idea of the motion of the Earth contradicted the Scriptures".
While the failure to observe stellar parallax work was indeed one of the reasons offered by opponents of heliocentrism for their rejecting it, it was only one of many and, at the time, was not singled out as having any more force than many of those others, and was certainly less important than the objections based on conflict with Scripture. Therefore, to single it out for special mention in the lead is to accord it too much weight.
The addition of astronomers as one of the groups of people who opposed heliocentrism is a good idea, and should be retained. However, the omission philosophers and clerics from the the list of opponents is not a good idea, for the simple reason that it was a subsection of those groups, not of astronomers, which was responsible for getting the Church's hierarchy involved in the dispute.
  • "The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could only be supported as a possibility, not as an established fact."
Nowhere in her article does Pantin say or imply that the Inquisition drew the conclusion that heliocentrism could be supported "as a possibility". In the only place where she mentions the Inquisition's investigation (on page 255), what she writes is:
"Galileo was denounced to the Holy Office, and the inquisitors not only looked into his case but examined the whole problem of Copernicanism (which was to be condemned in 1616). At the request of the Holy Office, Francesco Ingoli wrote a Disputatio de situ et quiete terrae contra Copernici systema addressed to 'the very learned Galileo'."
According to both the main primary source document, and all authoritative secondary sources which I have seen discuss the results of the Inquistion's investigation of 1615-1616, the conclusions of its consultants was much more proscriptive than would allow heliocentrism to "be supported as a possibility". But in any case it's not the conclusions of the Inquisition's consultants that should be mentioned in the lead, but the subsequent official position adopted by the Church in a decree issued by the Congregation of the Index, which described the doctrine "that the earth moves and the sun is motionless" as "false" and "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
Nowhere in her article does Pantin say or imply that Galileo's Dialogue "appeared to attack pope Urban VIII", or that it alienated him (although that at least is true enough), or that it alienated the Jesuits. The only place in her article where Pantin mentions Urban at all is on page 256, where she writes:
"Instead of seeking the assent of European mathematicians [i.e.for his defence of Copernicanism], he [i.e. Galileo] turned to the Roman prelates and soon to the Pope himself, when the Florentine Maffeo Barberini became Urban VIII, in 1623".
On the issue of the Dialogue's supposedly appearing to attack Urban, I know of no source by any reputable Galileo scholar which makes that claim. What is certainly true is that sometime after the Dialogue's publication some of Galileo's enemies began circulating the calumny that he had intended Simplicio to be a caricature of Urban. However, the earliest reference to this calumny in any primary source occurs in a letter dated December 1635, more than two years after the end of Galileo's trial (see Maurice Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo p.62). It's possible that some such rumours were already circulating shortly after the Dialogue 's publication and were at least partly responsible for the extraordinary vehemence of Urban's response to it. But there's no direct documentary evidence of this, and there are other equally plausible and well-documented circumstances which have been proposed as sufficient to explain the strength of Urban's anger.
On the issue of Galileo's alienation from the Jesuits, it is simply wrong to attribute it to the appearance of the Dialogue, because it had in fact already occurred long before the publication of that work.

In view of all this I have restored most of the preceding version of this passage (with some minor modifications). This appears to me to be an accurate and well-balanced account of what is the current view of the matter from mainstream scholarship—as described in the sources cited.

Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the view that the Earth stood motionless at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he was opposed by astronomers, philosophers and clerics. Two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615, and the subsequent investigation led to the Catholic Church's condemning heliocentrism as "false" and "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture" in a decree of the Congregation of the Index in February 1616.[5] Although Galileo was not then judged to have committed any offence, he was nevertheless warned to abandon his support for heliocentrism—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[6][7]

Kollerstrom

Rutkin

References[edit]

  1. ^ MGH, Epistolae Selectae 1, 80, pp. 178-9.[2]; translation in M. L. W. Laistner, Thought and Letters in Western Europe: A.D. 500 to 900, 2nd. ed., (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Pr., 1955), pp. 184-5.
  2. ^ Carey, John (1989). "Ireland and the Antipodes: The Heterodoxy of Virgil of Salzburg". Speculum 64 (1): 1–10. doi:10.2307/2852184. 
  3. ^ Catholic Encyclopedia
  4. ^ Morison (1942, p.226]]; Lopez, (1990, p.14)
  5. ^ Sharratt (1994, pp. 127–131), McMullin (2005a).
  6. ^ Finocchiaro (1997), p. 47.
  7. ^ Hilliam (2005), p. 96.

Heading text[edit]

Al-Tusi & Copernicus[edit]

Some of the technical details of Copernicus's system—especially his models for the movements of Mercury and the Moon, and his use of the Tusi couple—bear a remarkably close resemblance to earlier discoveries of the Islamic astronomers Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī and Ibn al-Shāṭir. This has led some scholars to argue that Copernicus must have had access to some yet to be identified work on the ideas of those earlier astronomers.[1] However, no likely candidate for this conjectured work has yet come to light, and other scholars have argued that Copernicus could well have developed these ideas independently of the Islamic tradition.[2]


Any POV problems relating to the omission of the views of Saliba and Swerdlow documented in your reference could easily be rectified by modifying the section on predecessors of Copernicus to mention them as representatives of one (albeit influential) current scholarly school of thought. Your apparent insistence that the infobox must include the conjectured influence of al-Ṭūsi and al-Shatir as if it were an established fact is itself a violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, and if it had remained there I would have tagged it as such.

The problem with your single reference is that it has been cherry picked from a large body of literature, of which a substantial portion does not totally agree with it. Although the views of Saliba, Swerdlow, Neugebauer etc. certainly represent one very influential school of thought, they are nevertheless just one extreme from the spectrum of current scholarly opinion. The other extreme, represented by Mario di Bono and I.N.Veselovsky, for example (articles available on-line here and here), is that on the currently available evidence it is just as plausible that those parts of Copernicus's system which resemble al-Tūsi's and al-Shatir's discoveries were discovered independently of the Arabic tradition as that they were inspired by or copied from some as yet unidentified manuscript or publication stemming from that tradition. André Goddu, who tends to agree with di Bono, has a very nice discussion of the issue on pp.261-269 and pp.476-486 of his book Copernicus and the Aristotelian Tradition.

A view intermediate between these extremes has been expressed by Emilie Savage-Smith in a review of one of Saliba's books (the entire issue of JHA containing this review is available on-line here—WARNING: this is a very large pdf file). She writes:

"As for the hypothesis that there was a causal link between the activities of the later Islamic astronomers and the development of Copernican astronomy, it remains only a hypothesis until the mechanism for such borrowing can be found. Yet the evidence is mounting for some form of connection, especially given the sudden appearance of technical geometric innovations that had a centuries-long tradition in Islam."

David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Linton (2004, pp.124,137–38), Saliba (2009, pp.160–65).
  2. ^ Goddu (2010, pp.261–69, 476–86), Huff (2010, pp.263–64), di Bono (1995), Veselovsky (1973).

Saliba, George (2009), Islamic reception of Greek astronomy, in Valls-Gabaud & Boskenberg (2009): 149–65 

Valls-Gabaud, D.; Boskenberg, A., eds. (2009). The Role of Astronomy in Society and Culture. Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 260. 

di Bono, Mario (1995). "Copernicus, Amico, Fracastoro and Ṭūsï's Device: Observations on the Use and Trasmission of a Model". Journal for the History of Astronomy xxvi: 133–54. 

Veselovsky, I.N. (1973). "Copernicus and Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī". Journal for the History of Astronomy iv: 128–30. 

Huff, Toby E (2010). Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution: A Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-17052-9. 

Columbus and Slavery[edit]

Varela, Consuelo (2006). La Caída de Cristóbal Colón. Madrid: Marcial Pons. 

Test of potential anchors

Pronunciation[edit]

The error is really only in the spelling, not the pronunciation. Anyone who mistakenly spells it "centrifical" probably pronounces it /sɛn-ˈtrɪ-fə-kəl/ or /sɛn-ˈtrɪ-fɪ-kəl/. The only thing wrong with those pronunciations is that the velar plosive /k/ is unvoiced rather than voiced. But since it occurs between two unstressed syllables it's quite difficult for anyone without fairly sensitive hearing to tell the difference, unless the voicing of the /ɡ/ in the correct pronunciations, /sɛn-ˈtrɪ-fə-ɡəl/ or /sɛn-ˈtrɪ-fɪ-ɡəl/, is made quite strong (my ears are certainly not up to the job)

  1. /sɛnˈtrɪfəɡəl/ — Macquarie
  2. /sɛntrəfˈjuːɡəl/ — Macquarie
  3. /sɛnˈtrɪfjəɡəl/—Mirriam-Webster (online)
  4. /sɛnˈtrɪfɪɡəl/—Mirriam-Webster (online)
  5. /sɛnˈtrɪfjʊɡəl/— Oxford
  6. /ˌsɛntrɪfˈjuːɡəl/ — Oxford, Mirriam-Webster (online)

centrifigal (123,000 google, 103 google books), centrifical (52,400 google, 729 google books), centrifagal (2,630 google, 76 google books), centrifegal (73 google, 2 google books), centrifogal (1,160 google, 56 google books), centrifiugal (14, 500 google 26 google books), centrafugal (31,400 google, 20 google books), centrefugal (13,400 google, 68 google books), centrofugal (1,450 google, 8 google books), centrufugal (11,300 google, 20 google books)

On the contrary, a substantial proportion of the occurrences of "centrifical" appearing in printed works are quite clearly typos. It's true that with a modern typewriter or linotype keyboard, where the substitution of 'i' for 'u' might well have occurred by the typist's or typesetter's reaching for the 'u' key but hitting the 'i' key by mistake, the substitution of 'c' for 'g' is unlikely to occur in this way. But this is by no means the only way in which typos can occur.

Here is an instance of a "centrifical"

Here is an instance of another sort.

That issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society contains just a single instance of "centrifical" and a large number of instances—39 pages worth, in fact—of "centrifugal". The single instance of "centrifical" appears in the expression "centrifugal Forces", in one of a series of articles by the philosopher John Theophilus Desaguliers, which together contain 10 occurrences of the expressions "centrifugal Force" or "centrifugal Forces". From the context where "centrifical Forces" occurs, there is every indication that whatever Desaguliers wrote there in his manuscript, he intended it to refer to exactly the same thing as the occurrences of "centrifugal Forces" did—namely, two or more instances of what was then understood to constitute the notion of a centrifugal force. Desaguliers was educated at Christ Church, Oxford, and wrote a many works on natural philosophy (such as A Course in Experimental Philosophy, for instance electronic copies of both volumes of which are available on-line).

Inertial Circles[edit]

addition of pi

deletion of comparison with geostrophic flow

extensive rewrite

Persson's paper

In the section on inertial circles, the article currently says

"If the rotating system is a parabolic turntable, then f is constant and the trajectories are exact circles."

This statement is incorrect, and is not supported by the reference cited at the end of the paragraph—although the exposition there is sufficiently ambiguous as to be easily misinterpretable, unless one carefully checks all the mathematical details. Owing to some inaccuracies in the description of f in recent versions of the article, it's not entirely clear what this quantity was intended to be for the parabolic turntable. Assuming it was intended to be the angular frequency of a small circular motion produced in the rotating frame of reference by the Coriolis force—just as it was for the case of the Earth—then the statement that it is constant is incorrect.

Just as in the case of the Earth, this angular frequency, v/R, is determined by the magnitude of the component of the Coriolis acceleration tangential to the surface at the point where the motion occurs. At a distance r from the axis about which the parabolic surface is rotating, the component of the Coriolis acceleration tangential to the surface has magnitude \frac{2 \Omega v}{\sqrt{1+\Omega^4 r^2/g^2}}, making f = \frac{2 \Omega}{\sqrt{1+\Omega^4 r^2/g^2}}. Alternatively, we can write this as f = \frac{2 \Omega}{\sqrt{1+\left(2 h/r\right)^2}} or f = 2 \Omega \sin\theta, where h is the height of the surface (above its lowest point), and \theta is the complement of the angle between the axis of rotation and the normal to the surface at the point where the mass is located. For a typical parabolic turntable used in the experiments described in the reference, h/r remains quite small over the whole of the turntable, making its square effectively negligible and 2\Omega everywhere a good approximation to f. Nevertheless, it is still an approximation, so it's not correct to say that the trajectories are "exact" circles. I propose that the above-cited text be amended to read something like:

"If the rotating system is a shallow version of the parabolic turntable described below, then f is nearly constant, and the trajectories are very good approximations to circles."


If a mass is constrained to remain on a rotating surface, if the only force acting on it tangentially to the surface is the Coriolis force, and if it is moving sufficiently slowly relative to the surface, it will follow an approximately circular trajectory called an "inertial circle". The trajectory is approximately circular with constant speed v, because the tangential component of the Coriolis acceleration is directed at right angles to the motion of the mass, and its magnitude is in an approximately constant ratio to the speed, as long as the mass remains within a sufficiently limited neighbourhood of a fixed point on the surface. The constant of proportionality f will be the angular frequency of the mass's circular motion, and the radius R of the circle is given by:

R= \frac {v}{f}\,

On the surface of the Earth, f is the Coriolis parameter 2 \Omega \sin \varphi, introduced above (where \varphi is the latitude[1]). It typically has a mid-latitude value of about 10−4 s−1; hence for a typical atmospheric speed of 10 m/s the radius is 100 km (62 mi), with a period of about 17 hours. For an ocean current with a typical speed of 10 cm/s, the radius of an inertial circle is 1 km (0.6 mi). These inertial circles are clockwise in the northern hemisphere (where trajectories are bent to the right) and anti-clockwise in the southern hemisphere.

If the rotating system is a shallow version of the parabolic turntable described below, then f is nearly constant, and the trajectories are very good approximations to circles. On a rotating planet, f varies with latitude, and the approximation to exact circular motion is not so close. Since the parameter f varies as the sine of the latitude, the radius of the oscillations associated with a given speed are smallest at the poles (latitude = ±90°), and increase toward the equator.[2]

  1. ^ To a very good approximation. More precisely, \varphi is the complement of the angle between the Earth's axis of rotation and a perpendicular to the Earth's surface at the location of the moving mass. Because the Earth is not a perfect sphere, this angle is not exactly the same as the latitude. But for the purposes of the calculations being made here, the difference is entirely negligible.
  2. ^ John Marshall & R. Alan Plumb (2007). p. 98. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press. ISBN 0125586914. 

Evolution[edit]

insertion by Al-Andalusi into al-Jahiz


insertion by Jagged

insertion of food chains and environmental determinism

insertion of ibn Miskawayh

rm by Syncat

rm by J8079s

readdition by IP

Bayrakdar's paper

Zirkle's paper

Egerton's paper

syncat's rm from ibn Miskawayh

original insertion

Jagged's insertion

copy-paste by IP

Agutter & Wheatly

Evidence[edit]

Jvdb confirms identity [68]


Clean start "after" Rfc [69]

Evasive reply to question about overlap [70]

Fae admits overlap [71]

March 10th Ash starts analysis of DC [72]

Same day DC nominates for deletion [73]

March 11th Ash adds note to indicate prep for dispute resolution [74]

March 12th DC withdraws deletion nomination [75]

March 22nd Ash's draft text for Rfc/U [76]


March 19th DC renominates for deletion [77]

March 23rd Ash moves analysis page [78]

March 24th DC advises Ash of desire to file Rfc [79]

March 26th Ash asks for analysis page to be speedy deleted [80]


DC contests speedy deletion [81], [82]

March 31st Ash nominates DC's Rfc preparation for deletion [83]

April 1st analysis page deleted at Ash's request, but in fact not, since it had already been moved [84]

DC's nomination closed as delete [85]

April 5th Ash Rfc opened [86]

Certified by DC and Jack Merridew same day [87]

April 9th Ash replies [88]

Youreallycan, Peter cohen, John lilburne, DracoEssentialis, Delicious_carbuncle

WR thread where DC reveals Ash's name

remark of DC's objected to by Ash

ANI thread containing DC's remark criticised in Ash email

exchange about email

WR thread revealing Ash's email

WR thread on Fae Rfc/U

You again appear to be making an unwarranted assumption—namely that "the argument that Delicious carbuncle was trying to advance" was strictly limited to the issue of whether the Wikipedia accounts Ash and Fæ belonged to the same person. But this doesn't seem to me to be the case at all.
In the WR thread where this issue was discussed, Delicious carbuncle also alleged that Ash "had no trouble using [his sexuality] as a shield against legitimate criticism by implying his critics were homophobic". Ash's email contained the remarkable accusation—completely groundless as far as I can see—that "Up until this point you [i.e. Delicious carbuncle] have not done anything that I would consider a homophobic attack, this speculation is crossing the line." The speculation in question was this remark of Delicious carbuncle's in a discussion he had opened at AN/I. Since there appears to be no evidence whatever that that remark was in any way a "homophobic attack", the apparent groundlessness of the accusation Ash made in his email tends to support Delicious carbuncle's above-cited allegation, and the latter explicitly cited the email as being relevant to that particular issue.

Reference[edit]

p.119

Al-Biruni, The Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology

[89]

Carlo Alfonso Nallino (1892-3)'Il valore metrico del grado di meridiano secondo i geographi arabi', Cosmos di Guido Cora, 11, reprinted in Nallino (1944), Raccolta di Scritti Editi e Inediti, Rome, 408-57

[90]

[91]

[92]

Dates of birth and death[edit]

A recent edit changed some of the dates given for al-Sadiq's birth and death supposedly as a "Correction in accuracy in Hijri calendar conversion to Gregorian, rather than Julian". At the same time, the edit eliminated an inconsistency in the dates given for his death (15th Shawwāl148 AH given in one part of the article & 25th in another). The birth date in the Islamic calendar was left at 17th Rabī‘ al-Awwal 83 AH but changed from 20th April 702 to 24th April 702 as the supposedly corresponding Gregorian date. Where the date of death was given as 25th Shawwāl 148 it was changed to 15th Shawwāl 148, and the supposedly corresponding Gregorian date was given as 8th December 765 rather than what the editor had presumed was the Julian date of 14th December 765. There are several problems with this:

  • According to all three on-line calendar conversion applications I have tried (namely, this, this and this) the Islamic date 17th Rabī‘ al-Awwal 83 AH corresponds to the Gregorian date 20th April 702, just as the article had previously said. According to the 2nd an 3rd of the above two applications the Islamic date 25th Shawwāl 148 AH corresponds to the Gregorian date 14th December 765, just as the article said, while the first gives the corresponding Gregorian date as 13th December 765, with "a small probability of one day error". For the 8th century, the Julian date corresponding to a given Gregorian date is obtained by subtracting 4 days from the latter.

15th Shawwāl 148 AH corresponds to the Gregorian date 4th December. and and 14th December 765, respectively,

Chesterton[edit]

In his 1988 biography of Chesterton, Gilbert: The Man who was G.K. Chesterton, Michael Coren quoted the Wiener Library as having said that they had never thought of Chesterton "as a man who was seriously anti-semitic".[1] In 2010, the then director of the Wiener Library denied that either the library or anyone authorised to speak on its behalf had ever issued such statement.[2] In September 2013, following a discussion of the issue on twitter, Coren stated that the disputed quotation had come from a 1985 conversation with a librarian whose name he no longer had any record or memory of. Although he did not explicitly withdraw his attribution of the quotation to the Wiener Library, neither did he provide any justification for regarding the the unnamed librarian's opinion as representing that of the library's.[3]

Director's letter Ben Barkow p.2

G.K. Chesterton and the Wiener Library defence Simon Mayers p.10

Michael Coren Canonization attempt resurrects anti-Semitic claim 'Ludicrous, surreal episode' against G. K. Chesterton returns

  1. ^ Coren (2001, p.214)
  2. ^ Barkow (2010, p.2)
  3. ^ Coren, (2013)

Coren, Michael (13 September 2013), Canonization attempt resurrects anti-Semitic claim, The BC Catholic (Vancouver: Archdiocese of Vancouver), retrieved 13 October 2013 

Mayers, Simon, G.K. Chesterton and the Wiener Library defence, in Wiener Library News (Winter 2010, p.10), p. 10 

Barkow, Ben (2010), Director's letter, in Wiener Library News (Winter 2010, p.2), p. 2 

Wiener Library News (61), London: Curved Media for the Wiener Library, Winter 2010, ISSN 1465-5004 

Coren, Michael (2001) [1989], Gilbert: The Man who was G.K. Chesterton, Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, ISBN 9781573831956, OCLC 45190713 

p.214

Experiment[edit]

 This section incorporates verbatim text from an article now in the public domain: Turner, William (1912). "St. Vergilius of Salzburg". In Herbermann, Charles. Catholic Encyclopedia 15. Robert Appleton Company.


 This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domainTurner, William (1913). "St. Vergilius of Salzburg". In Herbermann, Charles. Catholic Encyclopedia 15. Robert Appleton Company. 

Reactions to the new star of 1604[edit]

Lorenzini

Rinuccini correspondence[edit]

Heilbron pp.354–5
Speller pp.367ff
Drake (Galileo: A very short introduction) p.167
Pedersen p.80–1
Alberi 1859, p.361, 1872, pp.228-9
Kline pp.84–5
Rowland p.330

Strasbourg "thesis"[edit]

Proceedings list of participants Arabic version English version (Qayyam publications' Lahore edition)
M. Robert Brunschvig, professeur à la Sorbonne, directeur de l'Institut d'Etudes islamiques de l'Université de Paris, ... Robert BRUNSHVIG ... ٣ [3] 3. Mr. Robert Brunswick, University of Paris.
M. Toufic Fahd, professeur à l'Université de Strasbourg, directeur de l'Institut d'Etudes islamiques de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences humaines de l'Université de Strasbourg, éditeur des Actes. Tufic FAHD ... — ٧ [7] 6. Mr. Tofic Fahal, University of Strasbourg.
M. Armand Abel, professeur aux Universités de Bruxelles et de Gand. Armand ABEL ... — ١ [1] 1. Mr. Arman Bull, University of Brussels.
M. Jean Aubin, directeur à l'Ecole pratique des Hautes Etudes, section des Sciences historiques et philologiques. Jean AUBIN ... — ٢ [2] 2. Mr. John Oben, University of Brussels.
M. Claude Cahen, professeur à la Sorbonne. Claude CAHEN ... — ٤ [4] 4. Mr. Claude Cohen, University of Paris.
M. Enrico Cerulli, vice-président de l'Accademia dei Lincei, Rome. Enrico CERULLI ... — ٥ [5]
M. Henry Corbin, directeur d'Etudes à l'Ecole pratique des Hautes Etudes, section des Sciences religieuses. Enri CORBIN ... — ٦ [6] 5. Mr. Henri Corbone, University of Strasbourg.
M. Francesco Gabrieli, professeur à l'Université de Rome. Francesco GABRIELI ... — ٨ [8] 7. Mr. Francisco Gabreili[sic], University of Rome.
R. P. Richard Gramlich, S. J. Richard GRAMLION ... — ٩ [9] 8. Mr. Richard Graham Lynch, University of Germany.
Miss Ann Lambton, professeur à l'Université de Londres.
[appears as Ann K.S. Lambton in the table of contents]
Anne M.S. LAMBTON ... — ١٠ [10] 9. Miss Anne Lipton, University of London.
M. Gérard Lecomte, professeur à l'Ecole nationale des Langues orientales vivantes, Paris.
M. Yvon Linant de Bellefonds, directeur de Recherches au Centre national de la Recherche scientifique, Paris. Yvon L. de BELLEFONDS ... — ١١ [11] 10. Mr. Evan Lenan, University of Chicago.
M. Wilferd Madelung, professeur à l'Université de Chicago. Wilferd MADLUNG ... — ١٢ [12]
M. Henri Massé, membre de l'Institut de France. Henri MASSÉ ... — ١٣ [13] 11. Mr. Henri Matisse, University of Paris.
M. Ḥussein Naṣr, professeur à l'Université deTéhéran. ١٤ — ... سید حسین نص ‎[14] 12. Mr. Husain Nasr, University of Tehran.
M. Charles Pellat, professeur à la Sorbonne. Charles PELLAT ... — ١٥ [15] 13. Mr. Charles Pila, University of Paris.
M. Mûsä ṣ-Ṣadr, directeur de l'Institut d'Etudes islamiques de Ṣûr. 14. Mr. Musa Sadr, Great Scholar, Sur, Lebanon.
M. Georges Vajda, directeur d'Etudes à l'Ecole pratique des Hautes Etudes, section des Sciences religieuses. 15. Mr. George Wazda, University of Lyons, France.
M. Roger Arnaldez (Université de Lyon). Robert ARNALDEZ ... — ١٦ [16] 16. Mr. Arna Ludz, University of Lyons, France.
M. Eliash (Université de Californie, Los Angeles). ALIASH ... — ١٧ [17] 17. Mr. Elyas, University of Los Angeles.
Mrs. Doreen Hinchcliffe (Université de Londres). Dorn HINKELIF ... — ١٨ [18] 18. Mrs. Duran Hynch Cliff, University of London.
M. Fritz Meier (Université de Bâle). FRAITZIMIER ... — ١٩ [19]
MM. Hans Römer, Hans Müller et Joseph Matuz (Université de Fribourg-en-Brisgau). 21. Mr. Hans Romer, University of Germany.
Hence MOULER ... — ٢٠ [20] 20. Mr. Hans Muller, University of Freebourg, Germany.
19. Mr. Joseph Manuz, University of Freebourg, Germany.