Talk:De sphaera mundi

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Occult Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Earlier article

For earlier discussion related to a now-deleted article on this book, see Talk:Sphaera Mundi.

The deleted article was the subject of a dispute regarding whether the author was entitled to insist on attribution to another wiki. I did not rely on that article for any of the information I used to create this one, so the issue is now moot. Frankly, the article was of poor quality in any case, as it focused on a specific edition of the book (and not even the first printing), rather than being about the book itself.

From the previous discussion and my brief research, it remains unclear what the most common title of the book is, as it carried several in its various editions. Although "De sphaera mundi" gives it the real flavor of astronomy, it may be that plain "De sphaera" is more accurate. Anyone who wants to pursue this further should probably get their hands on The Sphere of Sacrobosco and its Commentators by Lynn Thorndike, which was mentioned earlier and would probably make a great start to building a "References" section. --Michael Snow 05:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR

I marked the claim that this book proves that the belief that "13th century people were mostly Flat Earthers is wrong" as original research. We need a secondary source that makes such an attribution. For example, just because this one book did not hold to a Flat Earth perspective, does not rule out the possibility that others did. Now, if a reliable secondary source says, "De sphaera mundi shows us that the belief in the 19th century that...", then we can attribute that and give a reference. Absent such sourcing, though, the info should probably be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The principal secondary source is no doubt Jeffrey Burton Russell, Inventing the Flat Earth. He stated in his summary [1] that he could find only two to five early Christian fathers who denied a spherical Earth but "On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church." and "No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat." So De sphaera mundi would have been only one example in a long list of medieval sources refuting the late 19th- and early 20th-century view "that medieval scholars from the 13th century thought the Earth was flat". See Myth of the Flat Earth. However, I cannot provide a citation that specifically mentions De sphaera mundi until I consult Russell. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding the promised reference. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrosco does not teach a sperical earth

Contrary to what this article says, Sabrosco makes statements that contradict a spherical earth, for example is he saying in Chapter 1:

Those are said to have the sphere oblique who live this side of the equator or beyond it. For to them one pole is always raised above the horizon, and the other is always depressed below it.

If people in Europe have one pole raised above the horizon, the earth cannot be a sphere because on a sphere neither pole is raised above the horizon unless you live at the pole itself. This disproves the idea that Sabrosco portrayed a spherical earth.

Furthermore the section that is quoted where Sabrosco is supposed to be saying that the earth is a sphere is misrepresented. He says that the earth is round, not a sphere:

That the earth, too, is round is shown thus.

The English section heading "THE EARTH A SPHERE" is an addition and not contained in the original Latin. What he does say in this section, is that the earth has a "swelling" or bulge (Latin "tumor"):

For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.

I'm quite sure that more proof could be found in the document against the matter but I suppose that this enough to convince anyone sensible enough not to follow the interpretations given on this wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retonom (talk • contribs) 12:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]