Talk:Solstice

‹See TfM›

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 09:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Why is the introduction so all over the place? Why not start with a basic astronomical definition first and then go on about the latin origins etc etc. Something basic like " a Solstice is most commonly defined astronomically in relation to apparent position of the sun in the sky at 2 times during the year at which the earth is the furthest point in its elipse. From an observer on the earth the sun appears to stand still. The solstice is also commonly referred to as either the shortest day or the longest day." Not perfect but something like this.210.9.140.175 (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe solstice (or summer solstice or winter solstice) should be capitalized—it's not capitalized in Britannica or Merriam-Webster)—and so I am lowercasing it in this article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that they would be lower case when used as scientific terms but if they were being used as the direct titles for religious holy-days they should be capitalized. Such editors' conventions have not yet caught up with the times: "The solstice in June is when I join the other Druids at Stonehenge for our Summer Solstice observance." Rejecting that as "wrong" simply perpetuates the prevailing religious chauvanism that leaves us with sentences like "Jesus turned His face to the setting sun while behind Him the moon was already above the earth's eastern horizon." User: Earrach, (Ordained Druid Priest)

Proper nouns should be capitalized, and common nouns (such as "solstice") should not. Unfree (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the angles are messed up in the tropics: should be 23 not 26, and 46 not 43?

Yes, you are correct in believing the correct angles for the tropics of capricorn is 23 and 46. --Wired2Narnia

No, there's only one angle: that between the plane of the ecliptic and that of the equator. Unfree (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please correct misconceptions

The orbital diagram is beautiful, but misleading. It suggests that the earth's axis points in a different direction at different seasons of the year. It does not. The earth's axis should be tipped in the same direction for both the summer and winter solstice illustrations. You should then change the direction from which the sunshine comes from -- from the right in one, and from the left in the other -- just as it actually does when the earth shifts position by 180 degrees in its orbit. I'd omit the illustration for the equinoxes entirely. Anything you would draw would suggest that the earth's axis is oriented straight up and down, which is of course not correct. In reality, the sunlight would be streaming perpendicular to the page, which is not possible to draw in a two-dimensional illustration. User:BartBenjamin

It would also probably be better to use the terms "December Solstice" and "June Solstice" instead of "winter" and "summer." That way, it is correct for all hemispheres. That is how the International Planetarium Society solves this dilemma for its members located in both hemispheres. User:BartBenjamin

Adding December and June would be OK, but the traditional names are summer and winter. The illustrations fail to show what the labels are pointing at. They should be more schematic. PatShannon

in the Southern hemisphere the winter solstice falls in June while the summer solstice falls in December. As the solstices are important religous holidays in many Pagan traditions and the way in which they are celebrated depends on wether they mark the longest day or the longest night the important distinction is not which month they are in, but rather which season in the location in which they are celebrated. Babylon Horuv 23:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Babylon Horuv

Altitude

The term "altitude" is used a lot to describe the angle of the sun. It's obvious what it means, but can "altitude" strictly be used to describe an angle rather than a distance? Should we instead refer to inclination above the horizon? TerraGreen 00:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Altitude is routinely used to express the angle above the horizon. See for example the much cited US navy site. However the more formal astronomical term is elevation. Inclination is not normally used for positions but for planes (e.g. between equator and ecliptic). The full apparent location of a heavenly body is given by the combination azimuth and elevation. Although not scientific evidence, a quick search on Google reveals:

• azimuth elevation: 1.27M hits
• azimuth altitude: 1.57M hits

−Woodstone 14:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Altitude and azimuth go together in astronomy. In surveying, what astronomers call altitude is called elevation. (Both altitude and elevation can be used to refer to a height, in linear measure, above sea level or the surrounding ground level, but that's a different issue; here, we're referring to angular measures.) One can measure the elevation (not altitude) of one thing above another using a sextant, but altitude always refers to an object's elevation above the horizon. Using a theodolite, surveyors determine what they call elevations, but I don't know what they call the difference between two elevations. Since "solstice" is not of much use in surveying, it's the astronomical altitude that we mean here. It's measured perpendicularly to the observer's horizon (considered perpendicular to the direction of the earth's center, regardless of the surrounding landscape), and azimuth is measured along the horizon, from due north, so the celestial north pole has an azimuth of zero, and an altitude equal to the observer's latitude. Unfree (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

capitalization of directions

Directions such as south and north are capitalized in this article. According to the Manual of style , they shouldn't.

solstice definition

I changed the definition from "the moment the Sun reaches its furthest angular distance to the equator" to "the moment Earth tilts at its greatest distance towards or away from the Sun" because the former conveyed that the sun moves as opposed to Earth's rotational axis tilting. I'm sorry if I this change is incorrect. If I am wrong, please tell me why. Jecowa 07:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"To tilt at" means to attack with a lance. An angular distance is an angle. Earth's greatest distance from the sun is its aphelion, and Sun's apogee. This is whimsy; don't take it seriously -- unless I'm your elder. ;-) Unfree (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you. IMHO, geocentric coordinate systems have no place in explanations of the "why" of solstices and equinoxes yet they do seem to comprise 98% of the text in the leading paragraphs of dictionary, encyclopaedia and textbook definitions. Your choice of words actually explains what the event is / is caused by. Spherical Astronomy terms simply list the aparrent positions and motions seen from the ground: telling us only about certain effects rather than the "cause". Defining the summer solstice as "the moment when the sun has reached its highest declination above the celestial equator" - "explains" virtually nothing. I would though change your phrasing slightly, hopefully to make it even a little more clear: "Solstices: the moments on opposite sides of our annual orbital path where the Earth's constant 23 degree axial tilt comes directly in line with the Sun." 6_21_06 earrach

Speaking from a complete dummy's perspective, I found your definition (directly above, in your quotes), Earrach the most helpful in getting this concept through my overly thick skull, while sounding at least professional/astronomical (for my own mind, the words I would use, although they are trippy and untechnical are "the moment in the annual orbital path of the Earth when the sun gets the most light "spread across" the Earth). I am going to try to transpose the definition you offered here into the article. Matthew 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "directly in line with the Sun" fully describes the process of the Solstice. Combining the two may help to further add to this defenition. Maybe it should read, "Solstices: the moments on opposite sides of our annual orbital path where the Earth's constant 23 degree axial tilt allows the earth to come in line with the Sun at its furthest declination above or below the celestial equator." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nthnbtlv4u (talk • contribs) on 6 September 2006

At the time of writing this, the definition (i.e., the first couple sentences) is horribly confusing and generally terrible.Matthew 11:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

One would think there would be a standard astronomical definition. Trying to write one ourselves verges on WP:OR, but I might point out the solstices are the moments when the axis of the earth's rotation actually intersects its axis of revolution around the sun. If nothing else, that would be pretty easy to illustrate in a diagram. Glycerinester 09:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Video Game Disambig

There is also a video game called Solstice. I was looking for info on it, but got this instead. I decided to add a disambig link to the top of the page. What do you think? GLmathgrant 13:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Good job, GLmathgrant. Jecowa 08:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Illumination of the Earth Images

In the images shown for the summer and winter solstices the orientation of the Earth's pole shifts from left to right while in actuality the direction of the pole is fixed in at a point near the North Star. Here is an image showing correct views of the Earth at the Jun and Dec solstices but which unfortunately lack some of the astronomical definitions contained in the images shown.

Animated pictures

The recently added animated pictures are a bit confusing. The Sun appears to rotate around the Earth. There seems to be a static cloud cover rotating around Earth as well. Animation is nice, but Earth should rotate, the Sun should be still and there should be no falsely repeatedly moving wheather pattern. −Woodstone 20:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, those are both goods ideas. If Earth rotates, then the phase could remain constant which would allow the diagram information to be included as well. Thanks, Jecowa 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Pedant alert

Capitalization of "North/South Pole" is inconsistent in this article. Moreover, 'pole' is here in lowercase, while the North Pole and South Pole articles have it the other way around. It's rarely seen written in lowercase anywhere else, but I'm wary of changing it: Britannica has it capitalised, the OED doesn't. Any suggestions? The article should at least be consistent.

I'm sorry for any inconsistency I've caused. I capitalized North Pole because that's the way it was done in the North Pole article. Jecowa 03:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Tipping vs change of orientation

The current version of the article states that an Earth's hemisphere tips towards the Sun. That evokes an image of the Earth nodding (in a yearly cycle) towards and away from the Sun. Clearly in a section discussing the Outside View, this is incorrect. The Earth's axis is fixed in space and does not tip. Only its orientation relative to the Sun changes. That was the basis of my preceding edits that were reverted (unjustly).

Secondly "inclination" perhaps even more an official name than obliquity for the angle between two great circles.

−Woodstone 17:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me to be a struggle between two groups of people. Those who understand how it works, and are frustrated if non technical terms are used, because they may not convey the exact meaning. And those who do not know yet know how it works, and get confused by the technical terms, looking for simpler words. I think the explanations should cater for the latter, but the definitions for the former.

Also a lot on confusion seems to come from the question whether the rotation axis keeps its orientation in space or not. I would think the article together with the first two pictures is very clear about that. Or is it? --Tauʻolunga 20:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

needs complete rewrite

Personally I think "outside view" and "inside view" is a bad way to go about it. Firstly, this should be adapted for all change. The axis won't always be tilted at 23.44 degrees and the solstice won't always be on a specific Gregorian calendar month. Secondly, the eccentricity on the earth does have an impact on the Earth's climate, this is probably one of the main reasons for more extreme climate in the south, but it won't always be so due to precession of the equinoxes. The mechanics should be explained better as such. John Riemann Soong 01:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

won't always be tilted at 23.44 degrees you have already mentioned by currently makes of about 23.44° (called the "obliquity of the ecliptic") which last link gives full additional information.

solstice won't always be on a specific Gregorian calendar month is (indirectly) mentioned with Refer to the equinox article for some remarks, (and they will remain to happen in June and December for many 1000 years to come).

eccentricity on the earth does have an impact on the Earth's climate, this is probably ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  one of the main reasons for more extreme climate in the south you have already mentioned by adding Due to Milankovitch cycles, what more is needed?

"outside view" and "inside view" is a bad way, no, they give two different viewpoints of the same phenomenon. Only perhaps some better titles can be found.

Briefly, you have already addressed most problems yourself; a complete rewrite seems to me somewhat excessively. --Tauʻolunga 09:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A complete rewrite is completely uncalled for. Minor corrections only. Hmoul 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Defining moments

202.20.5.206 added "fact" to "defining moments". I'm not sure what statement he wants a citation for. The Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac defines the solstices as the two points on the ecliptic where the ecliptic longitude of the Sun is either 90° or 270° (which is not mentioned in the article). It does not mention the start of the astronomical seasons. — Joe Kress 06:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Table of Solstices

The table of solstice dates and times appears without any attribution as to its source or, alternatively, an explanation of how it might have been computed. Is tehre a risk that this may have been swiped froma copyright source?

87.112.73.171 14:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For your reassurance, the table comes from the named reference Earth's Seasons Equinoxes, Solstices, Perihelion, and Aphelion 1992-2020. As a public site by the U.S.A. government, this is free of copyright. And this information was present in the talk page of template:solstice-equinox from the very beginning. −Woodstone 20:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's gone now, but this exists: Earth's seasons. Unfree (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

preferred terms

I switched the terms from winter/summer and June/December to northern/southern, for reasons that other contributors had already explained in the entry. -gmail "ww0308", not yet a registered wp user, 15 December 2006

switched images

Also, it appears that someone swapped the images for the heliocentric and geocentric sections! I went ahead and switched them back. -gmail "ww0308", not yet a registered wp user, 15 December 2006

Current Event

If we are filing this as a current event at the appropriate times, shouldn't we also be noting articles such as "December", "Monday", "day", and "night" as current events? Current event kind of implies that it is something which is expected to happen only once (not true here - this is a cyclical event), and that people, or a limited group of people, will be able to influence in some manner (not true with today's technology). I'm removing the tags. Rhialto 04:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC) ETA: someone beat me to it.

Confusing paragraph

"The northern solstice is in June on Earth, when the sun is directly over the Tropic of Cancer in the Northern Hemisphere, and the southern solstice is in December,"

I think this should be "The northern summer solstice is in June on Earth, when the sun is directly over the Tropic of Cancer in the Northern Hemisphere, and the southern summer solstice is in December". Agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craigfis (talk • contribs) 23:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Negative. I feel northern and southern distinctly identify the two and the term summer is ambiguous as already stated in the article.

Why do we use the words, on Earth, here? The months, June and December apply to Earth and only Earth, no other planets in the Solar System have these months, so the months indicate Earthly connections, right?

Instead of using all the passive verbs, why not try to use formal active English? For instance,

"The Earth's northern solstice occurs in June, when the sun is directly over the Tropic of Cancer in the Northern Hemisphere, while the southern soltice occurs in December."

Also, the words northern and southern positively identify Earth, no?

Time Between Solstices

According to the data the time span between solstices is as follows:

 - 2002-03: 365d 5h 44m
 - 2003-04: 365d 5h 49m
 - 2004-05: 365d 5h 44m
 - 2005-06: 365d 5h 53m
 - 2006-07: 365d 5h 41m
 - 2007-08: 365d 5h 41m
 - 2008-09: 365d 5h 56m

Is this correct? Shouldn't the time from solstice to solstice be the same each year? If not, can somebody explain why in the article.

There are a variety of reasons why the dates of the solstices may change from year to year. It may have something to do with the calender not being exact with regard to astronomical phenomena. For instance, every four years we "correct" this inaccuracy by adding one day to the end of February. There is additional inaccuracy that is corrected over longer periods of time. See Leap year for an explanation. Also, the length of a year increases by a small amount each year. However, this amount is probably too small to be noticable from one year to the next, so I bet it doesn't explain the differences you noted, above. SharkD (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: it is also due (in part) to the gravitational attraction of the moon. See here. SharkD (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The table I posted is spans of time NOT dates. The question is not about dates! Leap years have nothing to do with it. If it has to so with the moon's gravity then that info should appear in the article. LogicalOctopus (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly a nice article but no references

This looks like a nice, informative article. Unfortunately, there are no external references given so it is not easy for a reader to verify anything here. Articles should comply with WP:V and WP:RS. I am tagging the article as being completely unreferenced as of this summer solstice. There are also some weasel terms such as "Some consider these terms to be the most neutral and unambiguous." Who is "some"? Statements like this need to be attributed to a particular person or group so that the reader can better evaluate who makes such a claim. I hope that someone knowledgeable about the topic will be able to readily improve upon these areas. Johntex\^talk 19:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Solstice a worldwide phenomenon

"Solstice" refers to a strictly earthly phenomenon, since it refers to the passage of the earth through a point in its orbit, or the point in time at which the passage occurs, which is defined by the extension of the earth's equator into space.

Consider two planes, that of the earth's orbit (the "ecliptic"), and that of the equator (the projection of which onto the celestial sphere is called the "celestial equator"). The passages of Earth through the points in its orbit which coincide with the ecliptic are called equinoxes, and its passages through the points farthest from the ecliptic are called solstices.

It's one thing for most of Earth's population, who live in the northern hemisphere, to call one solstice the "winter" solstice and the other the "summer" one in common parlance, but that's dreadfully provincial. Only "northern" and "southern" make sense worldwide, and this is the World-Wide Web, isn't it? So let's not insult everybody south of the equator by calling the solstice which marks the beginning of summer the "winter" solstice! Unfree (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Constellations irrelevant

"First point of Cancer and first point of Capricorn. One disadvantage of these names is that, due to the precession of the equinoxes, the astrological signs where these solstices are located no longer correspond with the actual constellations."

This reflects the misconception that "Cancer" and "Capricorn" refer to constellations. Actually, they refer to signs of the zodiac, which is of little use in astronomy. But even today, one point in Earth's orbit is called the first point of Aries, referring not to the constellation Aries, but to the first of twelve equal sectors (the "signs") of the zodiac, which is defined by the coincidence of the ecliptic with the equator, and moves in accord with Earth's slowly meandering axis. Unfree (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the zodiac and the tropical lines are related in exactly this way. They used to point at constellations, hence why these positions are named after constellations. SharkD (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Midsummer

"The term solstice can also be used in a wider sense, as the date (day) that such a passage happens. The solstices, together with the equinoxes, are connected with the seasons. In some languages they are considered to start or separate the seasons; in others they are considered to be centre points (in English, in the Northern hemisphere, for example, the period around the June solstice is known as midsummer, and Midsummer's Day is 24 June, about three days after the solstice itself)."

I suspect that this peculiarity, that "Midsummer's Day" and "midsummer" refer to the solstice, doesn't reflect general differences among languages, but merely an anomaly in one meaning of one word in one language, and that the idea of seasons beginning at solstices and equinoxes is easily understood and expressible among all languages. The idea of "summer" refers to the warmest quarter of the year in either hemisphere, and its beginning is defined by convention to coincide with a solstice. Regardless of the word "midsummer," this understanding of what "summer" means is as true in England as elsewhere, isn't it? Unfree (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In all East Asian languages (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) the solstices and equinoxes mark the middle of the seasons. In Chinese, of the 24 solar terms, those which describe the beginning of the seasons are lichun, literally meaning begin spring, which occurs when the Sun reaches a celestial longitude of 315° (45° before the northern vernal equinox at 0°); lixia (begin summer) is 45° (45° before 90°); liqiu (begin autumn) is 135° (45° before 180°); and lidong (begin winter) is 225° (45° before 270°). In Korean the corresponding terms are ipchun, ipha, ipchu, and ipdong, whereas in Japanese they are risshun, rikka, risshu, and ritto. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Northern-Centric terms

Can someone actually go through the article and remove the Northern Hemisphere bias from the article? It's currently stating Christmas happens on the winter solstice, which is incorrect for half the world. I have changed the cultural piece to reflect a December and a June solstice because that is more descriptive and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.63.102 (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Earth-lighting-winter-solstice EN.png

First of all I'd like to say that this image is really great! It would be nice, however, to have the images used to map the surface of the Earth correspond to the date (winter solstice) depicted in the diagram. I checked the links to the images used. The "Earth's City Lights" image [1] appears to have been taken on 2000-10-23. The "The Blue Marble: Land Surface, Ocean Color and Sea Ice" image [2] corresponds to 2002-02-08. Having images for the correct date allows one to show how ice and snow patterns are affected by the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. One could create a matching image for the summer solstice showing growth of the ice packs in Antarctic regions. This would allow the diagram to be reused in other articles that deal more specifically with seasonal changes in climate. Unfortunately, I don't think images for each day of the year exist, and I suppose October and February are pretty close. SharkD (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Some sections of this article must be placed in an external article

"Heliocentric view of the seasons" and "Geocentric view of the seasons" must be placed in an external article. The reason is both sections are in Solstice and Equinox articles, and corrections in one are not synchronized with the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cablop (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

[3] "All places on Earth in... the tropics... will see the Sun in the zenith at least two days per year" - more like exactly two days amirite? 198.49.180.40 (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude. look at an analemma. If you stand on the line of the tropic, you should only see the sun at zenith ONE day a year. ( I have stood on the tropic of cancer, but not on the solstice. Anyone stand on the tropic of capricorn? ). The graphic on the analemma page confirms that for the tropical lines, its only one day. go figure....--76.20.16.118 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, at any location between the tropics it is unlikely that you would ever see the Sun exactly in the Zenith, because that would only happen if the Sun passes that latitude at noon. So normally one day, the Sun would pass just south of the zenith, the next day just north. So there are just two chances per year to see it in the zenith. Accordingly, at a location exactly on a tropic, you would only see the Sun in the zenith if the solstice happens to be exactly at noon (true solar time). −Woodstone (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that in theory, if you disregard time-zones, and define noon simply as the highest point of the sun during the day where it crosses the given longitude, then there would be at least one point on each and every latitude that sees the sun exactly at the Zenith twice during the year. Imagine that the sun carves a path on the Earth as it moves between the Tropics. This path is defined as the point where the sun is directly overhead, and thus it is noon there. Clearly, as the earth spins and revolves around the sun, there is a path that looks like a helix (except that it is carved on a sphere not a cylinder).

So there has to be SOME point at any given time on the earth between the tropics where it is noon, and the sun is exactly overhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.138.30 (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded that paragraph. Hopefully this will relieve the confusion. --Lasunncty (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't any confusion, there was a factual error. No point anywhere on earth, on the tropic, betweeen the tropics, anywhere else, can possibly have the sun at the zenith more than twice per year. Thanks to everyone who participated. --198.49.180.40 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

June 21st

That's the "longest day"! -- [4]

http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/longestday.htm Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.86.252 (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

New leading tags

Hello buddy. This is botteville typing from another system. The previous introduction said nothing and was in error. Moreover, it gave a false etymology for solstice. I'm trying to help, here. The article does not even get into modern definitions until far down in the article. Now, here is what I propose. I started by saying there are many ways to define "solstice." You don't like the historical method? Why don't you work one up, or do you do anything else except put tags on? YOU write an introduction according to the method YOU think is appropriate! I am going to finish the section I was on and then stop work! I will be watching what YOU do, and I will give you every benefit of the doubt. I do insist you get it right, whatever you do. The rest of you who are interested now will have a chance to vote. Do you want to fix this article? Now is your chance. If anyone thinks these tags are out of place, take them off. If I see them off I will resume working on the article, unless they are off because someone wrote an adequate intro. By the way, there is nothing wrong with the length of the intro. As for relativity, it does NOT stray from the topic. The sun does not have an "apparent" motion it has a relative motion. Many sources say that. So give it a shot, pick up the thread, do better than me, be aggressive, improve the article. Now is your chance. Let us see how it stands later down the road. My guess is it will not stand anywhere except where it is now, so surprise me!12.4.26.248 (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, YOU (as you are writing it) should assume good faith, something that you are hardly doing. Your post seems to assume good faith in a superficial way, but it's quite clear that you don't. When I posted those tags, I wasn't attacking your person. I put up the tags to point out a problem with the article, while, in the mean time, I try to devise a solution, i.e. a rewrite. I'm surprised that you're not in favor of this method. The alternative is to be bold and just change everything. Would you prefer that? If so I'd be happy to just delete the entire intro right now and start typing away. Instead, though, I chose the less aggressive and more open method of, first, placing tags up, and, second, changing text. This allows for productive and open discussion on the topic. Unfortunately, you're discussion is not what I had in mind. You are simply being defensive and over-protective. You're call for discussion and inclusion seems more like a defensive come-on -- you don't actually expect or want anyone to weigh in or change anything. But, alas, this is Wikipedia. Whatever you write, you must presume that it will be scrutinized and rewritten mercilessly.

Now, regarding the meat of the problem, first, the intro wouldn't be too long if it was more concise and didn't venture off the path. But, because it does, it's appears too long and meandering. If it wasn't -- if all five paragraphs of the lede contained essential facts and didn't veer off topic -- then, perhaps, a five paragraph intro wouldn't be too long. But I don't think that's the case here.

Second, while, yes, there are certain off topics (like Special Relativity) that must be explained in order for the reader to understand the concept of the solstice, those off topics need not be expounded upon in the intro in as much detail as they are now.

Third, while the current first sentence of the article would be a fine way to start an essay, this isn't any old essay; it's an encyclopedia entry. And, as such, the first sentence (and the first paragraph) should define the topic in a more traditional and easy-to-swallow way. Forget the literary flourishes. I know it sounds terrible, but that's the way Wikipedia is. It's about writing encyclopedia entries, which are often dry, not about writing pretty-sounding or uniquely-worded essays. The current first sentence, for example, doesn't really give the reader a full understanding of the solstice, in so much as one sentence can do. If you look at the featured articles, they all have certain things in common. One of those things is a strong, complete and explanatory first sentence. This article should have that too.

These are just a few of things I've noticed in the article's lede. I'd be happy to write my own version for you and others to look at. Or I can just, as you suggest, put up my words and wipe out the current content. Either way is fine with me, but I thought, perhaps, I wouldn't be a jerk. In all situations, we have the choice to go about something in a way that comes off like a jerk or not a jerk. I chose the latter.

Also, won't you sign in and make yourself known? I would be happy to have a productive discussion about this. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello buddy. I was using another computer I couldn't sign in on. That is why I didn't sign in. Now you know who I am insofar as I care to reveal it. I'm glad you encourage me assume good faith. Otherwise you looked like a knowledgeable vandal to me, because that is mostly what you see here, intellectual wise guys (besides teenagers struggling with their potty training). Well, it looks to me as though we have a legitimate conflict of approach and views, something I seldom encounter. I'm not going to try and change what you are and I would not diminish your enthusiasm for the game. So the thing for me to do is bow out. I more or less answered you below. Many people do take a historical approach. Having been trained in history as well as science that is the approach I take. That is not your approach so you do not see the utility of it. In cases like this I cede the field. I usually offer some historical garnishment if it seem interesting or if the author(s) have tried to put some in. You don't see the point of all that, I know. The history of science is not irrelevant or off the mark and it does explain some scientific terms and concenpts. That is all I care to suggest at the moment; I know that it will take a major educational effort to get you to change your mind, which this article is not. Now, I would prefer you to use your enthusiasm to create something according to YOUR system of values and point of view. We don't want to waste legitimate enthusiasm, now do we? There are many way to approach the subject. I don't have to have it MY way! I don't want to see you just revert it. Then I would have to put tags of my own and also you wiould not have answered any of the questions in the discussion or done anything to raise the grade. So, by all means, take it in hand. I explained that below. I like working on articles, don't you? You entered the lists here. Now you have to tournay or look like a ... I am not going to say it. From what you just said I think you will love it. You won't be able to break away. There is plenty or room for articles written from a scientific viewpoint. Have at it. See below and best wishes. Take all the time you need. When you are done get those tags off of there. I will check in from time to time after I do the paragraph.Dave (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary -- I think that a historical approach is extremely important one if one is to get a full grasp of the topic. I just don't see a need to jump into it before giving at least a contemporary definition of the solstice. This article wouldn't be complete without a describing the solstice from a historical perspective. I just don't see that as the main focus of the article (which should be the contemporary understanding of the solstice). I see it as an important component of it -- something to be touched upon in the intro and delved into in a section. ask123 (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

General Assessment

This article has a lot of good elements in it, the makings in fact of a good article. My bottom-line assessment is that it sprawls - it could be condensed and the English could be improved. It has an organization and I can't say really that it is not a good organization. It needs a hand to bring it all together and cut it down. Those tags at the top are representative of why it cannot be improved - no one can agree and the disagreers are intolerant and aggressive. The tags are all wrong and similar criticisms in the discussion are wrong-minded and intolerant. Unless you people can agree or show some open-mindedness this is going on as a class B or C article until someone higher-up takes a hand and gives the process some direction. I would like to say it will come down to a call for an expert. Let me say that this is a pre-expert call for cooperation. Without it things are going no further here. I would add to the call for references but I see that function is in large part taken care of by the links. You authors- go over your material, see if you can reduce the verbiage a bit. And, start weighing in on the intro - what kind of an intro is best? We may need to take a few votes. There is no "wrong" approach as long as it is accurate.12.4.26.248 (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the right sort of intro

I invite you to comment in this section on the most appropriate intro as a prelude to taking a vote of some sort and getting this thing moving in the right direction. Whoever put the tags at the top gave no explanation at all. Let's discuss.12.4.26.248 (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I gave a brief explanation in my edit summary, but apologies for not continuing on here on the talk page. I'm glad that a discussion is happnening. I made my last post before reading the last two comments. It seems that I may have been wrong about the other user. I'm glad that everyone, including him/her, is participating in a productive discussion.

I would agree with IP user above that English needs some improvement and the intro is sprawling. Also, the style of writing needs some shaping up to. It needs to be more concise, and the piece should read more like an informative, encyclopedia article. The first sentence, for example, should be plainly explainatory and the intro should follow that lead. Much of the information contained in the intro is good, but it needs to be re-ordered, re-worded and trimmed down. Thoughts? ask123 (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to write up an alternative intro that still uses much of the information and wording of the current intro. Can't do it now, but I'll start on it this evening. ask123 (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well hello there. This is much more reasonable. If you would take this in hand I would appreciate it. I see you are not a history-type person. All right. Don't deprecate history though. The history of science is a legitimate adjunct to it. If you want to start by defining solstice from a scientific view that is fine by me. You will not really say much that is different from what the ancients said but you may not know that. Modern science explanations are fine. For the relativity - well, I think you are too quick there. The last two sections on solstice from the earth and sun are actually written from a relativistic point of view. It does not resort to true motion versus apparent motion but talks about the path of the sun from different points of view. So, what you want to do with the etymology - well, I leave it up to you. If you want to move it or put it in a note, fine, but the etymology is as the AHD states it, which I gave in a ref. I don't know if I would cut it out - people like their word origins. I'll leave it up to you. Maybe you want to reduce the history to a minimum. What I did not like about the first intro was that it did not define! It stated, the solstices are on such and such a day. Big deal. We knew that. Then it gave a lame etymological definition. But, if you want to take the field I cede it to you - I have other more historical irons in the fire I am eager to get back to. I want to finish that one section of ancient Greek terminology. I got one paragraph to go. But, as far as I am concerned you can do pretty much what you like. If you do get into history then I may have more to say. Remember, people may make fun of Wikipedia but millions read it and we owe the good folks some truth. Despite what some sentences in the handbook say, this is not an opinion poll except where absolutely necessary. An encyclopedia captures knowledge and most opinion is not that. So , have at it, but take it seriously. Don't concern yourself if you want to change anything I wrote or dump it. I want to see quality there. If you want to be the guiding hand, be it. I bow out. Best wishes.Dave (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries...there are many mistaken impressions on the internet! As I wrote above: I think that a historical approach is extremely important one if one is to get a full grasp of the topic. I just don't see a need to jump into it before giving at least a contemporary definition of the solstice. This article wouldn't be complete without a describing the solstice from a historical perspective. I just don't see that as the main focus of the article (which should be the contemporary understanding of the solstice). I see it as an important component of it -- something to be touched upon in the intro and explored in great detail in a sub-section. ask123 (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting from a standard definition of the solstice, as given in the Meriam Webster Dicitonary. I would like the lede to first explain exactly what the solstice is, which is an event in time that occurs twice a year. Once this precise definition has been given, we can touch upon the history and significance of the solstice -- both of which will be explored in greater detail in the sub-sections. Sound OK? ask123 (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

SOMETHING LIKE THIS (going to re-word it later): The solstice is either of the two points on the ecliptic at which its distance from the celestial equator is at its greatest. It is a temporal event that occurs twice a year, when the sun is directly over the Tropic of Cancer and over the Tropic of Capricorn respectively. ask123 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps: A solstice is one of the two times of the year when the sun is furthest from the celestial equator. It is also one of two points on the ecliptic furthest away from the celestial equator, which is where the sun is at a solstice time.

The reader may be wondering what the signifance of this is and I regard it essential for the introduction the mention that the solstice gives rise to the longest and shortest daylight period of the year.

The history including etymology of solstice deserves its own section. Karl (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The solstice is neither a time, nor a place, but an event that occurs at some place and time, defined by the Sun reaching its extreme position relative to locations on Earth. A good lead first has a simple definition, without using specialist terms like celestial equator, followed by a more precise technical one. −Woodstone (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Karl: The intro will certainly address those points. I was just posting an idea for the first sentence or two. Certainly, the intro will mention that the solstices are the longest and shortest days of the year, as well as many other practical facts about the solstices, including their relationship to cultural and religious events. Also, I agree that there should be a section devoted to the solstices in history and section devoted to the etymology of the word.

Woodstone: If "celestial equator" and "ecliptic" are too complex, I will put it in more simple terms first. I was just posting an idea, not actual words to be used. If you go to the meriam webster definition of solstice, you will see that I simply lifted the dictionary definition. It needs to be re-worded.

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I will have something churned out shortly. ask123 (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Delay

Sorry for the delay! I've had so much (real world) work lately. Consequently, the revised intro is taking a bit longer than expected. But I will have something soon! ask123 (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I've been reading through the talk page and I thought I'd throw something together. I'm in a bit of a hurry so I won't change the article but I will post my suggestions here and they can then be used, incorporated or discarded as you see fit. For clarify I will be indenting quotes from the article and double indenting my thoughts and suggested changes.

"Of the many ways in which solstice can be defined, one of the most common (and perhaps most easily understood) is by the astronomical phenomenon for which it is named, which is readily observable by anyone on Earth: a "sun-standing." This modern scientific word descends from a Latin scientific word in use in the late Roman republic of the 1st century BC: solstitium. Pliny uses it a number of times in his Natural History with the meaning it still has, but the word is in common use in other authors. It contains two Latin-language segments, sol, "sun", and -stitium, "stoppage.""

I don't mean to insult anyone but even the start, "of the many ways in which solstice can be defined" is unnecessarily complex. My suggested intro: "Solstice is usually defined as the moment, occuring twice a year, when the seasonal movement of the sun as seen from Earth halts. Solstice occurs on the shortest and longest days of the year. The word descends from the Latin term "solstitium" (roughly "sun stoppage") which was used in the 1st century BC in the Roman republic."

"By this "standing" the Romans meant a component of the relative velocity of the sun as it is observed in the sky. Relative velocity is the motion of an object from the point of view of an observer in a frame of reference"

I understand the intention here but this is a bit of an absurd juxtaposition. The Romans had no concept of special relativity, nor is an understanding of special relativity necessary to understand Solstice, since the concept predates relativity by a pretty massive amount of time. My suggestion is that ALL of the discussion of relative motion etc be shifted from the intro to a new section perhaps called "Astrophysical Explanation" or something along those lines. I also think it should be trimmed down; this isn't an article about special relativity.

"The term solstice can also be used in a wider sense, as the date (day) that such a passage happens."

I think the paragraph following this is fine. So ultimately I think the intro should consist of the first and last paragraphs, with the first paragraph simplified, and the discussion of relativity should be shifted to its own subheading within the article. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good plan. Intro is way too complex, and does not convey the information concisely. (Ethan Mitchell, forgetting to log in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.40.130 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Stuff I moved:

By this "standing" the Romans meant a component of the relative velocity of the sun as it is observed in the sky. Relative velocity is the motion of an object from the point of view of an observer in a frame of reference; for example, if it is true that seen from a space ship the Earth orbits the sun, it is also true that seen from the Earth the sun orbits the Earth. Relative velocity is quite real; that is, the perceived motions of objects are entirely relative to point of view; one and the same motion appears different from different frames of reference, and there is no absolute frame of reference from which all other motions are to be described.

To an observer in inertial space, perhaps in a space craft, the Earth rotates about an axis and revolves around the sun in an elliptical path with the sun at one focus. This is the point of view of writers of astronomy textbooks. The Earth's axis is tilted rather than perpendicular to the plane of the Earth's orbit and this axis maintains a position that changes little (but does change) with respect to the background of stars. An observer on Earth therefore sees a solar path that is the result of both rotation and revolution.

The component of the sun's motion seen by an Earth-bound observer caused by the revolution of the tilted axis, which, keeping the same angle in space, is oriented toward or away from the sun, is an observed diurnal increment (and lateral offset) of the elevation of the sun at noon for roughly six months and observed daily decrement for the remaining six months. At maximum or minimum elevation the relative motion at 90° to the horizon stops and changes direction by 180°. The maximum is the summer solstice and the minimum is the winter solstice. The path of the sun, or ecliptic, sweeps north and south between the northern and southern hemispheres. Around the summer solstice the days are longest and the shortest around the winter solstice. When the path crosses the equator the days and nights are of equal length, a condition called an equinox. There are two solstices and two equinoxes.

The term solstice can also be used in a wider sense, as the date (day) that such a passage happens.

Ethan Mitchell (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The new lead by User:Elpincha is far from better than it was before. There is no relationship between the elliptic orbit of the earth around the sun and the occurrence of the solstice. The solstice only determined by the orientation of the earth's axis relative to the sun. Furthermore only in some cultures does the solstice mark the beginning of seasons. And even there, many other definitions of the seasons exist. So more work is needed. −woodstone (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

earth wobbles?

I am not too sure but this phenomenon always confused me say you have a rotating disc and you put an inclined stick / on one end of the disc when the disc rotates and the stick is on the other side, it becomes like \ however the same logic does not hold true for the earth. So does the axis actually tilt across when it goes from one side to the other? 12:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The orientation in space of the Earth's axis stays the same all year round (except for a tiny amount of precession). The axis is not fixed in any way to the Sun or the orbit. The stick you have in mind is fixed to the rotating disk, and by this fixation, the disc's rotation exerts a torque on the stick and it rotates with it. −Woodstone (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is just observation. If the axis was like an unfixed thing on a disc too, it would still be bent in the same direction because, say it is heavier on one end and the centrifugal force causes it to bend, that bend would still have the same orientation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs) 08:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the conservation of angular momentum would imply that the angular momentum has a magnitude and direction fixed w.r.t. a pivot, called the sun here. Assume there is no revolution, the angular momentum of the object is fixed at \ . now we take into account revolution causing another angular component around the pivot...sun going | . so | + \ has to be conserved in totality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs) 08:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% clear on what your understanding of the situation is but perhaps you're considering the Sun's gravitational pull on the Earth to be like swinging a tennis ball on a string around yourself. It's not like that - the Sun's pull acts on the Earth's centre of gravity but it is not connected to it and has no effect on which way the Earth's axis of rotation points. This is why now (February) the north pole points away from the Sun while the south points towards it. This causes it to be winter in the northern hemisphere and summer in the south. Six months later the Earth's axis still points toward the same point in space (Polaris for north) but the Earth is on the other side of the Sun, so now the north pole points toward the Sun and experiences summer, and the south points away and has winter.

So you are saying a gyroscope on a spinning platform would point the other way once it reaches the other side so as to conserve angular momentum. In this case the assumption is that the gyroscope was already rotating before it was put on the spinning platform, correct?