Talk:Sun

Unsafe conclusion in Motion and location

Under the subtitle "Motion in the Solar System"

There is an unsupported conclusion with an orphan reference. To wit: "[…] The orbits of the inner planets, including of the Earth, are similarly displaced by the same gravitational forces, so the movement of the Sun has little effect on the relative positions of the Earth and the Sun or on solar irradiance on the Earth as a function of time.[140] […]"

Checking footnote 140 reveals:

Retraction of: Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-019-45584-3, published online 24 June 2019 The Editors have retracted this Article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding the interpretation of how the Earth-Sun distance changes over time and that some of the assumptions on which analyses presented in the Article are based are incorrect.The analyses presented in the section entitled “Effects of SIM on a temperature in the terrestrial hemispheres” are based on the assumption that the orbits of the Earth and the Sun about the Solar System barycenter are uncorrelated, so that the Earth-Sun distance changes by an amount comparable to the Sun-barycenter distance. Post-publication peer review has shown that this assumption is inaccurate because the motions of the Earth and the Sun are primarily due to Jupiter and the other giant planets, which accelerate the Earth and the Sun in nearly the same direction, and thereby generate highly-correlated motions in the Earth and Sun. Current ephemeris calculations [1,2] show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article. As a result the Editors no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented. S. I. Zharkov agrees with the retraction. V. V. Zharkova, E. Popova, and S. J. Shepherd disagree with the retraction.

[1] Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G., Boggs, D. H., Park, R.S. & Kuchynka, P. The Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE430 and DE431. "The Interplanetary Network Progress Report", Volume 42–196, February 15, 2014.

[2] JPL Horizons on-line solar system data. https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons

Reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7055216/

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

Lascandovasadar (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Nah≥

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting sun videos

[1] I mean videos like reference 1.

The sun surface changes all the time and this face was only visible on that day. Polymorphismus (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The sun is likely an intelligent organism, but astrobiologists have not yet published something, as far as I know. 2003:E2:473C:31D:8DAC:9260:494:DB54 (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

NASA data

User:Randy Kryn, personally I think that this table at Sun#General_characteristics should be removed mainly because it is essentially another infobox but in the body, which increase maintenance cost for future editors; we already have much more precise and comprehensive information in the infobox cited to reliable sources (even for occasional comparison with Earth's statistics). I have a feeling that you want to make the infobox less long by offloading some of the statistics to a dedicated table, and to be honest that's a pretty good idea that we should discuss further here.

In the edit summary you said that "infobox does not preclude the same information appearing in the text, and most infobox information usually appears in the text", but in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, it is explicitly said that "As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox." CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello CactiStaccingCrane. The chart in the text seems a good addition which was added almost six months ago. I didn't focus on the length of the infobox but yes, it does come across as too large. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify why you think it is a good addition, when we already have the infobox for the same statistics? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

They are laid out better in the chart for the average reader, making the stats more understandable. Information in an infobox does not preclude it from being included in the text, and entries in infoboxes are usually repeated in the text, in most case within the lead or close to it. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Cacti on this one, I see no good reason for this duplication. Artem.G (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding my $0.02 - I don't think that particular table contributes much. A table of physical characteristics is useful, but if it's in the infobox already, we don't need another. Perhaps we could shorten the infobox (which is pretty cramped), and move some of the data into a table. But this particular table, giving comparison with earth sizes, is something I find uninteresting. The fact that it's a direct copy of a NASA document also leaves me uneasy - copyright isn't an issue, but even so, a direct copy is not quite what I'd like to see on Wikipedia. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd also be in favor of deleting that table. I don't think it adds any essential new content to the page. Also, the table title is "comparison between sun and earth" but it lists a bunch of solar properties that have no earth analog, like spectral type G2V, or luminosity, where it doesn't make sense to have any comparison at all. And some quantities like "visual magnitude" make no sense for Earth without additional context (like what distance you're assuming you are observing the earth from, or that sort of thing). Aldebarium (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the proposed removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I am gonna go ahead and remove the table. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane, you don't give discussions much time do you? In my experience that's not how it works on Wikipedia, but not going to make a fuss about it since it seems the way this one would probably ('probably', not 'certainly') turn out. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, no, it's not that I want to do things my own way, but because the problem is blindly obvious and you did not give a detailed explanation about your reasoning. You could extend this thread and challenge my actions if you wish, but I am afraid that without a good explanation from your side, it will not be successful. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Gravity waves

The article mentions "gravitational waves" - this almost certainly is wrong. Gravity waves are hydrodynamic surface waves while gravitational waves relate to general relativity. Turns out words matter. (I saw gravitational waves mentioned here as a cause of coronal temperature, and clearly the effects of GR under that gravitational regime are negligible.)98.21.213.85 (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Addressing Changes to the Lede by XiounuX

I'd like to preface this by acknowledging that @XiounuX seems to be knowledgeable about the topic and acting in good faith. That being said, I believe that the sentence they've inserted into the very first paragraph of the lede ("The Sun behaves dynamically as a magneto-alternator rather than a dynamo") does not belong there.

The sun is of interest to all human beings and the writing of the article needs to reflect that. The first few paragraphs must be accessible, concise, and informative. The sentence in question is both too technical and insufficiently important to warrant inclusion in the lede, much less the first paragraph. As it stands, the article deals with magnetohydrodynamic models of the sun before fundamental questions like "What is the sun made of?", "Where did the sun come from?", and "How long will the sun last?"

As of the time of writing three people (@Aldebarium, @CactiStaccingCrane and myself) have removed this sentence from the lede, and each time @XiounuX has re-inserted it while claiming to have "reverted vandalism". Perhaps the sentence could be moved to the "Magnetic Activity" subsection instead?

-- Marchantiophyta (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No one gets to vote on basic science. Go and vandalize articles from your purview. XiounuX (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not helpful. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

To add to this, the statement "The Sun behaves dynamically as a magneto-alternator rather than a dynamo" (also inserted into Solar dynamo) is a WP:FRINGE theory that does not belong on Wikipedia. It is only supported by a single paper, Omerbashich 2023, whose sole author, Mensur Omerbashich, has been discussed here previously regarding the multitude of other, unrelated fringe theories attributed to them. Additionally, the paper is published in The Journal of Geophysics, which I would consider WP:QUESTIONABLE especially given that Omerbashich is the editor in chief. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Good to know - astrophysics is far outside my area of expertise, but [Omerbashich's blog] tells me all I need to know about his academic standards. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

About you celebrating my permanent ban and using it as a justification to remove my edits: indeed, a pretty nervous admin had banned me permanently. But then another admin took a look into that ban, and I am now unbanned. Oh well. Some people just can't help it. So yeah, I am unbanned now. Nothing wrong with these additions to the Sun articles, and you (still) don't get to vote on basic science, so I'm reinstating them. By the way, I also notified Dr. Omerbashich about the above libel by you undergrad kids, and the man is contacting Wikipedia's legal department as we speak. XiounuX (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@XiounuX: Who is celebrating your ban? No one used your ban to justify removing the edits discussed in this thread. No one even mentioned your ban here. Your edits to Sun and Solar dynamo should be removed for the reasons given previously by both myself and Marchantiophyta. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the addition made to your above comment in [diff], which I did not see before writing my initial response: I would encourage you and Omerbashich to read WP:LIBEL if you have not done so already. I do not see how Omerbashich was defamed by any of the comments in this thread, but if Omerbashich truly believes a certain response constitutes libel then they can contact info-en-q@wikipedia.org with specific details about their concern.

Additionally, your use of "you undergrad kids" (context: I identify myself as an undergraduate student on my userpage; I cannot say whether or not the other users who have contributed to this thread are undergraduate students) may be considered a WP:PERSONALATTACK. My level of education is not relevant to this discussion, so I do not see any reason why you would bring up this unrelated personal detail of mine other than to discredit my previous statements in an apparent ad hominem. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can add a fact like peer-reviewed scientific reference without discussing it (especially with undergrad kids as in this case). You do not get to discuss peer reviewed literature as that would represent your own POV, but you are welcome to counter it with another peer-reviewed reference.XiounuX (talk)

Peer-reviewed does not mean "100% reliable". If that author is a crank, then extra due is needed. ECREE applies. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Another libel. Dr. Omerbashich is certaintly building his legal case here. XiounuX (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

ok CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:NLT, this kind of thing will get you reblocked. MrOllie (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, let's see if simply adding a fact like peer reviewed science can block me using your 3R entrapment method. XiounuX (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

No one wants to trap you to get blocked. However, being a high-maintenance editor will not help you on Wikipedia, because ultimately everyone on Wikipedia is replaceable, including you and me. Instead of you throwing around insults and require other editors to expend their efforts to convince you otherwise, someone that has a more collaborative and calm mindset will be more welcomed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

No, you do not get to counter peer reviewed science with democracy. XiounuX (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Or let me be direct: is it obvious now that nobody cares about your expertise? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:Don't be high maintenance might be useful here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this does not belong in this article, let alone in the opening paragraph. MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you manually reverted (trying to avoid the 3-rev rule?) but that reference talks about global sun so it certainly belongs there.XiounuX (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to get consensus support for your changes, and you certainly do not have it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of anything and everything that can be sourced. I find the arguments on this talk page that this is a fringe statement highly credible. MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You do not get to vote/seek consensus on established facts like peer reviewed science. Your POV (point of view) is irrelevant, even if you had a Ph.D. in the field of that paper you'd still have to have that point of view peer reviewed before it can be used here to counter Dr. Omerbashich's. XiounuX (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You have gravely misunderstood how Wikipedia is written. Everything here is subject to consensus. MrOllie (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not. Established peer reviewed science certainly is not subject to undergrads discussing whether they like it or not. XiounuX (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Issue addressed. The sentence was added in the magnetic activity section. It does not need to be in the lead. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, that does not address the issue. The sentence does not belong in the article anywhere at all. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I’ll let y’all hash that out. Currently, the sentence is in the magnetism section and reads, Based on research in 1982, Dr. Mensur Omerbashich with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory determined that the Sun behaves dynamically as a magneto-alternator rather than a dynamo, which reads and sounds more encyclopedic than what was being edit warred over. Also, it isn’t in the lead of the article & to be fair, I did check the academic paper out and it does verify. My person take, the sentence is perfectly fine where it is now. You can interpret this more as a “keep” !vote now. I’m not siding with XiounuX or anything like that. Just making the point that I verified the information and removed it from the lead. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  The problem here is that peer-reviewed research can be wrong and Mensur Omerbashich has a history of publishing crank ideas (see above). At best, it's WP:TOOSOON, and it doesn't hurt to wait a year or two to see what else about the topic is published by other researchers. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Looking into the Journal, it appears that what happened here is the journal went defunct in 1988. Then Omerbashich set up a website in 2020 using the old Journal's name (and laying claim to its old impact factor and etc.). He's been using it as a self publishing venue. Each 'issue', (there have been 3) has his own work in it. This isn't a reliable source and I find claims of proper peer-review highly unlikely. MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Would y’all mind if we do a RfC on WP:RSN to determine if academically-published material from Dr. Mensur Omerbashich should be used on Wikipedia? We have this discussion, plus a lot of other semi-personalized comments like “crank ideas”, backed by solid and good reasons & we know he got a scientific PhD and he works at the well-known Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. In short, WP:RFCBEFORE is well-satisfied. If y’all wouldn’t be opposed to it, I would be willing to start that RfC so the debate could be solved more or less through a community consensus, rather than on a single sentence. Y’all ok with that idea? (Courtesy pings: CactiStaccingCrane, MrOllie, CoronalMassAffection, Marchantiophyta, Aldebarium. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  I guess if you really want to do it, then sure? But Omerbashich's questionable stuff and research is not encouraging. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have to agree it's sus and too soon to cite in a featured article. The articles like "Sun" when featured, I would not expect to cite individual papers like these at all, even when the author and publisher are of unquestionable repute. There should be better sources for everything that ever need to be put into this article, review articles, text books and such, that summarise for us what's established knowledge so we don't have to make that determination. If we cite papers like these, it should be for claims presented as "as is well-known" and never for "whoa look at this totally new thing we just invented/discovered/proved". Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is exactly right. We don't let editors add their own or anyone else's new theories to scientific articles sourced only to their own publications, even when they are well-known academics and peer reviewed papers. We need evidence that such material has been accepted in the wider scientific community and require secondary sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• RFC Started — An alert for users in this discussion: An RfC was opened about Dr. Omerbashich‘s reliability on WP:RSN. You can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#What is the reliability of academically-published material by Dr. Mensur Omerbashich?. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Rotational axis

The Sun rotational data can be found in USNO's Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac Table 15.7. Jbergquist (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Volume of Sun in cu mi appears to be incorrect

The volume of the Sun is shown as 1.412x10^18 km^3 and 0.887x10^17 cu mi, but these values are inconsistent. The value in km^3 is correct, but the value in cu mi should be 3.39x10^17. RCSmeas (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed for the time being. @RCSmeas, are you sure about 3.39? I am getting 3.38. So, maybe we need to discuss further with maths or sources. To be honest, I don't think it even needs to be in the article. I don't think cubic miles are necessarily more informative at such high values even to people who use miles instead of km. I use km and the value in cubic km is just a large number to me. Comparison with earth's volume is what's helpful even if it's just to go . Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Usedtobecool - I got the value of 3.39x10^17 using a conversion factor of (1.60934 km/mile)^(-3) with the stated volume of 1.412x10^18 km^3, but that second decimal is probably unwarranted in light of the uncertainty in solar radius measurements and the lack of specificity on this page about the definition of radius for a gaseous object (see, for example, the ApJ paper by Emilio et al (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/48/pdf). I agree with your comment about the lack of a compelling reason for including a value for the solar volume in cubic miles, so I'm happy that you have removed the value and suggest we leave this portion of the article as it now is. RCSmeas (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

New word: Suntoid

a suntoid is a star that isn't a red dwarf or a blue giant, in other words is a yellow dwarf star like the Sun. 177.47.230.129 (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)