|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 What?
- 2 Another Merge
- 3 Japanese mythology
- 4 Five naked-eye planets?
- 5 Unsourced editor's opinions
- 6 MesoAmerican Astronomy
- 7 Image copyright problem with Image:Brihaspati.jpg
- 8 Bad article name
- 9 Glypths
- 10 Move?
- 11 Move request - Oops
- 12 Egyptian Planets?
- 13 'Babylonians grouped the stars in companies of seven' - reference needed
- 14 "theory"/"mythological cosmology"
What exactly is this article supposed to be about? RedWolf 01:48, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
It's the planets that can be seen with the naked eye from earth. Weda 01:52, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Definitely merge with starry planets & seven heavenly objects. Basically the same content.
Merge, and remove the information about Sailor Moon :)
- I would like to see info. on symbolism of "classical planets" and their effect on culture have its own section, actually. with links to entries on planets in astrology and alchemy -- that kind of thing. this and the more technical-scientific part at the beginning don't mesh well together and the current arrangements seems to me unwieldy. straddles two somewhat different concerns. ***Ria777 14:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Should articles be written for earth star, fire star, wood star, and metal star as well as for water star, or is there something unique about Mercury in Japanese mythology?126.96.36.199 04:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is an anime show called Sailor Moon with a Mercury character. That could be the "unique" something. Maestlin 22:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, it seems that the connetion between suisei and Sailor Murcury should be put on the character's page, and the page "Suisei (mythology)" should be deleted altogether.188.8.131.52 19:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Five naked-eye planets?
- There are five naked-eye planets? How hard exactly is it to see the earth from the surface of the earth? Someone needs to clarify the definition. . . . 184.108.40.206 06:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree - Earth should be considered a naked-eye planet, LOL. 220.127.116.11 02:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the rest of the definition is a bit vague, too. What is meant by 'without much difficulty'? When it says Uranus is visible 'in principle', does this mean people actually have seen it with the naked eye, or that it is in theory bright enough that they might do on rare occasions? Actually, thinking about it, if you use some strange philosophical definition of visible, you could say that Earth is not visible from Earth (you know, some kind of "can't see the woods for the trees" kind of thing). Bistromathic 14:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen Uranus naked-eye, at Coonabarabran in Australia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The 7 Classical Planets were/are moving objects in the heavens seen with the naked eye. This is clearly established in the opening paragraph, therefore, it's NOT appropriate to include Earth; the ancients did NOT. Uranus is very difficult to see with the naked eye and when it is, it's movement is so slow as to not appear to be moving. - Benjamin Franklin 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Unsourced editor's opinions
Should reference to the MesoAmerican interpretation of the visible planets not constitute a section? The Maya had a highly developed calendar and knowledge of planetary periods and behaviour, timing sacrifice and war to Venus' cylce. I think without more non-EurAsian references this article lacks cultural NPOV. Ready to add if nobody objects. Shamanchill (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Brihaspati.jpg
The image Image:Brihaspati.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
- Image:Surya planet.jpg
- Image:Surya Yantra.jpg
- Image:Shukra planet.jpg
- Image:Shukra Yantra.jpg
- Image:Shani yantra.jpg
- Image:Shani planet.jpg
- Image:Mars yantra.jpg
- Image:Guru Yantra.jpg
- Image:Chandra img.jpg
- Image:Chandra Yantra.jpg
- Image:Budha Yantra.jpg
Bad article name
As mentioned above there are six naked-eye planets: Mercury-the-planet, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The trouble is that the article doesn't treat naked-eye planet at all, the article treats the "planet" concept from antiquity and before: "planet" of today is a ball of matter orbiting the Sun in the solar system ― "planet" of antiquity is a heavenly light that hasn't a fixed position in reference to the stellar sky, but instead wanders around on it. That verily includes Sun and Moon, while by current knowledge neither Sun nor Moon orbits Sun in the normal sense. The article treats Planet (of antiquity), not naked-eye planets. This is about an obvious article move, making it itch in my fingers. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, bad article name. It should be the Seven Classical Planets or something.--Michael C. Price talk 09:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've put in a request to move it to "Classical planet". --Michael C. Price talk 16:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Rursus: The ancients, obviously, did NOT recognize Earth as a planet: wandering star. The 7 Classical Planets would be a much better name for this article. Because of the 7 moving objects in the heavens and the 4 lunar phases of about 7 days (~7.4 days) each, the ancients regarded the #7 as sacred and we find it all over the Bible and elsewhere. - The Messenger 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Move request - Oops
- Okay, I relisted our request as an uncontroversial move request and removed the move request tag, which was a tag for the discussion we were having, since that has now closed. Hopefully something will happen quite soon now.... --Michael C. Price talk 22:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
One last call before we split into two pages. It is suggested we have Classical planet (ancient) and Classical planet (modern)
Any other suggestions? What about :
Classical planet (antiquity) or Classical planet (Hellenistic)
Classical planet (20th century) or Classical planet (recent)
- What is there to split? Everything in this article is about the "ancient" definition. So as long as we clarify at the beginning that we don't mean the IAU definition or whatever, there shouldn't need to be any splitting. Shreevatsa (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Greeks were much more influenced by Mesopotamia than Egypt in astrology/astronomy. However, the 7-day astrological week (not necessarily originally the same as the Jewish 7-day Sabbath week) originated in Hellenistic Egypt... AnonMoos (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
'Babylonians grouped the stars in companies of seven' - reference needed
"Babylonians grouped the stars in companies of seven. References are made to the seven Tikshi, the seven Lumashi, and the seven Mashi<ref]citation needed</ref]." Can anyone HELP! - Benjamin Franklin 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Although I can source it that statement appears so rarely it should be removed per WP:UNDUE. It's from Donald Alexander Mackenzie's Myths of Babylonia and Assyria,. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It is false to imply that the classical notion of "planet" is obsolete because the Sun and the Moon "are not planets". What happened here is that the meaning of the term "planet" was changed. You cannot say a statement is "wrong" if you first change the dictionary definition of its terms.
The classical notion of "planet" simply means "a celestial object which moves relative to the fixed stars". Therefore it certainly isn't "wrong" to say that the Sun and the Moon are planets in this sense. Also, this isn't a "mythological cosmology" or something. The concept of a year and of a month (lunation) is directly based on the fact that the Sun and Moon move relative to the fixed stars. Unless you want to argue that the modern Gregorian calendar qualifies as an "obsolete theory" or a "mythological cosmology", there is no reason to imply that this is the case here.
Of course there is the "obsolete" view of geocentrism that can be discussed in this context, but it is in no way necessary to adhere to geocentrism before one may use a celestial coordinate system. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)