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


I think there is a mistake here - the external link to Thessalonika says Posidonius had 180,000 stadia as the circumference of his "equator" - a figure I have seen elsewhere. But here you say 240,000.

Since you haven't signed or dated your query (by typing four tildes at the end, which automatically convert into your IP Address and the time & date) we can't tell how old it is. The current version of the article clearly states that Posidonius initially arrived at a figure of 240,000 stadia, but later revised it to 180,000. (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Images of Posidonius[edit]

Hi. I’m new to Wikipedia. I’ve been teaching myself how to edit by working on this biographical article about Posidonius.

I’ve found some good images of his busts online. The best pictures of Posidonius are available from the Virtuelles Antiken Museum Göttingen website and are copyrighted. The image itself hyperlinks to other views of the bust.

Other images appear here and there on the Web. This image is fairly common, and I’d guess is in the public domain.

In fact, the proprietor of the Livius website indicates a belief that the image I used for the article is in the public domain.

Another view. Public domain?

A different bust. Copyrighted image.

--Tregonsee 11:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Invalid reference[edit]

Please note that the reference Posidonius, Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is not valid since it does not link to any source. selfwormTalk) 23:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Improper format?[edit]

While the lengthy material at the head of this article is undoubtedly valuable and of good quality, is there not a major format problem? It is inserted as a free-standing article; it has an author attribution at the end of it; its references are not formatted correctly; etc.

How can this good material be incorporated to proper Wikipedia standards? For one, should somebody simply remove the author attribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: what has happened is that someone has lifted and inserted whole an article at, citing it in the "references" section. Still, major problems of format and now of sourcing material going on here that need fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Distance to the Sun[edit]

The article currently says:

In about 90 BCE Posidonius estimated the distance to the sun (see astronomical unit) to be 9,893 times the Earth's radius, which was still too small by half. In measuring the size of the Sun, however, he reached a figure larger and more accurate than those proposed by other Greek astronomers and Aristarchus of Samos.[1]

However there is no number 9,893 in [1], which says:

Poseidonius stated a hypothesis that the circumference of the orbit of the sun is 10,000 times greater than the earth's circumference.

Other sources (e.g. [2]) also says that Posidonius took of Sun's orbit as wide as a myriad Earths. Does anybody know where the figure 9,893 comes from? Alexei Kopylov (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Also Russian [Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary] (1890-1907) states that Poseidonius believes that the ratio of sun orbit to Earth is 13,098. But unfortunately it does not provide any reference. Does anyone knows where this number comes from? Alexei Kopylov (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that AuthorHouse is a vanity publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The article on Astronomical unit gives the factor 10,000 as having been used by Posidonius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Aristarchus_of_Samos#Alberto Gomez Gomez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Both figures, 9,893 and 13,098, have a great deal of spurious accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)