Talk:Galileo affair/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Bad grammar

The last sentence in the paragraph entitled "First meetings...", is ungrammatical. It has no main verb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎86.145.205.224 (talk • contribs) 4:58, 19 July, 2013 (UTC)
 Fixed

Thank you for the tip. The verb was inadvertently omitted when the passage was reworded a few months back.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProjects

This article should be added to the following WikiPojects: “Astronomy”, “Renaissance”, “Italy”, “Freedom of speech”, “Alternative views”.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Bellarmine's letter to Foscarini now duplicated

Following a recent addition, Bellarmine's 1615 letter to Foscarini is not only described and quoted in the section "Bellarmine's view," but is quoted at length in a new section, "Bellarmine's letter to Foscarini."

Because the letter is already quoted above, and because the new, longer quote duplicates this material and without context, I suggest we remove it. If there are any objections I am happy to discuss. -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"Proof" of Heliocentrism

The article makes the following statement:

Galileo began his telescopic observations in the later part of 1609, and by March 1610 was able to publish a small book, The Starry Messenger (Sidereus Nuncius), relating some discoveries that had not been dreamed of in the philosophy of the time: mountains on the Moon, lesser moons in orbit around Jupiter, and the resolution of what had been thought to be very cloudy masses in the sky (nebulae) into collections of stars too faint to see individually without a telescope. Other observations followed, including the phases of Venus and the existence of sunspots.
None of these findings, which were difficult at first for other astronomers to verify, proved that the Earth moved, or directly contradicted either Aristotle's model or Christian doctrine.
(emphasis added)

Why is it necessary to state that Galileo's initial telescopic findings did not prove that the Earth moved? This is not how science works. Proof is a nearly impossible hurdle. What Galileo's observations did do was make an extremely powerful argument for the Copernican system, in which the Earth did move. The key elements of this argument were that the phases of Venus were consistent with the Copernican system, but inconsistent with the Ptolemaic system, that Jupiter and its moons form a Copernican system (with the Jovian moons obeying the same period-distance relation as the planets), and that the celestial bodies are imperfect, like the Earth. While some of the philosophical difficulties that Galileo's findings created are mentioned, the sentence I bolded above makes it seem as if Galileo's observations had little direct connection with the question of whether the Earth moves. This is along the lines of the argument one hears that until the detection of stellar parallax and Foucault's pendulum, in the 19th Century, the question of Earth's motion was not settled. The question was largely settled by the end of the 17th Century, without the need of these "direct" demonstrations. The article should give more emphasis to this point. Maybe the bolded sentence should be replaced by a few sentences explaining the implications of Galileo's observations for the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence, which wasn't referenced anyway. This article could probably benefit from a more in-depth section describing the historiography of the affair: such a section might also deal with the issues you raise more directly. -Darouet (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The statement is necessary because of the widespread belief that the observations proved the motion of the Earth, and that the Church refused to look in the telescope to see the obvious. Perhaps the article could mention the later evidence, but I suggest putting this good sentence back in. Roger (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The question isn't whether Galileo's observations proved or did not prove heliocentrism. It's rare in science that anything is "proven" in a definite sense by observation. What Galileo's observations did do was to lend very strong support to the heliocentric view. They directly contradicted one of the predictions of the geocentric theory, which is that Venus should not show the entire set of phases. They also showed that Jupiter and its moons formed a Copernican system, with the same period-distance relation as the planets orbiting the Sun. From a modern perspective, even assuming ignorance of physics but merely a scientific mindset, Galileo's observations, combined with existing arguments for heliocentrism, would be considered very strong evidence.
This is an important point to make. Saying that Galileo couldn't prove heliocentrism gives the impression that at the time, the evidence favored neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism. This is not true - in Galileo's time, the evidence swung very drastically away from Ptolemy's model and towards heliocentrism. It also gives the impression that the Church's opposition to heliocentrism was due to scientific objections, when the objections were more theological and political.
What we need is not a statement that Galileo didn't prove heliocentrism, but rather a more in-depth explanation of what exactly the importance of his observations and arguments were to the question of the Earth's motion. I can write such a section, but it will take time. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Your opinions about "how science works" are not relevant here. At the time, a critical issue in the Galileo affair was whether he had proof of heliocentrism. If he believed that he did not have proof, then he could have published the arguments for and against, and avoided trouble. If he had proof sufficient to convince Church officials, then they would have been forced to accept it and to re-interpret the Bible.
If you want to add a paragraph with a 21st century appraisal of the evidence, then that might be a useful addition, but it is still important to say whether Galileo had proof at the time. I say to restore the sentence. Roger (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
If Thucydides411 wants to write his section, he should do so on his own web-site. He might explain why Pythagoras and others put forward systems with a moving earth before any telescope was introduced. He might also note that the theory of relativity treats heliocentrism and heliostaticism as untrue or meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepersleeper123123 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Galileo rejected Kepler's laws, which were brought to his notice in 1612 by Prince Cesi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepersleeper123123 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Sleepersleeper123123, it's not really clear what you're getting at here. Are you arguing that Galileo didn't properly take into account General relativity, which was discovered 300 years after his death? And what does Galileo's failure to appreciate the laws of Kepler (who greatly admired Galileo) have to do with this either? -Darouet (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There are still no sources being discussed in any of this, and Roger your addition just places unsourced content back in the article. In this context Thucydides411's "opinion" is just as relevant as yours, and I'd have to agree with him: the objection that Galileo didn't "prove" heliocentrism is erroneous. I'd add that it's misleading, since it gives the reader the impression that from a scientific perspective, Galileo's writings and observations had little or no merit compared to contemporary alternatives. That's false.

There is a long history of accusing Galileo of failing to provide "proof," e.g. in mathematical terms, of a physical phenomenon understood through scientific inference. The implication is always that the Church was justified in rejecting Galileo's ideas, or even persecuting him, because he failed as a scientist. Stillman Drake, the wonderful essayist and writer on Galileo, addresses the point directly in his first volume on Galileo:

"It is still often said that definite proof of the earth's motion had to await detection of stellar parallax early in the 19th century and invention of the Foucault pendulum a little later. Such statements may titillate lay readers, but to scientists the Newtonian law of gravitation afforded irrefutable proof from observations. Stellar parallax is hardly more conclusive proof of the earth's annual motion than was Jupiter's shadow as used by Galileo, which latter is merely harder to explain to lay readers… scientific proof is usually not a single striking fact, but the agreement of a great variety of deductions and facts."

The brilliant historian Maurice Finocchiaro discusses the issue in his book "Retrying Galileo." Finocchiaro writes,

"[Lazzari] was clear that one was not dealing with mathematical proof. The relevant concept was, rather, multifaceted (it 'proceeds from an assortment of things taken together'); indirect ('by means of pure observation it had not been possible to infer their laws and to calculate and predict them'); predictive ('in the world occurred the things that by sitting at a table with pen and paper one had shown from the adopted system'); and systemic and explanatory ('everything is explained simply and wonderfully, and everything corresponds to everything else… And is this fit not a kind of certainty and demonstration that this is the true system in the world?')… And we can add that Galileo had begun to struggle with and move toward such a concept; he did this theoretically by starting to articulate the concept in his 'Considerations on the Copernican Opinion' (1615) and practically by constructing in the Dialogue an argument that possessed such features to a considerable degree."

What would be appropriate would be to document, in the section on historiography, the history of the accusation that Galileo didn't prove heliocentrism. Drake and Finocchiaro are a good place to start. -Darouet (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Both of those quotes say that Galileo did not have proof. The reader can understand that Galileo could have legitimate arguments without having proof.
Apparently there is a history of different opinions about which arguments are more persuasive. I would disagree with Finocchiaro, and say that stellar parallax is more convincing that Jupiter's shadow. But the article does not mention either one, so that opinion is irrelevant unless someone wants to add a section surveying post-Galileo opinions.
Maybe also the Church was unreasonable to expect Galileo to produce a proof. Nevertheless it is a historical fact that proof was a big ussue to the Church, and Galileo could not produce one. The sentence should go back in the article. Roger (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate to say that proof was a big issue to the Church. That's certainly not how historians I have read describe the conflict. There are essentially two problems with this view. First, Cardinal Bellarmine, and the Church, most likely would not have accepted any "proof" that relied on agreement between theoretical predictions and observations. Owen Gingerich, an expert on Copernicus, writes,
Why is it that we today find the so-called proofs of the earth’s motion — the stellar parallax and the Foucault pendulum — so convincing when they could not have been guaranteed to convince Bellarmine? The answer is that the required new physics has arrived. We are post-Newtonian, and it is in the Newtonian framework that these fundamental experiments provide persuasive evidence. In fact, the Newtonian achievement was so comprehensive and coherent that the specific proofs were not needed. Thus there was no dancing in the streets after Foucault swung his famous pendulum at 2 a.m. on Wednesday morning, January 8, 1851, nor had there been grand celebrations in 1838 after Bessel had announced the successful measurement of an annual stellar parallax. The Copernican system no longer needed these demonstrations to win universal acceptance. -- Owen Gingerich, "Truth in Science": [1]
Gingerich argues throughout the essay that Galileo was one of the first people to advocate a modern scientific view, in which the strength of a theory lies in its ability to explain many different phenomena in a coherent manner, rather than in formal proofs in the style of mathematical theorems. This is why heliocentrism was widely accepted by the end of the 17th Century, even without the "proofs" - stellar parallax and Foucault's pendulum - which are commonly mentioned. Gingerich specifically argues that even had the stellar parallax been observed, one could simply have added cycles to the stars, "saving the appearances" without abandoning geocentrism, and that this would have appealed to Cardinal Bellarmine. Gingerich's argument is very much in line with the arguments put forward by both Finocchiaro and Drake, which Darouet quoted above.
Second, the Church's rejection of the Copernican model had political dimensions which outweighed the Church's intellectual objections. Galileo began promoting Copernicus' model at a time when the Church was especially sensitive to challenges to its theological interpretations. As Bellarmine pointed out, the view that the Earth moved prima facie conflicted with scripture, so the question of heliocentrism was not just a technical one, but a question of the interpretive authority of the Church.
I propose that we add a paragraph or two to the article discussing more technically how Galileo's findings bore on the question of heliocentrism. This is much more informative than merely stating that he didn't prove heliocentrism, in the way one might prove a mathematical theorem. In addition, I agree that some discussion of the historiography of the "proof" question would be a good addition to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Again you launch into speculation and opinion about later events. Gingerich's essay starts with Bellarmine saying that the Bible would have to be re-interpreted if Galileo had proof, and then speculates about what might have convinced Bellarmine. Apparently Gingerich thinks that the Newtonian framework would have been more convincing than stellar parallax. The essay might be a useful footnote if a section is added on later astronomical findings. But the article is on the Galileo affair, and Gingerich says that Bellarmine wanted proof, and Galileo did not have it. The article should say so. Roger (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you read Gingerich's article all the way through. If you had, you would have seen that Gingerich is specifically arguing that nothing that we now consider "proof" of heliocentrism would have been acceptable to Cardinal Bellarmine, including stellar parallax. If you read other historians' interpretations of Bellarmine's letters, you'll see that they generally say that Bellarmine did not think that any proof could be given that would contradict the Book of Joshua. Because scripture is the word of the Holy Spirit, it is true by virtue of who said it. Even though he says that absolute proof would require a reinterpretation of scripture, Bellarmine essentially rules out any sort of physical proof by saying that merely "saving the appearances" is not enough. Again, we can discuss the historiography of the "proof" claim in a separate section. Plenty of historians have commented on it, and some have already been quoted above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Roger, this has become pointless: we now have three sources writing that the "proof" Catholic authorities demanded during Galileo's time, or the "proof" spoken of by later church apologists, has nothing to do with scientific inference. If you're not interested in the scientific process or what Galileo achieved, I don't see why you're bothering yourself with this article. -Darouet (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
No, none of the 3 sources say that. And Thucydides411, Ginerich never says that nothing we now consider proof would have been acceptable to Bellarmine.
Gingerich says, "Why is it that we today find the so-called proofs of the earth’s motion — the stellar parallax and the Foucault pendulum — so convincing when they could not have been guaranteed to convince Bellarmine? The answer is that the required new physics has arrived." So maybe stellar parallax would have convinced Bellarmine, and maybe not, as Bellarmine did not have the required new physics. The combination of those experiments with the Newtonian framework is very convincing to later scientists, and probably would have convinced Bellarmine as well.
Again, speculation about what might have convinced Bellarmine is irrelevant. Bellarmine wanted proof and Galileo did not have it. All the sources say that. You cannot explain removing correct material from the article. Roger (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Roger/Schlafly, you don't understand the Gingerich article. I very much doubt you even read it, beyond the snippet I quoted. You've managed to put nearly the exact opposite of Gingerich's argument into his mouth.
I'll go further and say that you don't understand the pieces of evidence at play in debate between Copernicans and defenders of Geocentrism in Galileo's day. The statement, "Bellarmine wanted proof and Galileo did not have it" is not at all accurate. Galileo had several different forms of evidence, which, when taken together, were very compelling. One of those pieces of evidence (the phases of Venus) directly contradicted Ptolemy's model. Another crucial piece of evidence validated Copernicus' prediction of Jupiter's distance from the Sun (Jupiters' moons falling in its shadow at the predicted times), but was inconsistent with Ptolemy's theory. Beyond this directly observational evidence, there were several arguments from mechanics, and the way in which Galileo's discoveries pointed to a new, coherent view of physics. When you say, "Galileo did not have [proof]," you're ignoring the many pieces of evidence he put forward, and you're implying that the way in which scientific propositions are defended is through logical proofs, which is not at all the case. This is what the (now three) articles by historians of science, cited above, discuss at length. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Thucydides411, I am ignoring your usual ad hominem attacks. I quoted Gingerich to support my position. You do not. You make your own arguments based on your own opinions, but you do not address what is actually in the sources. Roger (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
If you don't want other users to accuse you of not reading or understanding sources, or of lacking knowledge in the subject areas you're editing on, you should make an effort to read and understand the sources, and to edit in subjects where you have some basic level of knowledge. You've mischaracterized Gingerich's arguments, only repeating back to me a section of the article that I quoted for you earlier, in the process directly contradicting much of Gingerich's argumentation. That leads me to believe that you're not reading the sources, but simply giving your own gut response to each argument. Gingerich is very clear that Galileo did have evidence for the heliocentric position, and that no apodictic proof was necessary. Other historians, like Stillman Drake, go into greater depth on the state of evidence at the time. If you read about the evidence Galileo put forward, you'll see why Drake considers it a red herring to say that Galileo had no proof. Galileo had not only the greater internal consistency and theoretical simplicity of the Copernican system on his side, but also its prediction of explain a number of newly observed phenomena (Venus' phases and the eclipses of the Jovian moons, both of which provide geometric measurements of the relative Sun-Venus vs. Sun-Earth distance, or Sun-Jupiter vs. Sun-Earth distance) that were incompatible with Ptolemy's system. If you think the balance of sources has a different view on Galileo's evidence, it's on you to demonstrate so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
More ad hominem attacks. More speculations. More diversions into later opinions. You say "Gingerich is very clear that ... no apodictic proof was necessary." He does not say that. If I am wrong, show us the quote, and drop the personal attacks. He does differ from other authors about what the best proof is, but never says that no proof was necessary. Of course Gingerich had other later opinions, about what was proof and about whether proof was necessary, and those later opinions do not diminish the fact that Bellarmine wanted proof and Galileo did not have one.
As Gingerich explains, Bellarmine was not the only one wanting proof. Gingerich says, "There is needed, Hooke declares, an experimentum crucis to decide between the Copernican and Tychonic systems, and this he proposed to do with a careful measurement of the annual stellar parallax." He goes on to say that the Church removed Copernicus from the Index when a claim of stellar parallax was announced. All of this supports the reasonableness of Bellarmine in demanding proof, even if you personally subscribe to a philosophy of science where proof is not required. Even if you philosophy is superior, it is a historical fact that Bellarmine wanted proof, and Galileo did not have it. So please stop removing documented facts from the article. Roger (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a related question, Roger. Much of biological science today revolves around the theory of evolution by natural selection. Do you think we have proof of that? -Darouet (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page defines "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." And "Evolution by means of natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become and remain more common in successive generations of a population." Yes, there is overwhelming proof of that, and has been for a long time. But my opinion is not important. We go with the reliable sources. For motion of the Earth, Gingerich's opinion is that proof depended on the Newtonian framework. Other authors have other opinions, but they all agree that Galileo did not have proof. Roger (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hijack

The two articles, on Galileo and the Galileo affair, have been hijacked by two editors, as a tag team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNMarshman (talk • contribs) 11:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion has been made by Off2riorob that Darouet and Thucydides411 are sock-puppets or the like. This was in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNMarshman (talk • contribs) 11:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Off2riorob was indefinitely blocked for harassment, and didn't pursue his allegation that was, in any event, false. You User:RNMarshman, or User:BlackWhiteSea-snake, or any other user may make that allegation, but you should probably read WP:BOOMERANG first.
Also, I reverted this edit you made which removed sourced content I had added, and left this complaint on your talk page, because your removal and opinion were not supported by sources. You might have better luck engaging on this topic through discussing and engaging with content. -Darouet (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The tag team originally consisted of Darouet, Thucydides411 and Erichaim, but Eric has become inactive, leaving the other two.
Someone should check the edits from this tag team, as they appear to be driven by a dubious philosophy about how science works, instead of what the sources actually say. Roger (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Darouet has said, "Claudius Ptolemy ... whose geocentric system was adopted by the Catholic Church...". It will be interesting to see Darouet's proof that Ptolemy was mentioned at all.

Darouet goes on to say "the observations of Copernicus". I want details of Copernicus's observations, such as Right Ascension and Declination. Copernicus himself noted that he made very few observations. Proof is needed that the unspecified "observations" were apparently in favour of his heliocentrism and heliostaticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNMarshman (talk • contribs) 12:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If the details are not forth-coming, I will be forced to delete the caption and picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNMarshman (talk • contribs) 13:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you fix the caption, rather than removing it? Copernicus came up with a model, and Galileo's observations supported it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I've just replaced "observations" with "work." It's clear that Galileo's observations of Jupiter's moon and the phases of Venus helped demonstrate that Copernicus' heliocentric model was correct, but I'm not certain how crucial Copernicus' observations were to his discovery… according to the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers ([2]), "Copernicus must have realized how comprehensive any treatise hoping to compete with Ptolemy's would have to be, and he must have understood as well that he would require critical observations over a fair number of years to confirm or reestablish the parameters of the planetary orbits. Consequently, for the next 15 years Copernicus bided his time, making the occasional required observations. In De revolutionibus he used 27 of his own observations and 45 gleaned from the Almagest. Copernicus presumably made many more observations, although only a dozen more are documented prior to 1530. Obviously, he made no attempt to observe on a daily or weekly basis, but only at critical times when the geometric configuration of the planets lent themselves to the determination of the parameters. Copernicus was not a particularly accurate observer, and one of his Mars observations erred by more than 2 degrees…" -Darouet (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Darouet has found another way of flooding the text with repetitions. He puts up pictures, with captions that repeat parts of the text at great length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repetitionbanned997 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Why are you deleting images from the text? -Darouet (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The tag team is still at work, without the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anrti-tag (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Self-contradiction

Lies and self-contradiction are appearing from Darouet. Darouet says "Arcetri...where Galileo spent the remainder of his life under house arrest". Actually, Galileo was in Siena and Florence, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.53.143 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Darouet initially spoke of Copernicus's "observations". Then, he changed this to "work", when attacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.53.143 (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
His observations were important and helped him to confirm his theory, but he was not known for especially accurate observations. -Darouet (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
His theory can't be confirmed, as it is against the theory of relativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramon456456 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Ask Einstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.48.194.184 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Era

Per WP:ERA, I propose to use "CE" and "BCE" in the era, not BC and AD. -DePiep (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Squabbling on this point can continue forever. You are welcome to get involved, if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OuterMongolia (talk • contribs) 10:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
That guideline says, "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." Roger (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Conflict with "secular" philosophers

A recent edit has restored the text about Galileo's conflict with secular philosophers during the so-called Galileo affair to the lead, along with a link to a supposedly supporting reliable source. But there is nothing at all in the linked source which supports the text in any way whatever. Galileo is mentioned just once in the source, but merely as a temporal reference point, and neither his conflict with secular philosophers, nor the Galileo affair is mentioned at all.

In my opinion, inclusion of this text—as currently worded—is misleading, and I strongly disagree with it. It's certainly true, and easily documentable with reliable sources, that Galileo criticised much of Aristotle's natural philosophy throughout his life, starting from his appointment to the chair of matthematics at the University of Pisa in 1589, and continuing until his death in 1642. It's also true that this brought him into conflct with some secular philosophers, both before, but especially after, the publication of Sidereus Nuncius in 1610, which could be taken—as Richard Blackwell does—as marking the start of the Galileo affair.

The problem is that most of Galileo's criticism of Aristotle concerned matters such as the motion of falling bodies, the nature of sunspots, or the reasons why some bodies float in liquids, about which there was no question whatever of any conflict with the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Further, while his disputes with some philosophers over these matters were quite acrimonious, with others, such as his friends Jacopo Mazzoni and Cesare Cremonini, and his late-in-life correspondent Fortunio Liceti, they remained perfectly cordial, and could scarcely be described as "conflicts" at all, without indulging in hyperbole. I'm not aware of any reputable Galileo scholars who have indicated that they regard these disputes as constituting part of the "Galileo affair". At most, they would appear to me to regard them as informative background that might provide some of the influences motivating Galileo's more implacable opponents.

It's also true that the question of the consistency of Galileo's views on heliocentrism with Scripture was not originally raised by any of the higher echelons of the Catholic Church, or by any of its official organisations authorised to promulgate or protect its doctrines. But neither was it Galileo himself who originally raised it or made an issue of it. It was a motley group of Tuscan intellectuals—referred to derisively by some of Galileo's friends as "the pigeons", or "the pigeon league"—, which did include some professional secular philosophers, but also several clerics, such as Raffaele delle Colombe, Niccolò Lorini and Tommaso Caccini. The man generally recognised as being the group's informal leader, Lodovico delle Colombe, Raffaele's brother, was neither. He was an aspiring amateur poet and would-be philosopher, who is remembered today solely for his vehement opposition to Galileo.

Some of the activities of this group are already documented in the body of the article. My opinion is that there's no need for them to be mentioned specifically in the lead, but if they are, it should be with something like the following text:

"The Galileo affair (Italian: Processo a Galileo Galilei) was a sequence of events, beginning around 1610, in which Galileo Galilei came under attack, initially by a group of Tuscan clerics, philosophers and other intellectuals, over his support for Copernican astronomy, and eventually bringing him into conflict with the Catholic Church."

The two references already cited (Finocchiaro and Blackwell) should be sufficent to document the accuracy of this text, but, if not (I'd need to check them again to make sure), I can easily dig up plenty of others.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A subsequent edit to the article has now tried to support the disputed text by quote-mining from three sources which it substituted for the useless one which had previously been cited. But all three of these sources, only the first of which I would regard as clearly reliable, serve perfectly to reinforce the points I have made above, and which have been entirely missed in the attempt to imply that the sources support the current wording of the article's first sentence. The obvious deficiency in the current wording is that it plucks just its two key fetishes, "secular ... philosopher(s)" and Galileo's criticisms of Aristotle's philosophy out of the sources, and ignores all the rest of the context from which they have been plucked, including the entire remainder of the first paragraph quoted from Speller's book, which has been omitted unmarked from the quotation given. This omitted text begins "Leaving the field of philosphy, delle Colombe at the end of his manuscript raises scriptural objections to Galileo's Copernican views ...", and goes on for another three sentences to give details of delle Colombe's scriptural objections. Thus, in Speller's view, the key issue in the conflict which he describes as starting 'the whole "Galileo affair" ' was not Galileo's criticism of Aristotelian philosophy, but delle Colombe's scriptural objections to his views on Copernicanism.

Likewise, the current wording of the first sentence ignores the fact that all three references mention not only "secular philosophers" as being engaged in conflict with Galileo in the early stages of the Galileo affair, but also "a group of malicious persons, envious of his qualities and merits" (first reference), "priests, as well as astronomers and mathematicians," (second reference), and "some churchmen" (third reference).
David Wilson (talk · cont) 10:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There is far too much hiding behind sources and ipse dixits here. It is obvious that the Bible says nothing about the surface of the Moon. Any differences between Galileo and delle Colombe on this point were purely inspired by Colombe's ideas from Aristotle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OuterMongolia (talk • contribs) 10:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The last two sentences of this comment are perfectly correct. Delle Colombe's scriptural objections to Galileo's ideas were limited to the motion of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun, and occupied only the last page and a half of the 37-page version of his Contro il moto della terra printed in the Edizione Nazionale of Galileo's collected works. The point, however, is that this was the only issue raised in that work which was of any importance in the Galileo affair. The remaining issues were of no more importance than those over which Galileo had been squabbling with Aristotelian philosophers for the preceding 20 years.
I presume your first sentence was made in objection to my preceding comments. In any case, I don't understand it. The only things which it seems to me can be used to determine what it is that the term "Galileo affair" signifies are the ipse dixits of the experts who use it, so it seems to me that the only way possible to rebut my above arguments is either to demonstrate that I have misunderstood the sources I'm acquainted with, or to provide other expert sources whose use of the term disagrees substantially with theirs.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with David Wilson: the referenced material isn't specific enough to include somewhere in the body of the article, and the general comments aren't taken from Drake, Heilbron or Finocchiaro, but instead, for instance, from A Biographical Encyclopedia of Scientists and Inventors in American Film and TV since 1930. General commentary from these sources doesn't merit being in the lead, let alone in the first paragraph. Furthermore, the changes suggest that the Galileo Affair is principally a confrontation with Aristotelian "secular philosophers," as opposed to the religious authorities who tried, deliberated upon, and then sentenced Galileo. That these authorities were Aristotelians is natural, since Aristotelian philosophy had been integrated into Catholic philosophy and theology. -Darouet (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
There are various "flavors" of Aristotelianism. The churchmen were more Thomist than Aristotelian; St. Thomas Aquinas rejected several points of Aristotelianism, e.g., the eternity of the world (cf. the § here on "Thomas and Aristotle"). And there are other churchmen, like Foscarini, who did not adhere to Aristotelian astronomy. "Secular Aristotelians" would be those who admit the Aristotelian doctrines that contradict the Catholic faith, e.g., the eternity of the world. "Secular Aristotelians" also adhered to Ptolemaic astronomy (cf. Grant, Edward (1984-01-01). "In Defense of the Earth's Centrality and Immobility: Scholastic Reaction to Copernicanism in the Seventeenth Century". Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. New Series. 74 (4): 1–69. doi:10.2307/1006444. ISSN 0065-9746. JSTOR 1006444. Retrieved 2014-10-07.)—Geremia (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, thanks Geremia for linking this wonderful article! -Darouet (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
And thank you David Wilson for this edit restoring the actual church response to Galileo's teachings and writings. -Darouet (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Trotskyite tract

This article is turning into a pathetic little Trotskyite tract. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.108.187 (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Religion and geocentrism

I don't have time now, but for the record, a few sources discuss biblical support for geocentrism. Adding here so I don't need to find later.

  • The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History, edited by Maurice A. Finocchiaro. p.24-5
  • The Essential Galileo, By Galileo Galilei, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, pp.146-7
  • Galileo, Science, and the Church, By Jerome J. Langford, p.50

-Darouet (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Alleged geocentrism

The text, as it now is, alleges that the Bible preaches geocentrism. Actually, all the Bible verses quoted never mention geocentrism, only, in most cases, geostaticism. One verse does not mention the earth at all, only the sun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.12.170 (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to find reliable, academic sources for your contention, or everyone who believes they know what the bible says will be endlessly editing and arguing here for what they know to be true. -Darouet (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

15000

The page Galileo affair was viewed 15000 times yesterday (usually it averages about 300). Any idea why? Tkuvho (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Because of this !! Pretty exciting, right? -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Drastic effort

A need for drastic improvement in this article has arisen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.180.66 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A complicated theory involving a plot run by "The Jesuits" and "hidden motives" is appearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.86.201 (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The theory also involves "real purpose", "main reason" and "ostensibly". The word "ostensibly"
implies the dishonesty was going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.52.31 (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The theory is said to be "controversial" and Note 66 speaks of "inferences...indirect evidence...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.58.232.196 (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The "hidden motives" are creeping back in again, this time from India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.105.230.30 (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not clear at all what you are asking or are concerned about. -Darouet (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

White novelist

Micheal White is quoted in the article as an authority. He often collaborates with the pseudo-scientist John Gribbin. Gribbin wrote some pseudo-science about the Jupiter Effect in 1974. Michael White's latest novel, "The Venetian Detective", starts with the mutilated dead body of a young female. The fictional killer is called "Saviour". Michael White's other novels are full of accounts of dead bodies. This fiction supplements White's pop music work in the early eighties. I have never seen any other article in Wikipedia with this kind of science in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outwithdrivel542 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Michael White (author) for more science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.197.11 (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The scientist White's own web-site should be consulted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.155.222 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The novel "Equinox" includes Isaac Newton. Newton's appearance strengthens White's claim to be a scientist. The novel has been translated into 35 languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.97.225 (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Why are you so obsessed with Michael White and Redondi? You and your socks have been banned from this page about a dozen times now. Please move on with your life. -Darouet (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Restored

I have restored the original version of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueHippopotamus (talk • contribs) 16:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
I don't think there is a consensus for such a massive removal of images and properly sourced content, so I repaired the damage. - DVdm (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: never mind. - DVdm (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency

A caption posted by Darouet in 2014 falsely claims the Galileo spent the whole of his house arrest in Arcetri. This is inconsistent with the article on Galileo Galilei, which says that parts of the time were spent in Siena and Florence. Actually, Galileo was in four places at various times during his house arrest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.210.133.251 (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the caption did not say that he spent "the whole of his house arrest in Arcetri". Nevertheless, since the actual wording—namely, that he "spent the remainder of his life under house arrest"—did not specify what starting point "the remainder of his life" was meant to be referred to, I have now amended it to make it clear that his period of house arrest in Arcetri began in 1634, after he was permitted to return there from Siena, in December 1633.
The period Galileo spent in Florence (March to August or September, 1638) no more contradicts the fact that his life from 1634 onwards was spent under house arrest in Arcetri than someone's 6-month holiday in Brazil in 2013, say, would contradict a fact that they have lived nowhere but Timbuktu since they were born. Galileo required explicit permission from the Inquisition to travel to Florence for medical treatment, which was only granted grudgingly after the Florentine Inquisitor had satisfied himself that Galileo was indeed gravely ill ("... he is reduced to such a poor state that he appears more like a corpse than a living person"), and he returned to Arcetri after only 6 or 7 months in Florence.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Galileo affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

Please add to the bibliography the following two articles:

•Segre, Michael: “Galileo: a ‘rehabilitation’ that has never taken place.” Endeavour 23/1 (1999): 20-23.

•Segre, Michael: “Light on the Galileo Case?” Isis 88 (1997): 484-504.

Michaelsegre (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - looking at your username you appear to be trying to promote your own articles - Arjayay (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The articles appear to be cited by others: Light on the Galileo Case? cited by 20, and Galileo: a ‘rehabilitation’ that has never taken place, cited by 6. If they have specific content that is cited by others and not already in the article, perhaps that content could be mentioned with the articles as sources. That would be better than just throwing these titles at the bibliography list anyway. As I don't have access, perhaps someone who does, can have a look? - DVdm (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Segre's articles are fascinating, but I don't have time to work on this now. Is there a way I can share the articles? -Darouet (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Both articles are readily available online. See my comment below.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps user Michaelsegre can propose some content addition here on talk? - DVdm (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Endorse that recommendation; Segre's articles could be cited within a discussion of his thesis. We need to encourage more input from expert editors on Wikipedia. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Ditto. I haven't yet had time to consult Segre's articles, but judging from the title of the Endeavour article, Segre holds views similar to those of the former director of the Vatican Observatory, George Coyne—namely, that "rehabilitation" is a misleading description for Pope John-Paul II's 1992 statement on the Galileo affair. I'm fairly sure I've seen similar sentiments expressed by other eminent scholars. The existence of such opinion should therefore be acknowledged in the article, and Segre's articles could well be among those cited as the required reliably verifiable support.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Prof. Segre has made both articles (along with numerous others) available through Academia.edu (Light on the Galileo Case?, Galileo: a 'rehabilitaion' that has never taken place). To download the articles, you need to create an account—which is free—but I believe you can read full previews online without having to create an account.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

They could be added to Further reading, pending that. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Segre seems to be saying nothing new about the 17th century or science. He only refers to events in 1979 and later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.176.79 (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
COI seems to be something that has to be considered here. There might be a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.176.79 (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for text addition

@Arjayay, DVdm, and David J Wilson: I wrote to professor Segre to ask if they would propose any specific, concise text. Segre replied with this suggestion, that he envisages appearing as second paragraph in the section Modern Catholic Church views:

In 1979, Pope John Paul II expressed the hope that “Theologians, scholars and historians, animated by a spirit of sincere collaboration, will study the Galileo case more deeply and, in loyal recognition of wrongs from whatever side they come.”[1] However, the Pontifical Interdisciplinary Study Commission constituted in 1981 to study the case did not reach any substantial result, and in consequence, the Pope’s 1992 speech that closed the project was vague and did not fulfill his wish from 1979.[2]

[1] Michael Segre (1997) “Light on the Galileo Case?” Isis 88, pp. 484-504
[2] Michael Segre (1999) “Galileo: A ‘rehabilitation’ that has never taken place.” Endeavour 23/1, pp. 20-23.

He recommends the text appear before the paragraph describing Ratzinger's views, "'On February 15, 1990, in a speech delivered..."

I would support this recommendation, only suggesting that we modify the second sentence by splitting it in two: "...did not reach any definitive result. In consequence, according to historian Michael Segre, the Pope's 1992 speech..."

Professor Segre also suggests that we add his recent work "Light on the Galileo Case?" (2011-12) to the article bibliography. The bibliography already lists a reply to this work (Artigas et al., 2005), so I think that makes a lot of sense.

Let me know what you all think. I certainly learned something from skimming these works and believe they would improve the article. -Darouet (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The proposed text looks very ok to me. The sentence can indeed be split, but I would omit the phrase according to historian Michael Segre, per no need to mention the name that already sticks to the two attached source refs. - DVdm (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Will implement, anyone can discuss or change as needed. -Darouet (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Galileo affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2017

Change

Claudius Ptolemy (A.D. 90–168), whose geocentric system was adopted by the Catholic Church, and supplanted by the work of Copernicus and Galileo in the 16th and 17th centuries.

to

Claudius Ptolemy (A.D. 90–168) whose geocentric system was supplanted by the work of Copernicus and Galileo in the 16th and 17th centuries.

123.231.124.84 (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No reason to remove the content. - DVdm (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
As an outsider to this request, the claim that Ptolemy's system "was adopted by the Catholic Church" implies a degree of formal approval that requires a citation for support. From my reading, I don't see such a formal approval. The body of the article has "…scientific and philosophical ideas based on those of Aristotle and Ptolemy and closely associated with the Catholic Church" which is more accurate. For a short caption, I'd either omit the offending phrase as proposed above or change it to read "was adopted by Catholic theologians." --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 Done: Since I can edit this article, I made the change myself. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I thnk it is clear that the article sufficiently backed the original caption, so I took the liberty to restore it, but I made a little tweak to the section, and added two sources to solidify it: [3] - DVdm (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
DVdm is using the unusual spelling "thnk". DVdm's alleged "sources" are mere assertions, with no proof or attempt at proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7E8:DCBD:4101:F11A:F99:3984:8C (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Other than by providing reliable sources, we are not required—nor even supposed—to provide proofs. See wp:VERIFIABILITY and wp:RS.
My apologies for that spelling error. I might have overlooked while previewing. I can't promise that this will not happen again, so more apologies in advance. - DVdm (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The phrase "closely associated with the Catholic Church" is said to be "accurate" by SteveMcCluskey. This deliberately vague phrase was put into the article by 209.204.169.149 in America on 9/12/2005. It is so vague that it can't be proved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.204.234 (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
"Closely associated" seems sufficiently compatible with "backed" and "accepted", which are properly sourced, and Wikipedia is not about proof. It is about sources. See wp:VERIFIABILITY and wp:RS, again. - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Dead Link

Link 84 "The speech Pope Benedict did not deliver" is dead. Long live the link. Here's the good one. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC) http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=56017&repos=4&subrepos=1&searchid=1726409

 Replaced: [4]. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Heliocentrism

I'm not able to edit this article. But I think here, and in many other articles I've recently viewed, the first mention of "heliocentrism" should have a link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism). WithGLEE (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It has the wikilink to Heliocentrism at the end of the first paragraph of the lead. - DVdm (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Galileo affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Galileo affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No sections about historical repercussions

I’m surprised that the historiography section jumps to late-20th century and 21th century historiographical analyses, overlooking the Enlightenment, the 19th century and how Galileo was appropriated as a symbol or “martyr” for science in the struggle of science and religion, the catholic responses, etc.

That should be added. Josebarbosa (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2019

The opening section contains this sentence which has a mistake: "In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope, namely the phases of Venus and the Galilean moons of Jupiter."

The mistake is that the phases of Venus were not published in "Sidereus Nuncius" but in a later publication, "Letters on sunspots". This is mentioned all the relevant wikipedia articles (e.g, Phases of Venus), and can be further verified here https://www.coursehero.com/file/12263024/PHASES-OF-VENUS/

I suggest to change it together with the following sentence to: "In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope, among them the Galilean moons of Jupiter. With these observations and additional observations that followed, such as the phases of Venus, he promoted the heliocentric theory . . ." Udirock (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done The phases of Venus may have been observed by Galileo in 1610, but its clear Galileo's observations regarding that planet were not specifically published until 3 years after Sidereus Nuncius.  Spintendo  04:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2020

I wish to put citations to existing stamens on the page, without changing the statements. Dragonfly.31hz (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

​You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y" – Thjarkur (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Painting (erroneously attributed to) Murillo

The article about Galileo Affair points out that Galileo may had really said "Eppur si muove" since Italian historian Antonio Favaro found out in 1911 a painting supposedly realized by Spanish painter Bartholomé Esteban Murillo cca 1643 However recent studies (by astrophysicist Mario Livio) tends to prove that the painting was made only in the 19th century (cf. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/did-galileo-truly-say-and-yet-it-moves-a-modern-detective-story/)

May this correction be added to the article? (I apologize for the mediocrous quality of my English) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRANCI (talk • contribs) 13:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@FRANCI: we will have to wait a few years to see if this new theory will considered as either as a valid theory, or as the truth, or as a WP:Fringe theory, or a lie by the experts in this field of history. Veverve (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Copernican Heliocentrism

Galileo, as well as Copernicus, held the sun to be the unmoving center of the entire universe, not just of the solar system, as the first paragraph of this page is content with saying. The wikipedia page on Heliocentrism says that that's what Heliocentrism was. James Hannam, Tim O'Neill, Cristopher Graney, and I would bet ALL modern historians recognize this. I can provide citations if necessary, though I think the Heliocentrism page on wiki would be enough. It is important to accurately represent Galileo's view so as not to clean it up for him. It was incorrect, but correct in one more thing than geocentrism. Actually, if one counts Galileo's opposition to the prevailing view of the day regarding tides (that they were caused by the moon...the correct view, we now know), in favor of his odd view that the motion of the earth through space caused the oceans to slosh, then he and his detractors were correct about the same number of things.

Heliocentrism was incorrect in some regards. So was geocentrism. Cleaning up Heliocentrism encourages more mythology around what is already a woefully mythologized historical event.

Mcuth (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Again on Copernican Heliocentrism

The archived discussion Copernican Heliocentrism raised a point about the improperness of citing the Solar System in the first proposition of the introduction. Yes, Solar System should be changed to Universe. At the time of Galileo, there was no idea about a “Solar System” separated from the rest of the Universe. In any document of the Galileo affair, the “Solar System” obviously never appears.

The introduction misstates, therefore, the final verdicts of the Church, also reported in the page, which condemned “the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world (…)” (section “Inquisition and first judgment, 1616”) and the “opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe” (section “Trial and second judgment, 1633”). Bg69 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Yes, good point. See [5]. - DVdm (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
In the excitement, DVdm has forgotten to put a full stop at the end of the sentence he edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:4e9f:d101:65b2:228:7ef4:6263 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I want the correct edit made at the end of the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:4e9f:d101:65b2:228:7ef4:6263 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 Done: See [6] - DVdm (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2021

Change "tiral" in paragraph 3 of the introduction to "trial" Collisteru (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Links to Galileo’s theories of tides and comets are to be added

The introduction mentions Galileo's theories of tides and comets ("Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619").

The two Galileo theories have these specific pages: Discourse on the Tides and Discourse on Comets. Therefore, "theory of tides in 1616" should be linked to Discourse on the Tides and "of comets in 1619" to Discourse on Comets.

Besides the obvious pertinence, there are other motivations to add the links. (1) The current link to tide is improper since it goes directly to the page about the physical phenomenon, explained in terms of our present theory, which is entirely different from Galileo's one; (2) The comets should have a link as well; (3) The page Discourse on the Tides explains the "evidence" mentioned in the sentence that follows: "he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth." Galileo's theory of tides was wrong, so it is not immediate to understand such "evidence." --Bg69 (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Good suggestion.Ramos1990 (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Question

Why is this page extended protected? Has it been vandalized by flat earthers and other such silly people?

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Peacock verbiage

Could some one delete "much stronger" from the article? What is it stronger than? No source is given. No linear magnification factors are given. This article attracts peacock verbiage. 15astr65 (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

But it was much stronger - x23 vs x3 - see History_of_the_telescope#Spread_of_the_invention. You can add the refs. Good practice. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Peace is contagious has used the word "his". This is ambiguous, as it might mean that Galileo invented the telescope or that he owned one. The word originally used, "the" is not ambiguous. The impression is given that Galileo's telescopes were "stronger" than those used by people other than Galileo. The implication that the observations can only be made with a x23 telescope is false. Some are visible to the unaided eye. Thus, they can be seen with a x3, x23 or x1 linear magnification.
I can't add the references as the article is subject to extended confirmed protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15astr65 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

OP blocked as yet another sock of User:Azul411. Favonian (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

sunspots

RE sunspots it says in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#History

"The earliest record of sunspots is found in the Chinese I Ching, completed before 800 BC. The text describes that a dou and mei were observed in the sun, where both words refer to a small obscuration.[7] The earliest record of a deliberate sunspot observation also comes from China, and dates to 364 BC, based on comments by astronomer Gan De (甘德) in a star catalogue.[8] By 28 BC, Chinese astronomers were regularly recording sunspot observations in official imperial records.[9]

The first clear mention of a sunspot in Western literature is circa 300 BC, by ancient Greek scholar Theophrastus, student of Plato and Aristotle and successor to the latter.[10]

The earliest known drawings of sunspots were made by English monk John of Worcester in December 1128.[11][12] "

which is quite a bit more complex than the (acxcurate but rather minimal) "Neither of them, however, was the first to recognise sunspots – the Chinese had already been familiar with them for centuries.[14]" in the article

79.67.167.36 (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Galileo_affair/Archive_2&oldid=1167165751"