Talk:Galileo Galilei/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Galileo Galilei. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm sorry this really isn't the place to do it, but I can't edit the page directly.

The phrase "...the Earth's surface speeded up and slowed down..." should be "...the Earth's surface sped up and slowed down..." Can someone please remedy this? Muttonsandwich (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. This is actually the perfect place to do it; talk pages are meant for discussing improvements to articles. You should also add {{Edit semi-protected}} if you want to request an edit for a semi protected page. — Reatlas (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Both past tenses can be used.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.30.34 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 20 August 2013

Mutton should not treat his own usage as the only correct one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.10.165 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 November 2013

For the record "speeded up" sounds terrible. Also please sign your posts on talk pages in the future by typing four tildes (~~~~).Polyamorph (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Remarks by Mahusha are often repeats of existing passages and not in good English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.243.24 (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

149.254.49.208 (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Please let me edit i need to add a few bits of important information that is vital for this page Thank you Yours Sincerely Hannnah Bolta

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. NiciVampireHeart 12:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If the information is specified, it might be added by a registered editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.201.218 (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

If there is such a parameter, please add to infobox:
|patron = [[Francesco Maria del Monte]]
Note: since he was Cardinal at the time, and was commonly refered to as: Cardinal del Monte, consider piping the link or adding ', Cardinal' (which has bearing on patronship)
There are numerous potential references, including:  Callaghan, James Frederic. Memoirs and Writings of the Very Reverend James F. Callaghan, Part 4. Robert Clarke Company. p. 326
71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The article uses Template:Infobox scientist which has no such parameter, nor any free-text options, so it would not show even if it were added on the edit page, As it won't show, there is nothing to pipe. Patron appears in Template:Infobox artist so you will find in some other articles. Arjayay (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Galileo Galilei Portrait of Galileo Galilei by Giusto Sustermans Born (1564-02-15)15 February 1564[3] Pisa,[3] Duchy of Florence, Italy Died 8 January 1642(1642-01-08) (aged 77)[3] Arcetri,[3] Grand Duchy of Tuscany, Italy Nationality Italian (Tuscan) Alma mater University of Pisa Patrons Francesco Maria del Monte Fra Paolo Sarpi Prince Federico Cesi Cosimo II de Medici Ferdinando II de Medici Maffeo Barberini   (later Pope Urban VIII) Known for Kinematics Dynamics Telescopic observational astronomy Heliocentrism Scientific career Fields Astronomy, physics and mathematics Institutions University of Pisa University of Padua Academic advisors Ostilio Ricci[1] Notable students Benedetto Castelli Mario Guiducci Vincenzo Viviani[2] Signature Notes His father was the musician Vincenzo Galilei. Galileo Galilei's mistress Marina Gamba (1570 – 21 August 1612?) bore him two daughters (Maria Celeste (Virginia, 1600–1634) and Livia (1601–1659), both of whom became nuns) and a son Vincenzo (1606–1649), a lutenist.

The things you can put in an infobox are not limited by the "official" list of parameters. If consensus were to dictate that a "Patrons" parameter would be worth while in this article, it could be implemented as I have demonstrated in the box on the right box in the collapsed content above. However, Galileo had many more patrons than del Monte, and some of them were significantly more important, so there will always be a problem of deciding which of them are sufficiently important to be included in the list. I would suggest that if del Monte were to be included, so at least must all the others I have added to the list in the box on the right collapsed above.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done
Paine Ellsworth has now edited the Infobox template to include a "Patrons" parameter, so there is no need for the hack I described above.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done – The patrons you suggested have been added. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

 – 71.20.250.51 (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)   (comments on this subject are welcome on my talk page)

 Comment::  Comments are welcome regarding implementation as per David Wilson. My concern is in regard to the definition of patron; my understanding (which is far from complete) is that, at the time, there was a formal system of patronage as well as an informal usage of patron to signify a general supporter of higher status. Clarification (especially when sourced) would be appreciated.  ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The timeline of Galileo includes the event of Giordano Bruno being burnt at the stake. Every other event on the timeline relates to important events in Galileo's life, in the lives of his close friends and family, to scientific works published by his known collaborators and rivals, and to scientific works that would eventually have an impact on his work, or which his work would have an impact on. But the only relationship between Galileo and Bruno was that they both supported the Copernican system. There is no evidence that Galileo knew who he was prior to his trial and execution, nor is there any evidence that Galileo gave Bruno much thought after his death, even during his own trial. One could argue that they both were put on trial for supporting the Copernican system, but this is not supported by modern historians; Bruno was put on trial for "denial of the Trinity, denial of the divinity of Christ, denial of virginity of Mary, and denial of Transubstantiation", not for Copernicanism. Copernicanism did play a role in Bruno coming to these beliefs, but that is an extremely tenuous link between the two men. I think the dot point on Bruno should be removed from the article, because it suggests a connection between these two men which did not exist. Max (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Endless attempts have been made by Andrew Dickson White and others to prove that Bruno was executed for supposedly scientific Copernicanism. As a result, it is impossible to take the reference to Bruno out of this article, despite the lack of any logical connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.97.203 (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

White even used a complicated fall-back theory. See Andrew Dickson White and his main book. (unsigned)

You may be right, but you still have the problem that people may still some to this article looking for the Galileo-Bruno connection. Roger (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A Galileo-Bruno connection should not be given if it didn't exist, regardless of whether people come to the page looking for it Max 00:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.233.212 (talk)

A fake source is being used here. It should be deleted. I am suprised that anyone allowed it to appear at all. Unproveable remarks should play no part in Wikipedia or outside it, for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.212.77 (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It is also appearing in the article on the Galileo affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.212.77 (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Please identify the source you're referring to

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The fake source appeared in the article on the Galileo affair on 8/5/2013 and 19/7/2013. It appeared in the article on Galileo Galilei on 18/2/2014. The source, said to be Black and Blackwell, claims to know the unrecorded opinions of the large number of the "educated". Only opinions actually written down in the 17th century are known to us. Many of these recorded opinions are already quoted in the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.168.153.124 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I presume this comment refers to these edits:[[1]],[[2]][[3]], all of which cite a book by the historian Richard Blackwell. The opinion that the geocentric view was common before the time of Galileo is not controversial, and the citation seems perfectly appropriate. It is certainly a reliable source, not a "fake source". SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The astronomical opinions of those living in Japan in 1,000,000 B.C. were not recorded and can only be guessed at.

Readers of Wikipedia are perfectly capable of guessing this without the advice of a fake source such as Blackwell. All alleged sources referring to unrecorded opinions are not sources at all, reliable or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.65.249 (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Unlike the population of Japan in 1,000,000 B.C., that of educated 17th-century Europe has left us mountains of documents from which we can draw reasonable inductive inferences about its general beliefs, even though the specific beliefs of many of its individual members might remain unknown to us. If a source had to be regarded as "fake" merely because its author drew conclusions based on such inductive inferences, then just about every history book ever written— and, for that matter, just about every scientific treatise ever written—would have to be considered "fake".

David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Another member of the tag team, partly using the fake source, is IP 67.187.10.239. This might be a sock-puppet of Darouet or Thucydides411 or another individual. IP 67.187.10.239 is used by three unrelated people. Only the last is a tag team member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.65.249 (talk) 09:10, April 8, 2014‎ (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Isn't the use of Scripture with a capital S a little Christian-centric and loaded? Would "Biblical texts" be better? What's standard Wiki usage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 08:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Squabbling over capital and small letters can go on indefinitely. Shall we spell "Quran" with capitals or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.9.123 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

To answer what standard usage is MOS:CAPS#Religion states "The names of major revered works of scripture like the Bible, the Qur'an, the Talmud, and the Vedas should be capitalized". It doesn't specifically mention "Holy Scripture", but as a synonym for the Bible, I think it should stay capitalized. This is hardly "Christian-centric" in an section referring to Galileo's problems with the church. Arjayay (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. There are a number of issues with that section. I've gone with biblical texts (lower case), but would be happy if anyone wanted to edit it back to "the Bible"; I'd always capitalise Bible/ Qu'ran / Talmud, but not cap The. Using the capitalised Scripture to refer to the generic "scriptures" Religious_text of Christianity suggests that there's something special about the Christian scriptures, and that they alone are synonymous with religious truth. Which is like capping The on The Bible. It's particularly egregious in British English, which this article is written in. AdventurousMe (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The Heliocentrism section seems really long now. I split some of the paragraphs for readability, but I wonder whether it could be divided by someone who knows the topic into more accessible sub-headings? There's already an independent article on the Galileo Affair, so maybe some of the stuff in this -- the recanted beliefs, the Augustinian thinking section, the details on the Inquisition, the disputed painting etc. -- could go over there, and then this could be a shorter piece with links to the relevant sections in the main article? AdventurousMe (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggested addition... Galileo's contributions were respectfully remembered by the American television series Star Trek. Decades before a real-world spacecraft bore Galileo's name, the starship Enterprise carried several smaller craft, one of which was named the Galileo 7. It is unclear whether Gene Roddenberry consciously chose to name a satellite vessel after the first discoverer of satellites orbiting another world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.111.14.11 (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

References in popular culture have no scientific significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.197.218 (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

In point of fact, the four brightest moons of Jupiter are visible to the unaided eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.197.218 (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Both these articles have been hijacked by a POV tag team, using self-contradiction, lying, faked sources etc. Something will have to be done about this. Otherwise, the reputation of Wikipedia for accuracy will be ruined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.159.115 (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

See section #Fake source. - DVdm (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

First off, see User talk:Vsmith#Interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.159.115 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

See User_talk:Vsmith/Archive22#Interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.197.201 (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

For further information, see Talk:Galileo_affair#Hijack, Talk:Galileo_affair#Self-contradiction and Talk:Galileo_affair#Tag team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.159.115 (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

More work should be done on this article. I might have the time soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.247.25.51 (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Dialogo de Cecco da Ronchitti da Bruzene in perpuosito de la stella Nova" has appeared under "See also". As it is not certain that Galileo wrote this Dialogue, I am not sure it should be mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.15.253 (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the precise degree of likelihood of Galileo's authorship of this pamphlet, the Manual of Style's criteria for See also links would seem to me to be well satisfied by a good Wikipedia article on it. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's current article is a stub containing several inaccuracies and outright errors. In particular, the statement that Galileo's possible authorship is merely conjectured is misleading as to the state of modern scholarship on the matter. In the introduction to his English translation of the pamphlet, Stillman Drake treats Galileo's authorship (or co-authorship) as having been conclusively established. Other Galileo scholars and historians of science who have written in favour of Drake's opinion are Maurice Finocchiaro, Mario Biagioli, John Heilbron, Robert Palter, Noel Swerdlow and Jed Buchwald. The only established Galileo scholar whom I have found opposed to that opinion is Robert Westman, who favours the view of a scholar of medieval and renaissance Italian literature, Marisa Milani, that the pamphlet's sole author was one of Galileo's disciples, Girolamo Spinelli.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

See, possibly, http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/itineraries/biography/GirolamoSpinelli.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.4.8 (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There are articles in the French and Italian wikipedias on Antonio Favaro, but not in English. Spinelli seems to have been familiar with the Venetian dialect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.4.8 (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Not much at all is known about Spinelli, although Favaro's writings contain a few more details than those reported in the Museo Galileo's article about him. In his original 1881 article on the Cecco di Ronchitti pamphlet, Favaro cited two references—dated 1619 and 1637—in Galileo's correspondence to "Cecco de' i Ronchetti" as an alias of Spinelli's. He took these, along with Spinelli's Paduan nativity, as evidence that Spinelli was mainly responsible for rendering Galileo's ideas into properly idiomatic Paduan dialect. Drake argues that "Cecco de' i Ronchetti" was more likely to have been a nickname bestowed on Spinelli by Galileo or his followers sometime later, and that Galileo was probably the sole author of the pamphlet. I haven't yet seen Marisa Milani's article, so I don't know what arguments she gives for Spinelli's being the pamphlet's sole author.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In the article about the arsenal of Venice it says that Galileo did some important work there, which inspired his work on the science of materials.

In the article about Two New Sciences it says that Galileo discovered the square cube law, and this is also stated in the article about the square cube law.

These sound like important things and I was surprised not to find them in the main Galileo article. Should they be added? I'm not confident enough to do it myself. 79.56.199.200 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The second half of this section contains statements that are based on interpretation rather than fact (e.g. "He displayed a peculiar ability to ignore established authorities..."), and is lacking in citations.

Since the page is semi-protected, and I made an account specifically because I happened across this issue, I can't delete or edit the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bparkhu2 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right. The peacock verbiage in that section should never have been put into the article. If you make another nine edits and wait for four days, you can edit this semi-protected article yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PojuZabludowiczcontractor (talk • contribs) 10:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Peacock wording is too vague to have any citations, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PojuZabludowiczcontractor (talk • contribs) 10:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Galileo Galilei has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Galileo is the subject of the opera Galileo Galilei , composed by Philip Glass and premiered at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 2002. Jlapsjlaps (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The section is already too long and possibly should be deleted altogether. Tkuvho (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Glass's Opera contains many untrue statements on points of fact, science and history. This is only to be expected, in fiction of any sort, musical or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinnishPoju (talk • contribs) 12:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Galileo was listed on the List of Renaissance figures, I decided to add a link to the Renaissance page to note that his work was done during this era. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 01:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As Galileo said, he was reviving the ideas of Pythagoras, who lived much earlier. Copernicus said much the same thing about his own ideas.

In general, it is not wise to mention any era, especially in science.

I added a quote from a private letter signed by Galileo where he recanted Heliocentrism. A user then reverted by change, with the only comment being something like: "gives false impression this was really his view at death" "this is like your Einstein edit, remember?"

I have a couple problems with this. First, I merely cited Galileo himself rejecting Heliocentrism a year before his death. If that gives the impression Galileo died with his rejection of Heliocentrism, well, there is nothing wrong with that. If some Wiki user doesn't like the impression, he is free to add any other information to this page to support his opposite point of view and provide a more balanced perspective on the issue. However, one cannot sweep hard evidence under the rug just because it contradicts one's idealized version of Galileo.

Second, saying it's "like my Einstein edit" isn't helpful at all. I admitted my Einstein edit was inappropriate. For those who aren't aware, I had added to Einstein's page that his personal doctor diagnosed the cause of death was syphilis. However, a friendly user informed me that his personal doctor made this diagnosis when he hadn't been Einstein's doctor for over 20 years. So, that's helpful. But the wiki user who reverted the change I made to Galileo's page is not being helpful.

I'm not reverting the revert just yet. I'd like to see any responses first. Looking forward to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GarretKadeDupre (talk • contribs) 13:53, 17 November 2014

Do we have a reliable source for Galileo's letter? Tkuvho (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. The letter appears in the National Edition of Galileo's works vol XVIII, pp.314–316. However, there are at least two problems with GarretKadeDupre's proposed edit.

First, his interpretation of the passage quoted ignores the rest of the letter from which it has been plucked, and it disagrees with those of at least two "reliable sources" that I'm aware of. In Galileo: Decisive Innovator (p.205) Michael Sharratt, after briefly describing both the passage quoted by GarretKadeDupre and some subsequent passages, concludes:

"It is evident both that Galileo had not changed his mind and that he had resigned himself to the fact that his own part in the campaign to establish Copernicanism was over."

The second source, unfortunately whose identity I cannot now remember, considered that Galileo was obviously being sarcastic in the passage quoted by GarretKadeDupre. Personally, I can't see any sarcasm there myself, and^{[Withdrawn. See P.S. below]} it would have been extremely dangerous for Galileo to commit any such sarcasm to writing at that time. Nevertheless, for the purposes of determining what goes into the article, I wouldn't be permitted to prefer my own opinion over that of an acknowledged expert (assuming that I could eventually track down the source).

The second problem with the proposed edit is the relevance of the quoted passage to Galileo's behaviour immediately after the conclusion of his trial, which is a connection it appears to be trying to make. The quoted letter was written in March 1641, nearly 8 years after the conclusion of his trial, so even if Galileo had by then given up his belief in heliocentrism, it seems to me that that would have very little bearing on whether he had already done so immediately after his trial.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. On further consideration, it seems to me that if Galileo really was still committed to heliocentrism when he wrote this letter, as Sharratt maintains, then his following words could hardly be interpreted as anything other than possibly be interpreted as sarcasm:

"... havendo la inrefragabile autorità delle Scritture Sacre, interpretate da i maestri sommi in teologia, il concorde assenso de` quali ci rende certi della stabilità della terra, posta nel centro, e della mobilità del sole intorno ad essa."

Fr. Brian Harrison's translation, as quoted by GarretKadeDupre: "... since we have the unshakeable authority of the Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the most erudite theologians, whose consensus gives us certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth."

A crucial point here is that rather than making "the unshakeable authority of the Sacred Scripture" the subject of " ... gives us certainty ... ", as would have been more natural if he was simply giving a straightforward literal statement of his true opinion, Galileo instead chooses to make it the "consensus" of "the most erudite theologians".

David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of the proposed edit? What meaning does it have? If the meaning is a significant change from previous views, then it needs strong support from secondary sources. The only comment given to justify the revert seems very adequate. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Galileo's comment is interesting precisely because it admits of multiple interpretations:

The falsity of the Copernican system should not in any way be called into question, above all, not by Catholics, since we have the unshakeable authority of the Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the most erudite theologians, whose consensus gives us certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth.

It is not our role as wiki editors to resolve the issue of whether Galileo's comment involves sarcasm or not. The fact that there are secondary sources citing this, as David J. Wilson documented, shows that this comment is notable. It is certainly advisable to provide whatever context is needed so this wouldn't be misleading, but summarily to dismiss this edit because it is allegedly similar to an unrelated edit at the Albert Einstein page is untenable. Tkuvho (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires that primary sources, such as Galileo's letter, should be used with caution as it is too easy to slide into original research. Since secondary sources disagree on the interpretation of this passage, we cannot expect "any educated person" to unravel the meaning of this passage. If it is significant enough to be included, it should only be presented accompanied by interpretations found in reliable secondary sources. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I agree with including the Galileo passage, obviously without interpretive editorial comments by wiki editors, and with the main interpretations found in secondary sources. Tkuvho (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Having now read through the coverage of this issue in all the reliable secondary sources I could find, as well as that in several sources I would regard as very far from reliable, I have to disagree. Its relatively meagre coverage in reliable sources suggests to me that it's not sufficiently important to warrant being mentioned in the article. In this connection, I'll point out that, in Wikipedia jargon, "notability", raised by edtor Tkuvho above, is a criterion for deciding whether it's justified for a topic to have the whole of a separate Wikipedia article dedicated to it. In fact, the policy on "notability" explicitly rules itself out as a criterion for determining the contents of any existing article, which it specifies as being "due weight and other content policies." "Notability" of a topic, as defined by Wikipedia, seems to me to be neither necessary nor sufficient by itself to justify that topic's being included or mentioned in a Wikipedia article.

In determining what can justifiably be included in Wikipedia's article on Galileo you need to keep in mind that the scholarly literature on the topic is enormous, while Wikipedia's article amounts to only about thirty printed pages, and therefore it's simply not possible for it to include every single item of information that has at most a page or two of coverage in each of half a dozen or so out of the hundred or more scholarly books published on the topic. My judgement that Galileo's letter to Rinuccini does not warrant coverage is based on comparing the amount of its coverage in the scholarly literature with those of other topics which are currently not mentioned at all in Wikipedia's article. Off the top of my head I can immediately name three which receive more such coverage than the Rinuccini correspondence—Galileo's latin notebooks, on which a whole book has been written, his prosecution of Baldassare Capra for plagiarising his military compass, and his correspondence with Monsignor Piero Dini during the 1615 prelude to the condemnation of Copernicanism—and I expect there are many more.

On the other hand, I do believe the coverage of the Rinuccini correspondence in reliable secondary sources is sufficient to justify a separate article on it. Once this has been written, I think a short mention, of one or two sentences, in the article Galileo affair, would be warranted, with a footnote directing the reader to the separate article for more information. Here are the references I've found which I would consider unequivocally reliable:

• Drake, Stillman (1978). Galileo At Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 417–8. ISBN 0-226-16226-5. Contains a translation of most of Galileo's letter.
• Drake, Stillman (1980). Galileo: A Very Short Introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 167. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |title= at position 23 (help) There are several different editions of this work, whose paginations may be different.
• Galilei, Galileo; Albèri, Eugenio (1859), Commercio epistolare di Galileo Galilei, vol. 2, p. 361 The secondary source here is Albèri's commentary on the letter, contained in a heading and footnote.
• Galilei, Galileo; Albèri, Eugenio (1872), Epistolario di Galileo Galilei, vol. 2, p. 229-30 Again, the secondary source here is Albèri's commentary on the letter, slightly different to the one in the immediately preceding reference.
• Heilbron, John L. (2010). Galileo. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 354–5. ISBN 978-0-19-958352-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Pedersen, Olaf (1985), Galileo's Religion, pp. 80–1 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |in= ignored (help)
• Sharratt, Michael (1994). Galileo: Decisive Innovator. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 205. ISBN 0-521-56671-1. As cited in my comment above.
• Speller, Jules (2008). Galileo's Inquisition Trial Revisited. Frankfurt am Main: Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften. pp. 367ff. ISBN 978-3-631-56229-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Speller's coverage is by far the most thorough of all the references I've seen. It would have to constitute the chief source for any Wikipedia article on the topic.

Contrary to Steve McCluskey's comment above, there doesn't seem to me to be all that much disagreement amongst these authors on the interpretation of the opening passage of Galileo's letter. With the possible exception of Drake—who rather conspicuously avoids expressing a clear opinion on the matter—and the probable exception of Pedersen—who nevertheless seems to me to contradict himself—all the above authors unequivocally consider the passage to be a subterfuge on Galileo's part, that did not reflect his true attitude to heliocentrism at the time.

I have made an initial contribution to a proposed Wikipedia article on Galileo's correspondence with Rinuccini by making my own translation of it, which can be found here.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The article Moons of Jupiter#Discovery notes that a moon, possibly Callisto, was seen earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czech1001Slovak (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

See also Galilean moons#Visibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czech1001Slovak (talk • contribs) 17:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As that observation is only a possible sighting, I'm not sure that this belongs in the lead section. A mention in the body of the article would be fine, using this ref. Mikenorton (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The sighting is certain. The only doubt is about the identity of the moon seen. Untrue statements should not appear anywhere in the article. William M. Connolley mentions a non-existent controversy. Perhaps he would like to discuss detail, astronomical and historical, such as the magnitudes of the four moons and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.44.141 (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The moon seen in about 364 B.C. might have been any one of the four brightest. It is just easier to see the two outermost moons. The ancient sighting might have been of two moons, near each other, looking like one. In which case, two moons were seen unwittingly. There is a faint chance the three or four moons were blurred together, but only very faint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.102.235.199 (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Galileo is said to have improved the telescope. He might have introduced a baffle. If so, I want a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.8.170.8 (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The site www.handprint.com/ASTRO/ae2.html mentions baffles but does not seem to credit them to any one man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.8.170.8 (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Galileo Galilei has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

holier Osamoatodos (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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. If you are trying to report a typo in the article, please tell us the specific sentence where it is. Altamel (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This user, Osamoatodos, seems to be unconnected with the tag team active in these articles. His contribution is meaningless, where the tag team in America is mendacious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.89.186.107 (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The article claims in the lede that Galileo was supported by the Jesuits up until the publication of the two systems in 1632. The reference given is an article by Pantin. However, Pantini's article makes no such claims. Many sources indicate, on the contrary, that the Jesuits were bitter enemies of Galileo on account of both heliocentrism and the method of indivisibles, at least as early as 1616 and probably earlier. Does anyone have more details on this? Tkuvho (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Galileo was given favorable treatment at a Jesuit college in Rome. A Pope gave Galileo a medal and a pension for his son.

This visit seems to have been during 1611. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.138.243 (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that anyone mentioned indivisibles at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.169.185 (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Tkuvho should specify the many sources he mentions, with quotations from the 17th century texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.29.187 (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Amir Alexander in Infinitesimals: How a dangerous mathematical theory shaped the modern world (2014) shows how indivisibles and infinitesimals were perceived as a theological threat and opposed on doctrinal grounds in the 17th century. The opposition was spearheaded by clerics and more specifically by the jesuits. In 1632 (the year Galileo was summoned to stand trial over heliocentrism) the Society's Revisors General led by father Jacob Bidermann banned teaching indivisibles in their schools (Alexander p. 17). Tkuvho (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There was opposition to heliocentrism in ancient times. Most were supporters of geostaticism anciently. When calculus was first introduced, there was opposition to it anciently. The Jesuits were not in existence in these early, ancient times. A complicated theory involving 1632 and the Jesuits has been appearing in Wikipedia in the last two or three days, from Tk etc. and Amir Alexander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.9.56.78 (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This featured article contains a claim in the lede that is not supported by the reference provided (Pantini) and is furthermore contradicted by other scholars. In addition, the lede should be a summary of the material actually contained in the article. The article contains no justification of the claim that the Jesuits supported Galileo until 1632. On the contrary, there is much evidence that they had opposed him for at least 15 years prior to that date. I propose that the reference to the Jesuits in the lede be removed. Tkuvho (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I just checked the history of the page and it turns out that the comment about the Jesuits supporting Galileo, as well as the reference by Pantin (that does not support the claim), was added by User:Quarkgluonsoup in this edit of 7 sept 2011. Note that by then the page had been a FA for a long time. I suggest we revert to the wording found in the earlier version that was more accurate. Tkuvho (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The relevant archive is archive 11 that covers 2011. I just checked and there does not seem to have been any discussion of this radical change, either by User:Quarkgluonsoup or anyone else. Tkuvho (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

See here. I had my doubts about those changes when they were made, but since they were apparently supported by a reliable source, I didn't question them at the time. Some time later, I got hold of Pantin's article, and was surprised and disgusted to find that not a single one of the changes was supported by it. I then started composing the discussion I linked to above, but it was taking so much time that I eventually lost all interest in finishing it, and much of my interest in watching over this article.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so there was some discussion at your talkpage, but it did not make it to Talk:Galileo Galilei. It seems to me that for a "good article" this is currently supposed to be, the lede is pretty sloppy and should be corrected. Tkuvho (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it was only a "discussion" in the sense of a monologue which I was composing in one of my sandboxes, with the intention of later transferring to this talk page, which I never got around to doing. No-one else ever took part in it, and it's quite likely that very few, if any, other editors, ever saw it. Here's a slightly amended version of the paragraph I had intended to propose as a replacement for Quarkgluonsoup's version:

"Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the view that the Earth stood motionless at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he was opposed by astronomers, philosophers and clerics. One of the latter, Niccolò Lorini, eventually lodged an informal complaint against Galileo with the prefect of the Congregation of the Index, and another, Tommaso Caccini, formally denounced him to the Roman Inquisition, early in 1615. The subsequent investigation led to the Catholic Church's condemning heliocentrism as "false" and "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture" in a decree by the Congregation of the Index in February 1616. Although Galileo was not then judged to have committed any offence, he was nevertheless warned to abandon his support for heliocentrism—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to abjure, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest."

David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a more balanced introduction. The new introduction deserves a section of its own here (see below). Tkuvho (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson proposed a paragraph in replacement for User:Quarkgluonsoup's flawed version of paragraph on heliocentism in the lede:

"Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the view that the Earth stood motionless at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he was opposed by astronomers, philosophers and clerics. One of the latter, Niccolò Lorini, eventually lodged an informal complaint against Galileo with the prefect of the Congregation of the Index, and another, Tommaso Caccini, formally denounced him to the Roman Inquisition, early in 1615. The subsequent investigation led to the Catholic Church's condemning heliocentrism as "false" and "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture" in a decree by the Congregation of the Index in February 1616. Although Galileo was not then judged to have committed any offence, he was nevertheless warned to abandon his support for heliocentrism—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to abjure, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest."

This is more balanced and unlike User:Quarkgluonsoup's version does not contain misrepresentation of sources. I vote in favor. Tkuvho (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Did I? When and where did I propose that? I can't find any edit in either the history of the article or the history of this talk page where I did so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this was just a mental slip by Tkuvho. It was actually I who proposed this, in the section Supported by the Jesuits? above. The proposed text is in fact not much different from that which Quarkgluonsoup's edit replaced. The main differences are the addition of astronomers to the classes of scholars who opposed Galileo, and the correction of a minor inaccuracy which had had two clerics denouncing him to the Inquisition. In fact, Lorini's complaint was not made directly to the Inquistion itself. What he did was send Cardinal Paolo Sfondrati, the then prefect of the Congregation of the Index, a copy of Galileo's letter to Benedetto Castelli. In a covering letter, Lorini explicitly stated that he did not wish to make a "judicial deposition", but Sfondrati nevertheless forwarded the copy of Galileo's letter to the Inquisition, where it became the subject of further investigation.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was still half asleep this morning when I wrote this. At any rate, I support User:David_J_Wilson's version. Tkuvho (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The article by Pantin,

Isabelle Pantin (1999), "New Philosophy and Old Prejudices: Aspects of the Reception of Copernicanism in a Divided Europe", Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 30: 237–262

is a fine piece in a respected historical journal. However, this article has been abused by editors in this page, by attributing things to it that are just not there in Pantin's article. One example is the alleged friendship between Galileo and the Jesuits until 1632; the other is the stellar parallax. An earlier version of the article made reference to parallax and cited Pantin in support of this, but Pantin does not mention the parallax. Any claims of this sort, particularly in the lede, need to be supported by sources. Tkuvho (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The lack of perceptible annual stellar parallax before the 19th. century is common knowledge in astronomical circles and therefore does not need any citation, reference or the like. See Friedrich Bessel. No claim is being made, just a statement of the obvious. See the studies of annual stellar parallax of Henderson and Struve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FirstSecondThird (talk • contribs)

It is indeed obvious that stellar parallax was not discovered until 1838. What is less clear to me is to what extent the adherence of the establishment in Rome to geocentrism was dictated by lack of evidence for parallax rather than by following church dogma. Does anyone have information on that? Tkuvho (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of the ancients subscribed to geostaticism and geocentrism. I cannot see that the ancients were following church dogma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.122.156.93 (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Tkuvho is making repetitious remarks in the article. With a reference to the quarrel between Galileo and Scheiner already there, Tkuvho has put in another. This is followed by some vague talk about "friction" between Galileo and the Jesuits. All this is credited to Amir Alexander. Tkuvho has spent the last five days telling us about a Jesuit plot, quoting at length from Amir Alexander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.136.254 (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Tkuvho has been producing a flood of quotations from Amir Alexander since 19/9/2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.39.25.220 (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This was just after Amir Alexander's book was published in the June or July of 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.15.55 (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi IP anonymous, actually it would be helpful if you could register (it does not have to be under your real name) rather than flooding us with a series of IP's that create the impression that there is more than one user speaking. Your comments would carry more weight then. Tkuvho (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Somebody should check whether these IP addresses involve more sockpuppeting by User:Azul411. Tkuvho (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't help noticing, while reading this article, about the hypocritical tone in which this historical figure is being presented to the readers. I'm no expert on Galileo, but I do know and understand about the impact of some of his ideas and views about the world in which we live in. My main bit of criticism has to do with the way you are presenting the 'quarrel' between him and the Church. I don't think the person writing this bit does an honest account of things. You haven't really explained, for example, the reasons for the Church's annoyance at him and its further actions. So what if he came up with a different view of the world: it doesn't follow from this that you'll be vetoed and taken to the highest courts to defend yourself under the threat of being imprissoned for life if you do not change your opinion on the subject. Why did the Church do this: no explanation. I mean, it is disturbing that an act of bigotry and arrogance, and narrow-mindedness of this sort from the part of the authorities back then, the Church, passes almost unquestioned, unscrutinized, and unmentioned by those writing about the life of a person, a renowned scientist, who was victim of such regime for attempting to disseminate his findings. What was it that pissed the Church off so much about this new view of Galileo's? Writing down the reasons for this, here, in this open encyclopedia, which anyone, anywhere in the world can access, wont make the Church look so good, evidently, even though almost 400 years have passed since this and other many incidents of this kind (they needed to shut him up, and if he didn't shut up, you know what would've happened ----yes, these were the methods of the Church back then against those who thought differently). But the article 'naively' limits itself to indicate that his views were controversial (for whom were they controversial, and why exactly), and that the Roman Inquisition investigated the issue (why did the Roman Inquisition took up the issue? What did they care about the way the stars and our planet are arranged in the sky? What do they have to say in matters of astronomy? No explanation): the Why's and How's are left in the dark here and, as a result, we end up with a vague account of this aspect of Galileo's life and his struggle against an institution that very much prefered having people plunged in the depths of ignorance, so they could rather be aligned and ready to do as they said, either by way of myths, false promises or punishment. All for the 'glory' of the Church (not yours, even less for God's). This is Wikipedia people, a place where knowledge is shared, not hidden. This indirect propaganda your doing here is not very benefitial, and very much in opposition to Wikipedia's spirit of sharing and openness.

Some more detailed issues and criticisms of the article.

(1) At the beginning of the article, in the third paragraph, and later at 'Controversy over heliocentrism' (2.3 at the index) it said that Galileo's heliocentrism was controversial. Why was it controversial, exactly? Why was it controversial to have a different view to that of the Church? This is not discussed in any detail. (1.1) Was the Roman Inquisition formed by a panel of astronomical experts? (1.2) If not, why is Galileo forced to answer to them. (1.3) Why is the Roman Inquisition interested in his or any works and opinions on astronomical issues?

(2) In that same third paragraph, Galileo is said to have seemingly attacked the Pope and Jesuits: did he or did he not; (2.1) then he was tried by the Holy Office. Why? Why was it that he was tried by the Holy Office; (2.2) and after he was forced to recant and condemned to be arrested for life by this Holy Office, are you suggesting that it was because of this life inprisonment that he wrote his best books?

Concerning his theory of heliocentrism and its reception, take a look at the particular facts of Galileo's life that were selected for the readers to read in this same third opening paragraph: new theory... controversial... astronomers opposing him... Roman Inquisition investigating him... new theory = 'false'... his book is banned... he gets vetoed... then he attacks his 'old friends' and 'supporters' (the Pope, the Jesuits) through another book... the Holy Office charges him with being 'vehemently suspect of heresy'... so he is forced to recant... he gets arrested for life... but he writes his best books, though, when under arrest (Apparently, the Church did him a much needed favor when locking him up for life?). Kinda scary, huh? You bet. Your new theory of heliocentrism is unanimously condemned by the intellectuals of your time (for no (weird) positive reception seems to have been registered of an event of this sort; not according to Wikipedia, at least), and, what's even more serious an offense, you refuse to understand that your little theory about the skies and the Earth is not welcomed at all by the people from The Church, yet you insist on keep going on with it anyway. This guy, Galileo, was beyond salvation don't you think? He so deserved being persecuted... ----

(3) It is strange that no quotes from Galileo's works on heliocentrism are available throughout the article's text (there are no quotes from any of his works), yet many quotations from The Church's position on it, which is no authority on astronomical issues, are there anyway, as well as their negative opinions (or the Bible's 'expert' testimony on the validity of geocentrism, or even references to The Church's most beloved theologians or Popes ----there is even a link, in the middle of the article, to the resolution of the Inquisition regarding Galileo's issue----). This is an article about Galileo Galilei, the scientist, considered by many as the father of modern science (an opinion Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking seem to share); it is not, on the other hand, an article about The Church's position on his theories.

(4) Throughout the article, the writer seems to be pretty keen on pointing out Galileo's refuted or mistaken theories by later scientists, yet no such thing is seen nor even suggested about the refuted or very mistaken theories of The Church regarding the same or even much more basic issues by later, and previous too, scientists and philosophers.

Why is this, Wikipedians? Don't tell me you don't see what's going on... Unwishful Thinker (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This article was written by about 2,773 editors. Only comment if you want to make a new point of fact or logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.114.57 (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As Galileo said, his opinion was not new and had been put forward by Pythagoras earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.114.57 (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Unwishful Thinker seems to be on the West Coast of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleuthsleuth616 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are looking for more detail, try Galileo affair. You say the article is hypocritical, but where is the hypocrisy? Is someone being insincere or making false pretenses? You ask questions like: "Why was it controversial to have a different view to that of the Church?" It seems obvious to me that having a different view is what makes a controversy. So I do not see the problem. But if you have some suggestions on how to make it clearer, please go ahead. Roger (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Some quick answers for you, my fellow Christian friends. I know that being a Christian demands of you being in some serious denial about things and yourselves: that gotta be tough. I mean, in order for Christianism to work for you, you gotta lie to yourselves day after day after day at the expense of your own mental health. And that's OK if that's the only way for you to go through. But since Wikipedia is not Christianpedia, I'll say and talk about stuff that you probably wont want to hear, even if it is for the article's sake. I mentioned about the hypocritical tone of Wikipedia Galileo's entry, and pointed out some concrete problems. One of you said that people has to refrain here from any comentary that didn't refer to points of fact or logic. But that's not the only thing that can ruin an article. For I can mention, for example, that Hitler had a tough childhood (fact), that he was interested in politics (fact), that some people didn't agree with his views (fact) and that he put and end to his life by commiting suicide (fact), all of this arranged in a perfectly logically-bound frame, and still make him look as your regular 20th Century citizen. No, points of fact or logic are not the only things that can be improved in an article. Roger, then, says that he cannot really see the problem I'm raising here. He seems to be saying that Galileo's controversy with the Church stems merely from the fact that he had a different opinion than that of the Church. Is that being hypocritical or what? My sister and I also disagree in many respects, yet neither I nor she sent each other to life imprisonment, nor threaten to destroy each other works, or writings, etc. The point is: why was it so important for a mob-like institution like the then Church to shut Galileo up. Nothing of this is said in the article: nothing. Nothing about the Church's petty interests being threatened by this, then new, and much more solidly supported view of the world. Nothing in particular about the reasons why they, the Church, felt threatened by Galileo's work, something that would make much, much clearer this institution's harrasing and far from 'saintly' behavior towards him. In a nutshell, Galileo's work meant the end of the notion that God was somewhere above, looking out for us: it meant the end of heaven ("there is no heaven!"), and, therefore, no God (at least, not in the way they usually sell it to people). But also, Galileo's work, when properly understood, meant the end of the soul hypothesis (the soul: that which gives life to the living): the soul is not that which explains my or your behaviour: the soul does not move a single thing, our bodies (the soul, whatever it is we think it is, is irrelevant; ergo, the soul doesn't exist!). If heaven doesn't exist, and the soul doesn't exist, the Church doesn't exist. But the power-hungry individuals running the Church might have had another opinion regarding this last conclusion: "We're not going anywhere! Take that Galileo guy down, now! It is him or us". And I assume, my dear Wikipedian friends, that you realize that the reasons behind the Church's refusal to get more than justifiably extinguished were not precisely born out of that 'love' of theirs for humanity; that 'burning' love of theirs...Unwishful Thinker (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You're asking why would the church take so much offence in the idea if heliocentrism (the earth revolves around the sun)? You need to understand that knowledge in the 16th century was not the knowledge we have today. There was very little scientific proof that the scriptures have wrong details: We did not yet know that the earth couldn't possibly be only 5,000 years old, we did not know that the sun or moon are more than "lights in the sky", that animals evolved and weren't created, that disease came from germs not from disappoint God, and so on. Copernicus's idea that the Earth is not the center of the known universe, was one of the earliest examples of science disproving accepted religious doctrine. Copernicus kept silent about it (only publishing his ideas in Latin), but Galileo publicised these ideas to the general public, in Italian, and started to lead the public into thinking that some things written in the scriptures might be wrong. This the church could not accept, and I think it's obvious why. 212.143.139.214 (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently what Galileo invented was a thermoscope, not a thermometer. Would it be appropriate to mention his invention of the thermoscope in the lede? Tkuvho (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Why? Given that we describe him as some kind of super-mega-genius, that just seems like trivia. But whatever we do, lets drop the fantasy of inventing the thermometer William M. Connolley (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

He invented both of them. Just type in google "the inventor of thermometer", and you will find out. Also the recognised sounds better than "regarded". --115ash^→(☏) 12:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No, he didn't. As our article on thermometer makes perfectly clear. Can you please stop the fanboi nonsense? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

He did, do you need to show certain sources? Just go to do a research. I'm not going to add it anymore, but there should be something mentioned on the thermometre. Moreover the word "recognized" appears better.--115ash^→(☏) 09:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thermometer#Development William M. Connolley (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Amir Alexander is treated as an important source by Tkuvho. See www.npr.org/2014/04/20/303716795/far-from-infinitesimal-a-mathematical-paradoxs-role-in-history. In an interview, Amir Alexander says that the Jesuits are opposed to "democracy" and "your cell phone". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.227.55 (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Redondi is another important source, according to the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkk532 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The book by Redondi, Pietro (Galileo: heretic. Translated from the Italian by Raymond Rosenthal. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1987. x+357 pp. ISBN: 0-691-08451-3) seems relevant. It gives some important information on Galileo's atomism and his indivisibles. This material has now been included in the page. Galileo has been in Category:Atomists for years. Some evidence for this has now been provided. This obviously does not merely concern The Assayer. Tkuvho (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The category was introduced by User:Gregbard in this edit. Tkuvho (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The idiotic category was put in by Gregbard, with a white name. He has since been banned for copyright reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.154.10.14 (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason for deletion - There is no evidence that this was a factor at the time - is wrong. But the existing text, which ascribed all the reason to lack of parallax - is also wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There was no evidence provided by the editor that the parallax was a factor at the time. This claim is true. In the context of the Assayer, Grassi claimed that there was no parallax based on experimental evidence, and this is also true. However, Grassi's parallax is not the same as the stellar parallax that the editor wanted to add to the lede. Rather, Grassi was talking about lack of cometary parallax. In any case, such a comment can only be included in the lede if it is already discussed in the body of the article, which is not the case currently. Tkuvho (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

In 1627 Raffaello Aversa published a book against the Copernican theory based on astronomical arguments that included absence of stellar parallax (See Redondi, Galileo: heretic, Princeton University Press, page 144). Tkuvho (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Tkuvho is asking for an impossible quantity of evidence. It is impossible to ask the millions of Galileo's opponents what their motives were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.44.117 (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Tkuvho has deleted an observational fact that was in the article for years, namely the lack of perceptible annual stellar parallax. This deletion is dishonest. He deleted the fact to make it look as though Galileo's opponents had no reason for subscribing to their geostatic opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FirstSecondThird (talk • contribs)

User:FirstSecondThird has been banned for sockpuppeting. Tkuvho (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Tkuvho should tell us about pseudo-mathematicians like Cantor and Godel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.227.55 (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

We might get less about Jesuit plots, atomism and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.212.52 (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The current article mentions, at two places, that Galileo was "warned by Cardinal Bellarmine to abandon his support for heliocentrism—which he promised to do.". This "fact" needs needs a serious citation. This looks like a small detail - who cares if Galileo was warned? after all, he obviously know he was going against the religious doctrine of the time? But in fact, it is not a small detail, for two reasons. First, for Galileo to have "promised to abandon his support for heliocentrism" would have been completely out of character for him (this is where he differed from Copernicus, who had the same theory before Galileo, but kept quiet about it). Second, the "fact" that Galileo promised to the cardinal to keep silent about heliocentrism, but didn't - basically disobeying a direct order from the cardinal - was the main offence he was trialed for. So there is a question whether this is actually a fact. I heard a lecture by a renowned historian about Galileo, and he claims that knowledge today is that the warning - and the replied "promise" from Galileo - were both forged. At the trial, Galileo was not shown these documents, and had no way to prove they were forged, but a much later commission from the Vatican proved they were. I have no idea whether this is actually true (as I said, I heard this at a lecture), but at least the statement that Galileo received a warning should be qualified by a citation. 212.143.139.214 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you try to look up some sources for this? At the 1633 trial Galileo presented a document signed by Bellarmino that informed Galileo (way back in 1616) that Copernicanism had been condemned. That particular document indeed contains no evidence that Galileo was warned, etc. Tkuvho (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This topic is described in some detail in "Galileo" by S Drake, Oxford UP 1980 p.66 et seq. There it is said that Galileo was forbidden to hold or defend these views although he was free to describe them. It seems to me that the reason for this warning might have been that Galilio had been in contact with Kepler in Protestant Prague.JFB80 (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Kepler was a Protestant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.72.41 (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I was curious to know the meaning of the name Galileo Galilei. It's very peculiar to have two names that sound so much the same. Also they are reminiscent of the biblican Galilee. But I couldn't find any information by searching on the web. Is there a region in Italy from which the name is derived? Is the matter a mystery? If it is, we could update the article to say so, because I imagine that others are curious as well. 162.233.200.11 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that you will have to do the linguistic work yourself. The family was originally named Bonaiuti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.12.119 (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The question is a good one but it is possible the Users watching this Talk page won't know the answer. In that case, I recommend you ask the question again at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Dolphin (t)

The answer is right in the article, in the section "Early life". Paul Koning (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The article says in the section on falling bodies that Galileo was "refuting the generally accepted Aristotelian hypothesis that objects naturally slow down and stop unless a force acts upon them." This is generally accepted but is it true? In his 'Physics' Aristotle said that unless opposed, a body set in motion would continue in that motion because there is no reason why it should stop. That is the law of inertia stated long before Newton. But he did not elaborate on the nature of the force stopping the motion.JFB80 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC) The reference is Aristotle: Physica, book 4, section 8 on motions in a void. http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/physics/book4.html JFB80 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@HelgeLund793: re "Reverted to last stable version of years" and "Deleted father of indivisibles from blocked editor": please explain (1) which years, (2) which editor, and (3) what is wrong with the properly sourced content, regardless the years or the editor. - DVdm (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The years are from 30/10/2001 to 18/5/2015. The article managed without indivisibles for those years. The blocked editor is Tkuvho. He has fallen silent, for some reason. The alleged sources are Amir Alexander and Tiziana Bascelli. Amir Alexander says that the Jesuits are opposed to democracy and your cell phone. As indivisibles are non-existent, they can not be sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelgeLund793 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

That's not sufficient as a explanation. I don't see what is wrong with the sources. Sources don't have to demonstrate the existence of indivisibles. They have to back the fact that Galileo was experimenting with them in formulating his law of falling bodies. Apparently he was. The content survived here for a sufficiently long time, so I will restore it per wp:NOCONSENSUS, "retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit"). Comments from other contributors are of course welcome. - DVdm (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Editor Tkuvho is not blocked. He was blocked for 24 hours on June 25th, for edit warring on The Assayer article, but that block has long since expired. Even if it hadn't, I don't see what relevance it would have to the acceptability of the disputed content. I do have my own doubts about the appropriateness of this content, though. Although both cited sources are undoubtedly reliable, the disputed passage seems to have been cobbled together by synthesizing bits and pieces from both.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Calculus was being introduced in 1850 B.C. This is before Galileo's time. Phrases like "fiercely opposed by the Jesuits" appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.128.31 (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Galileo is said to be the "father" of "the method of indivisibles", itself said to be the "forerunner" of calculus. As calculus was being introduced in 1850 B.C., the sources, Amir and Bascelli, are wildly anachronistic. So is anyone posting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.128.31 (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

T and I were blocked edit while warring, which we both regret, so let's move on. I dislike the indivisibles stuff; I think T is pushing fringe stuff with that. Also, our current page about method of indivisibles is actually a redirect to Cavalieri's principle so I've reworked the text around there. Although I've just had fun reading about Fubini's theorem in Lesbesgue integration, I'm quite shaky on this stuff let alone the history, so do please correct me William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Galileo's discussion of falling bodies, to which Amir refers, is often held to be related to (dependent on?) the medieval discussions of the latitude of forms, especially those of Nicole Oresme, which provide similar analyses of uniformly accelerated motion (although not in the special case of falling bodies. Marshal Clagett (Nicole Oresme and the Medieval Geometry of Qualiteis and Motions, pp. 105-106) cites a number of printed books that were potentially available to Galileo (some of which he had cited in his earlier works) which contained these analyses of uniform acceleration.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading a little further into Amir's work, he appears to be stretching by trying to relate Galileo's work on falling bodies to the mathematical concept of infinitesimals. The study of falling bodies is more closely tied to medieval antecedents than it is to later developments of calculus and infinitesimals -- to say nothing of Galileo's own work on physical infinitesimals. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Clagett translates and discusses the medieval sources for the study of uniform acceleration extensively in his The Science of Mechanics in the Middle Ages, pp. 331-418. He addresses their influences on Galileo at p. 346:

"Galileo was in all probability not acquainted with Oreme's De configurationibus, but he could have easily read the published accounts of the mean speed theorem with geometric proof found in the treatises of Casali and Blasius of Parma. For the sake of comparison I have given in Document 6.5 Galileo's geometric proof of the mean speed theorem. I think it can hardly be doubted that Galileo obtained both the theorem and the essentials of its proof from the medieval Oxford-Paris tradition, although the exact sources he used are not known. I have also given the geometric proof Of Isaac Beekman in Document 6.6. It can be remarked that Beekman's proof contains the first real improvement over Oresme's treatment, since his treatment of infinitesimals is more explicit."

Clagett's comment on Beekman (which I've boldfaced) limits the significance of Galileo's use of mathematical infinitesimals.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)