This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edmond Halley article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
A paragraph in the Publications and inventions section that was introduced back in 2013 states:
The Royal Society censured Halley for suggesting in 1694 that the story of Noah's flood might be an account of a cometary impact.[1] A similar theory was independently suggested three centuries later, but is generally rejected by geologists.[2]
I'm pretty sure that the statement about Halley being censured is incorrect; the source for it, The cosmic serpent by Clube and Napier (which can be borrowed from archive.org), makes no mention of censure. The same statement has been made online,[3][4] in a paper,[5] and even a book,[a][6] but all of these look to have been published after the 2013 edit to Wikipedia [b] and are similarly worded so it's likely they were just lifted from this article.
There were no doubt people at the Royal Society who took issue with Halley's comments but I haven't found a single reliable source to back up the claim that he was censured by them. I believe this actually stemmed from a note published alongside a reply to the lecture text:[7]
N. B. The foregoing Papers having Been read before the Society thirty Years since, were then deposited by the Author in their Archives, and not published; he being sensible that he might have adventured ultra crepidam: and apprehensive least by some unguarded Expression he might incur the Censure of the Sacred Order.
It would also be a good idea to get rid of the easter egg link and to mention the other hypothesis which has been compared with Halley's thoughts. Essentially, I think the paragraph should be reworked to something like this:
In 1694, during a presentation at the Royal Society, Halley suggested that the story of Noah's flood might be an account of a cometary impact.[8][9] The transcript of the talk was held from being published by Halley for 30 years for fear that he would be accused of blasphemy.[7][10][11] Two similarly controversial hypotheses involving comets in recent history, Tollmann's bolide hypothesis and the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, have been suggested over three centuries later.
There's a chance that I've missed something though so it would be great to get a second pair of eyes on this!
Notes
References
The Royal Society censured him for suggesting in 1694 that the story of Noah's flood might be an account of a cometary impact.
In 1694 Halley then suggested that the story of Noah's flood might be an account of a cometary impact, this was a little too preposterous for the liking of The Royal Society who censured Halley.
Halley himself suggested that comets could batter Earth – an atheist, he was censured by the Royal Society in 1694 for suggesting that Noah's Flood was caused by a comet hitting the Earth.
The Royal Society censured Halley for suggesting in 1694 that the story of Noah's flood might be an account of a cometary impact.
N. B. The foregoing Papers having Been read before the Society thirty Years since, were then deposited by the Author in their Archives, and not published; he being sensible that he might have adventured ultra crepidam: and apprehensive least by some unguarded Expression he might incur the Censure of the Sacred Order.
However, [Edmond Halley] returned to the subject a year later in a lecture 'About the Cause of the Universal Deluge' read to the Society on 12 December 1694. Halley advanced a theory of periodic catastrophism; specifically, he suggested—two years before a similar idea was put forward by William Whiston—that the Flood was caused by a comet.
Like Hooke he presented his ideas in lectures to the Royal Society (1694-95), and like those of his friend these were only published much later, due to fear of 'incur[ring] the Censure of the Sacred Order'.
((cite book))
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Halley prevented their publication, however, for fear that ecclesiastical authorities would accuse him of blasphemy, and they were only published in 1723 and again in 1734.
Aluxosm (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
An anonymous editor (LDS20) wants to change the places of birth and death from England to Kingdom of England. I find this both ridiculous and superfluous. Kingdom of England is a political entity, England is a geographical one. Ones place of birth/death is geographical, hence England not Kingdom of England. Are we going to go through hundred of thousands or even millions of Wikipedia articles changing places of birth/death to the relevant political entities, instead of geographical locations? Halley, of course provides another problem. When he died he no longer lived in the Kingdom of England, the Act of Union having taken place in 1707, He, however, still lived in the geographical location England! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thony C. (talk • contribs) 07:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I believe there is an error in the HALLEY INFOBOX. (Died 25 January 1742 [O.S. 14 January 1741] (aged 85) Greenwich, Kent, England) Shouldn't that be (Died 25 January 1742 [O.S. 14 January 1742] (aged 85)? DMc75771 (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Vol.6 of Dictionary of Scientific Biography (1972) has Halley's birth date as 29 October 1656[?] and death date as 14 January 1743. What gives? DMc75771 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The length of sailing ship Paramuour is listed as 52 feet (16 m) 6 gun pink (sailship). For the voyages it performed (almost a year of sailing in the Atlantic a 16 m sailship would IMO be hard pressed to load all provisions for 20 people crew, and in HMS Paramour (1694) article lenghth is 64 feet 8 inches (19.71 m). I suppose 52 feet is a typo here, but did not yet clheck/verify by sources. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)