Talk:Kidinnu

Sexagesimal value for synodic month

Can anyone give the classic refernces to the "29d 31:50:8:20" sexagesimal value for the synodic month?

ereinste@mscc.huji.ac.il 15:23, 7 September 2003

Kidinnu's death

A recently republished cuneiform tablet from Babylon suggests that Kidinnu was executed on 14 August 329. It is discussed at http://www.livius.org/k/kidinnu/kidinnu.htm, which contains a link to a transcript and translation of the tablet.

Jona Lendering 10:38, 8 February 2004

Mr. Lendering is the author of the Web page that he cites. —Finell (Talk) 06:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph on Schnabel's errors

After copyediting the following paragraph, I deleted it:

Schnabel computed specific years, first 314 BC and later 379 BC, for origin of the System B lunar theory; Franz Xaver Kugler disproved this in his Die Babylonische Mondrechnung (The Babylonian Theory of the Moon) (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1900) (see Astronomical Artefacts and Portraits, etc: Franz Xaver Kugler SJ). Schnabel placed Kidinnu in Sippar; Otto E. Neugebauer showed that this was a misreading of the cuneiform tablet. Also Schnabel's assertion that Kidinnu discovered precession (when distinguishing sidereal and tropical years) has been considered unfounded by later scholars. The Metonic cycle and Saros cycle seem to have been discovered by Babylonian astronomers before the time of Kidinnu.

In my opinion, pointing out Schnabel's errors does not contribute to our knowledge of Kidinnu, which is the subject of this article. Also, I do not see the reason to say that Kidinnu did not invent two cycles (did Schnabel erroneoudly attribute their discovery to Kidinnu?). I welcome correction or comment by others. —Finell (Talk) 06:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I recently re-wrote this article. I kept the conclusions of Schnabel, and its refutation by later authors, because someone repeated them originally in this article. The Encyclopedia Britannica tells a similar story, so this obsolete info is likely to pop up again and again unless we properly treat it here. For this reason I think we should keep it in the article.

As for the two periods that Kidinnu did not invent: these are periods that are also used in System B, but probably pre-date Kidinnu. I think that is worth mentioning, to prevent someone claiming that Kidinnu discovered the saros cycle.

In my re-write I was cautious to make clear that there are several sources that mention a Kidinnu, but that it is not always certain that this was Kidinnu the famous astronomer, or that Kidinnu was the main author of System B. Your edits tend to blurr these reservations. I think you should review these edits.

Tom Peters 13:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comments. And it is always a pleasure for Wikipedia to correct the Encyclopædia Britannica's errors! I restored the material from the paragraph that I had deleted, inserting it in other paragraphs to which I thought it best pertained. I also tried to address your concern about the uncertainties. Please take a look. Finell (Talk) 20:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally better, but I could not resist polishing a few points. Tom Peters 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You polished and corrected what I did very well. Thanks! Finell (Talk) 19:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, do you think it would be useful to add, somewhere (not in the biographies), an explanation of System A and B? Finell (Talk) 20:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those would definately be sections in an article on Babylonian astronomy. Tom Peters 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

On ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› : I listed my sources under the References. They quote the original literature that I mentioned, but I have not seen these: they are pretty obscure by now. I don't even have access to a copy of ACT, but I'll see whether I can dig it up in Leiden. Tom Peters 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's current standards prescribe that direct quotations or attributions to a specific author be supported by an immediate specific source citation (preferably to the primary source if practicable, but allowably to a secondary source); listing the source as one of the refrences is not sufficient for a direct quotation or attribution. Further, Wikipedia is moving toward footnote source citations in the body of the article for each fact or group of facts. If you look at recent Featured Articles, thay are all heavily sourced throughout the body, usually as footnotes. Finell (Talk) 19:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I really hate that: back from the time when you would have to re-number all your references in all your text by hand when you inserted a new reference. Who decides such policies here anyway? I have been a Wikipedian for about 4 years now, but I never figured out how governance really works here. As for references, I much prefer [Author (date)], and then an alphabetic list at the end; also when you know the literature in your field, [Neugebauer (1950)] may actually mean something to you, while just [3] does not.

In any case, I think that the citation requirements are carried too far. An encyclopedia article is a story, a summary of what is known of the subject: an interested reader should consult the general literature at the bottom for further study. It is not an original scientific treatise in which each datum must be backed up by a specific reference. Also in this case of a dispute, it is much better to name and date the contestors instead of reverting to totally unverifiable phrases like "some said ...; others said ...", even if the original literature is inaccesible (for me as writer, and more so for the readers). I do have the references to the original literature, but I am not going to put them into the Wikipedia because I have not read them. Instead I describe what I read in the newer literature, and reference that. I hope you understand.

Tom Peters 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Astronomical Artifacts and Portraits Link

Why is the external link to "Astronomical Artifacts and Portraits" included in this article? It's just some pictures and discussion of Kugler's books, without any mention of Kidinnu. I don't see that it enhances the article. 72.83.127.85 02:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kidinnu/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comments for the article to better it: The article is well written but it lacks in continuous sentences/logical sectionning which would help the reading. Footnote to go with the dates of Birth & Death would help to situate why there could be confusion. As it is, it is close to a A-class article. A lead (see WP:LEAD) section would also give insight into what is coming into the article. Lincher 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kidinnu. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909214551/http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gtosiris/page11-14a.html to http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gtosiris/page11-14a.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)