Talk:Astronomia nova
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
The Astronomia Nova is besides De Revolutionibus the starting point for our idea of the Cosmos, (which was then, the Solar System with the stars as a faraway sphere around it). So, we really need a good description for Wikipedia. Who is carrying it further and better? Edybevk 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External link to "Kepler's discovery" website
John Nevard, please have a look at WP:LINKSTOAVOID, policy on external links. It says to avoid "unverifiable research," which applies to the case of the anonymous website "Kepler's discovery," and also says to avoid links to "personal web pages," which may also apply to "Kepler's discovery." The LYM site which you removed[1] is not anonymous, and was in fact plagiarized in parody form by the "Kepler's discovery" website. --Polly Hedra (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing there applies to the better website that doesn't to the LaRouche website. The better website isn't written in the same kind of bizarre pseudointellectual style that characterizes LaRouche material, and it isn't designed as part of a LaRouche organization recruiting tool, as the current LaRouche focus on Kepler's philosophy apparently is. Despite a typically long LaRouchian diatribe, I can't see any accusations of actual plagiarism in the article you've previously cited as evidence. Just because you think LaRouche, And His, Annointed Ones, are the only barrier, in the way of, the Dark Ages, doesn't mean that anyone who provides a proper, concise, well-formatted explanation of a historical piece of geometry is plagiarising the troof. John Nevard (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why should your personal preferences carry more weight than Wikipedia's rules? BTW for anyone who is actually interested, the documentation on the plagiarism charges re: "Kepler's discovery" is found here. --Polly Hedra (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- That daft article is a particularly good example of a link to avoid. Anyone who isn't trying to use policy in an obstructionist way would realize that the proper, concise, and bizarre and LaRouchian websites the article originally pointed to don't have anything to do with the policies you claimed to draw upon. John Nevard (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- argh... (not) bizarre and LaRouchian. John Nevard (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your comment doesn't make any sense. Also,the rules are as they are for good reason. --Polly Hedra (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- John, the site you have been repeatedly adding is far superior in the sources it cites and its content to the fanciful materials on the site you have been struggling to delete. Keep up the good work. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your comment doesn't make any sense. Also,the rules are as they are for good reason. --Polly Hedra (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why should your personal preferences carry more weight than Wikipedia's rules? BTW for anyone who is actually interested, the documentation on the plagiarism charges re: "Kepler's discovery" is found here. --Polly Hedra (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
