Talk:Harmonices Mundi

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) 06:47, 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 concise 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) 07:16, 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) 13:44, 25 April 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)

No rule requires adding external links, except to official websites and that's not relevant here. Since these links are a source of contention, I suggest that we either add both or remove both. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me: I went ahead and did it. Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing

Expanding and editing for college project. Newallis (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Link

Kepler linked five elements with five polyhedra. This should be in the article. See http://www.georgehart.com/virtual-polyhedra/kepler.html . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C86:9000:CC9D:731C:A81F:CFC3 (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

He also linked the planets to them as well. The link given above doesn't actually spell it out (though you can sort of decode it from the image): the ratio of the aphelion of one planet to the perihelion of the next was believed to be equal to the ratio of the insphere and circumsphere of a platonic solid. It goes Mercury - octahedron - Venus - icosahedron - Earth - dodecahedron - Mars - tetrahedron - Jupiter - cube - Saturn. This belief also explained why there are exactly six planets. --2607:FEA8:86DC:B0C0:48B4:7C47:6B15:3F5B (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Detail

See https://hermetic.com/godwin/kepler-and-kircher-on-the-harmony-of-the-spheres . This gives more detail about Kepler's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C86:9000:CC9D:731C:A81F:CFC3 (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"Kepler's" Reasoning

To Whom This May Concern,

Maybe if someone would check the source because I'm unable? I'm confused about how Kepler, writing in Latin would have successfully reproduced this play-on-words in a subsequent English translation.

Quote of Kepler in the article, attributed to Rennaissance Studies Journal:

The Earth sings Mi, Fa, Mi: you may infer even from the syllables that in this our home misery and famine hold sway. Impulong (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Miseria and fames (misery and famine). I have the English translation of the complete work, and theirs is very close to the Renaissance Studies Journal translation. Antandrus (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for your help! Impulong (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 December 2024

Harmonices Mundi → Harmonice Mundi – The correct abbreviated title in nominative case is 'Harmonice Mundi'.[2] TadejM ^{my talk} 03:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Frost 01:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. cyberdog958^Talk 03:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The title as is seems far more common in English. Latin scholars may want to change this but it is not the job of Wikipedia to promote this change. Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support. First of all, there is no reason to believe one is clearly more common. Then, between two similarly recognizable terms, Harmonice Mundi at least has the benefit of being technically correct. I agree with the nominator's analysis. For some time period, it was apparently a typical style for title pages to be phrased in a manner analogous to the title page in the article's lead image. For example, in [3] the title page says Publii Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV ('15 books of Publius Ovidius Naso's Metamorphoses'); the work is not titled Metamorphoseon. Or, in Institutiones calculi integralis, the scan of the title page says Institutionum calculi integralis volumen primum ('volume 1 of Foundations of Integral Calculus'); the work is not titled Institutionum.... You should not be fooled by Ioannis Keppleri Harmonices Mundi libri V ('five books of Johannes Kepler's Harmonice Mundi'); the work is not titled Harmonices Mundi. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support There's no real reason to prefer the technically incorrect version just because passing mentions that copy other passing mentions have used it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Google Ngrams shows the current title as significantly more common in recent years. SilverLocust 💬 03:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Google Ngrams samples everything, not just reliable sources. Invoking it in this context is a violation of WP:COMMONNAME, which specifically asks for reliable sources. We shouldn't let Google do our thinking for us. Moreover, that policy says inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Here, we have reliable sources explaining exactly how Harmonices is wrong. XOR'easter (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Looking at the overall picture it's not clear that there is a common name. There's a lot of discretion in how to weigh recency as a factor in interpreting ngrams, and you're free to weigh it differently, but I didn't weigh recency strongly here. There are fast-moving fields where common practice is rapidly evolving and 20 year old books are greatly outdated in substance and terminology, and there are fields where work from many decades is frequently still leading scholarship. I'm no expert but I imagine the literature on a four century old, notable but not super famous work in the history of science is more like the latter. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)