Talk:Edmond Halley/Archive 1

Pronunciation
The article notes:
 * An alternative (and incorrect) pronunciation of Halley's surname, to rhyme with "Bailey"...

So what is the correct pronunciation - as "Hawley", or to rhyme with "Valley"? - Astatine 10:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is pronounced either as Hal-lee to rhyme with "Valley" or as Haw-lee like the word "Holly". Never Hay-lee to rhyme with "Bailey", though. The name being from England, those are the two ways they accept it over there. I know this because it was told to my great-grandmother or something when she was at grammar school, and I am distantly descended from the Halley of this article, and my name is Halley! - Jedi Shadow 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as Jedi Shadow said. In the English language, if it was to be pronounced as in Bailey then it would only have one 'l' Samwedge (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Should you have any firm references for this, please update the article, as it now implies it was pronounced hay-lee. I'm sure it was not the case, but I don't have any references. CielProfond (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Name of ship
Halley referred to the ship as the "Paramore". Are we to assume that he suffered from ADD, or that the author of this article had francophilic tendencies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See Talk:HMS Paramour (1694) where I have addressed your question. As for British ships with French names, there are many recorded throughout history. Basic answer, both styles are seen (Paramour and Paramore) owing to the interchangeability of spellings at the time. Benea (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments
I read, from Benjamin Graham The intelligent investor, that the Rule of 72 came from Isaac Newton. His connection to Halley is well known. Is this the source of the rule of 72? - Ancheta Wis 21:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know, how he received rank of captain and why? Regards, -- Klemen Kocjancic 05:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * In Halley's own logs as commander during the first voyage of the Paramore, he comes across as peevish and insensitive, and Halley's follow-up letter to the admiralty court expressing his dissatisfaction at the result of the court-martial did not serve him well. I suspect that he received his captain's commission as a sop from Admiral Benbow, a close friend and supporter of Halley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.42.220 (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

An Englishman named Halley called in to a radio show (which I heard on WLRN-FM in Miami, FL, US, at about the time of the last return of Halley's Comet) and said he was a close relative of Edmund. He said the correct pronunciation of his family's name began with the sound, "hall". That was the only time I heard it pronounced that way. - D021317c 09:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Same picture
I deleted the picture Image:Edmond_Halley.jpg, because it's the same as Image:Edmond_Halley_5.jpg which is also used in the article. — Kdkeller 16:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Gdańsk or Danzig?
To 75.8.225.41: I propose to hold this discussion here before we both get banned for edit warring. How is inserting a country name against the Gdańsk/Danzig vote? Do you think it's unnecessary? Why? Or maybe you're questioning the fact that Danzig (Gdańsk) was a Polish city then? Help me understand you. Space Cadet 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. Are the books you're quoting encyclopedias? See my point?


 * Danzig (Freistadt Danzig) became Gdansk, a city under Soviet occupation and Polish administration in 1945. You cannot speak of Danzig as a Polish city before that. All maps throughout the existence of Danzig show it in Prussia (Pomerelia-Westprussia). There is even a list in 1615 showing Danzig in Borussia (Prussia) as imperial city


 * Danzig, Prussia on 1661 map by Philip Cluver, born in Danzig, worked in Leyden.


 * Political or rather imperial/royal houses of Europe and their entangled family relations are immaterial, or are you claiming that there still is a kingdom of Poland? Danzig was not a Polish city then and that a king of several other countries was also a duke of yet another country was standard throughout Europe. In the sense of what is today considered to be a Polish city (20th century nationalistic divisions enforced on Europe), Danzig only became Gdansk, a Polish city in 1945. And please do me the favor and stop insinuating otherwise. You are repeatedly disregarding basic human rights. You are repeatedly inserting the wrong country. You are repeatedly disregarding the Danzig (Gdansk) rule, which states absolutely nothing like Danzig, Poland. I cannot deal with your (and others) total disregard any longer. So long - 75.8.225.41 05:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, bye! It was nice coediting with you. Space Cadet 16:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are four questions:


 * 1. A Danzig/Gdańsk rule is mentioned above and in the Halley's article's history list. I assume that the rule involved is what is at the top of this page. Is that the correct, but controversial, guideline that should be followed here?
 * Yes.
 * 2. If the city Halley visited was not in what is now called Poland, should "Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland)" be used in this Wikipedia article on E. Halley? The phrase "Danzig (Gdańsk) in Poland" would seem to be inaccurate if Danzig was not then in Poland.
 * Danzig was then in Poland
 * 3. How did Halley refer to the city he visited? Danzig?  Gdańsk?
 * We'll never know, but probably Danzig.
 * 4. Is the wording in the Hevelius article also acceptable for this Halley page?
 * Yes.
 * Feel free to insert comments between the above questions. - Astrochemist 21:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Answers by Space Cadet 22:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Johannes Hevelius, Danzig
Answers to User:Astrochemist


 * 1. Yes that is the Danzig/Gdańsk rule. It is not controversal, but the addition of Space Cadet and sometimes Balcer Danzig, Poland is controversial or rather incorrect.


 * 2. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) would be correct)


 * 3. We do know from a number of books written at that time until now, which refer to Johannes Hevelius in Danzig and Edmond Halley visiting him in Danzig.


 * Google book search brings up 174 books with Hevelius Gdansk, many show Danzig (now Gdańsk, modern Gdańsk).


 * Over 600 google books show (Johannes) Hevelius Danzig


 * Google books 122 Edmond Halley Danzig
 * Google books Edmond Halley Gdansk = 16


 * 4.No the wording in Johannes Hevelius is also incorrect. Western Prussia was under the protection of the crown (king in person) of Poland and retained autonomy. It did not 'belong to Poland', it was not 'an integral part of Poland'. The name of the country is Prussia.


 * This university site has the 1662 book and the description Danzig, Germany (HRE)


 * Again the 1615 List of Imperial cities (Holy Roman Empire of German Nation) showing Danzig in Borussia (Prussia) as imperial city - 75.8.225.41 00:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Antique Maps of Prussia with Danzig
75.8. Ainan 1 July 2007
 * Map Caspar Henneberger 1550 Pomerania, Marca (Brandenburg), western Prussia with Danzig
 * Map of PRVSSIA 1584 Abraham Ortelius
 * Blaeu's Map 1660 Prussia with Danzig (Western- and Eastern Preußen)
 * Map of Prussia with Free City of Danzig Freie Stadt Danzig

Cracow

 * Answer to Cracow below: a previous settlement in Greater Moravia, was in 990 conquered by Poland and destroyed by Tatars in the 1200's. In 1257 Cracow was founded with Magdeburg Law and German burghers, -(books on Cracow as German city), actual foundation as lawful city -ius Magdeburgensis. 75.8.225.41 20:33, 28 June 2007, Ainan 28 June 2007

Czechs base their foundation of Cracow on Krok (Crocus), who had 3 daughters, one of them Libussa Libuse. Centuries later Polish came up with the Wanda and Krak story, where supposedly Krak is the founder of Krak-ow.


 * During reunification of the Polish tribes, Vistulans spoke Polish not Czech, Moravian or German. And I don't see how Czech legends are superior to Polish and how Smok Wawelski with Wanda relate to Polishness of Gdańsk for majority of its existence. Space Cadet 17:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the way: Cracow received city rights based not on Magdeburg law but the Środa Śląska (Neumarkt) law. The latter was of course derived from the first, so I can kinda understand how you could've made this serious mistake. Be careful in the future and always doublecheck your work. Space Cadet 17:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Johannes Hevelius, Danzig (Gdańsk), Poland

 * Stating the country of one's birth or stay is not "controversial", but rather standard. Space Cadet 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct sometimes, like when referring to historical periods when Gdańsk was a part of the Monastic state of the Teutonic Knights, the Kingdom of Prussia, or when it was a Free State, incorrect in other times when referring to historical periods when Gdańsk was a part of Poland. Space Cadet 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Those "Google books" are not encyclopedias. Space Cadet 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Royal Prussia was an autonomous province of Poland, until 1569, when it became it's integral part. The only "country" of Prussia was Ducal Prussia (to which Gdańsk did not belong) a Polish fief until 1660, then an independent duchy, transformed into the Kingdom of Prussia in 1701. Gdańsk was annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia in 1793. Space Cadet 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This list also shows Cracow as an Imperial city, so there. Space Cadet 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Cracow WAS FOUNDED prior to 966 by the Polish tribe of Vistulans. In 1257 it only received city rights, but was NEVER an Imperial City. Space Cadet 13:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion
Since this article is about Halley, and not Poland and its history, could the article simply say "In the following year he went to Danzig (Gdańsk) and stayed with the ...", omitting the word "Poland" entirely? Danzig (Gdańsk) is sufficiently famous that informed readers will know its present day location. Uninformed readers can follow the wiki link to learn more about the city. - Astrochemist 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure it could and it should, but when you check the endless endless reverts by Space Cadet you will find, that particularly he (also others to a smaller degree) are adding Danzig, Poland or similar statements nonstop. - 75.8.225.41 21:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC), Ainan 28 June 2007


 * I understand, that the idea behind skipping the country name is compromise, and I'm always very enthusiastic about finding a way to express things in a way that would satisfy most people involved. Here, however we have to ask ourselves who we are making the compromise with. A sneaky (instead of changing the History of Gdańsk, he smuggles edits only to articles, that refer to the city vaguely) revisionist, who often uses the German Neo-Nazi propaganda? Maybe we should think twice? We already have Copernicus described as "an" astronomer. If we continue compromising with revisionists we will have Gdańsk as "a" city, Royal Prussia as "a" province, Ducal Prussia as "a" fief and even Vistula as "a" river. Again: mentioning the country of one's birth or stay is standard throughout the Wikipedia. Why don't we go the other way and for the sake of compromise skip the name of the city and just leave the name of the country (Poland in this case)? Thank You. Space Cadet 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There appear to be no strong objections to the suggestion I made above. Therefore, in the interest of getting away from a discussion of Polish, Prussian, and German history on this Halley talk page I'll edit the article to simply read Danzig (Gdańsk).  Perhaps the two previous editors (above) can continue their spirited discussion on a page dedicated to either Danzig (Gdańsk) or Cracow.  Perhaps we can all now return to a focus on Halley for this particular article and this discussion.  --  Astrochemist 22:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How come you don't consider what I wrote a "strong objection"? Are you planning to delete Poland from the rest of the articles that mention Danzig? That would be consistent wouldn't it? Don't do just one, do them all! Space Cadet 00:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hollow earth theory
Does anyone know if there an online version of this theory or of its proposal made by Halley?I mean its over 300 years old,you cant mean its not to be publicly availible for chrissake! - New Babylon 2 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See this Wikipedia page for a description of the theory. - Astrochemist 21:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes,ive seen the page before,but I mean if there isnt any place one can actualy read the "theory" itself?New Babylon 2 12:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added the proper references for Halley's ideas to the Hollow Earth page. They are available online from the Royal Society until 30 Nov 2007 for free and online from Jstor through various libraries.


 * BTW - I wouldn't call it a "theory" - even Halley suggests it's a bit of a odd hypothesis. --Michael Daly (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Gregorian Telescopes
" It is reasonable to assume Halley possessed and had read this book given that the Gregorian design was the principal telescope design used in astronomy in Halley's day. It is not to Halley's credit that he failed to acknowledge Gregory's priority in this matter."

This statement is factually incorrect as to the use of Gregorian telescopes, as they did not come into general use untill after about 1730. It wasn't until the 1720s that the problem of grinding mirrors for reflecting telscopes was solved by John Hadley. Ref: STARGAZER the life and times of the TELESCOPE by Fred Watson, 2004. I suggest altering this sentence unless anybody has a well founded objection?Thony C. 16:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Tombstone
I added a picture of Halley's gravesite to the article. I recall that the original tombstone is at the Greenwich observatory. Does anyone know the details and are they relevant to this article? - Astrochemist (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether it's properly called a tombstone, but the vault's top is at ROG (photo at ROG). It might be more relevant to the ROG article. --Michael Daly (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's properly called a table tomb. Shame there isn't an article on them, they're very interesting grave types in the UK.86.136.24.40 (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hollow Earth not "proven"
I removed the following from the hollow Earth section.


 * Very recent numerical computer simulation results show that the Earth consists of three spherical shells with very low density between the shells. The central region of the Earth has very low density as well. The computer simulations are based on a novel gravitational gas dynamics model developed by Dr. Andrei Pavlov (Pavlov, 2004,). The results of computer simulation support Edmond Halley's idea about concentric shells.

Stating that Halley's views on a hollow Earth have some kind of validity is like saying Immanuel Kant predicted galaxies (The Kant page leaves out the bit where Kant said the eye of God is at the centre of each galaxy). While there is some similarity in the words and conclusions, the similarity is mere coincidence and not based on real science. Let's not assign some kind of significance to this. --Michael Daly (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Michael Daly above. The removed material cited a web site which may or may not be a legitimate piece of science, as opposed to a for-profit site or a single individual's pet research project.  If it's a legitimate piece of science then there ought to be citations to the relevant literature by a variety of independent workers, both scientists and historians of science.  Also, again in agreement with the above, it's quite easy to look back at older work and interpret what's there as foreshadowing present ideas when, in fact, the older work may merely use some of the same vocabulary. - Astrochemist (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation
Timeineurope, if you have a problem with noting that things named after Halley are often pronounced differently, please state why here. kwami (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Pink" : I found a precise definition of that type of boat
while I was looking for docs to be used in my translation ( with a lot of additions ) of " George Anson voyage around the world"  ( which is called in WP:fr " Voyage du commodore Anson" ). It's in Webster's IIIrd Int. Dictionary, p. 1719 :

"pink : a small dutch fishing craft characterised by a full forebody narrowing to an almost pointed stern with an overhanging false-counter ".

As I say in "Voyage du commodore Anson" notes, it would seem quite wise to confide in a full tough dutch designed craft to scour the " roaring forties " , but a overhanging false-counter is a surprising device for such seas , where cut-waters are far from needed. I assume the " overhanging false-counter " maybe have been  used as a gang-plank in the Waddenzee , but was stored away in the high seas ... Anyway , as an exemple of a "pink' ability to sail far away :  the pink Anna Commodore Anson took with him overcame the Horn while a lot of much bigger vessels ( mainly from Almirante Pizzarro's Spanish armada  ) floundered , and reached Juan-Fernandez a lot more ship-shape than the others . Thanks may-be to dutch design , and crew ability ( Captain Gerard )

BTW, WP:fr does not provide us with much details about Halley's sailing , may I transfer them ? Thanks & regards ...

BTW' : has anybody got an image of a "pink" ? --Arapaima (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Atheist or deist?
Halley was apparently a "well-known atheist" according to Derek Gjertsen (see article). But deism, which was and is often confused with atheism, was also quite popular in some circles in those days. Is it possible that Halley was a deist? --Michael C. Price talk 08:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So whoever made the change to Halley's atheism used as a source some random blog that doesn't itself source or cite anything for its position. It's more of a personal rebuttal to another author's opinion: Gorelik. This is some major nonsense; this isn't a university paper or a PhD thesis, this is a BLOG. The quote in question, ("Halley was damned as an atheist by John Flamsteed in their protracted feud, however to conclude from this that Halley was an overt atheist in the modern sense is a historical error. Halley did not measure up to Flamsteed’s own extremely devote standards of Christianity and so Flamsteed labelled him an atheist. The use of the word here is more like a generic insult and not to be taken literally. Although Halley was almost certainly a very lax Christian by Flamsteed’s standards he was almost certainly not an atheist.") is little more than a personal opinion held in opposition to an ACTUAL published author: Gorelik. If anything, we should be citing HIM, and not some random "aging freak who fell in love with the history of science" who is by his own admission on his page "an unqualified ignoramus" with no formal degree. Someone better change this; this is bullsh!t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.80.68 (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and created an account to delete this bit of nonsense myself. Let me know if this is actually some hard primary source reference material for this "hey was probably a christian, guys, cmon" sentiment. Spehizle (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that a blog post should not be used as a source on Wikipedia, even when, as is the case, it is my post on my blog. I don't even object to you quote mining my description of myself on my blog to make me look like some sort of flaky idiot. You left out the bits about me having studied history and philosophy of science for ten years at a leading German university. Just for the record I am a practicing professional historian of science, who to his own surprise, is well respected internationally by his peers. All of that said, I do how ever object to your deliberately insulting ""hey was probably a christian, guys, cmon" sentiment" comment, which you obviously made without checking the source material yourself. So let us do just that!

In the Halley article in his "The Newton Handbook", Gjertsen quotes various comments from Aubrey, Flamsteed and Berkeley concerning Halley's supposed impropriety and immorality, none of which make any accusations of atheism (pp 248-49). Then on p. 250 he writes "…becoming too closely involved with Halley, the well-known atheist." there is no source, reference or any form of justification for this startling claim. So much for an ACTUAL published author! Let us see what Halley's biographers, 'actual published authors' have to say on the subject.

Alan Cook in, what is considered by historians of science to be the definitive Halley biography, "Edmond Halley: Charting the Heavens and the Seas" hardly gives much credit to the hearsay accusations that Halley was an atheist. In discussing Halley's failure to get elected Savillian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford Cook writes, "Halley was not elected. According to the usual account, he fell foul of Richard Bentley, who questioned him on behalf of Edward Stillingfleet, the Bishop of Winchester. There are different version of the story (Bishop Hough, Herne, Whiston), but most are second-hand and late." (p 247) There then follows a long and very detailed discussion of the fact that religion almost certainly didn't play a role in Halley not being elected. Earlier in another context Cook write, " In view of the irreligious, indeed atheistic, reputation that Halley acquired, his attitude to the seamless shirt is interesting. Clearly he accepted Jesus Christ as Saviour, but in this matter, as in discussions of evidence of the age of the Earth, he was prepared to test the scriptural account against other evidence." (p 171) Discussing Halley's religious views Cook has this to say, "'Atheist' was a term of abuse used especially by Jacobites and men such as Hearne and Proast for their opponents. It cannot be taken as a serious assessment of theological views." (p. 412) Sounds kind of familiar to something I wrote somewhere.

In his Halley biography, "Edmond Halley: Genius in Eclipse", Colin A, Ronan deals more extensively with the Savillian Professor election He quotes the details of Hearne's account of the clash between Halley and Stillingfleet including Halley's supposed answer to the accusations (remember Hearne's account is hearsay long after the event), "The Doctor [Halley] told him, 'My Lord, that is not the business I came about. I declare myself a Christian and hope to be treated as such'" (p.119) Having demolished William Whiston's accusations that Halley was an atheist, delivered forty years after the event, Ronan goes on to write, "Whether Halley was truly an infidel, whether in fact he was a scoffer of religion, has never been fully settled, but it seems unlikely. He remained close friends with Robert Nelson and Newton all their lives and it is improbable that two such strongly religious men would have consorted with him if he had ridiculed their cherished beliefs. In the last [19th] century Stephen Rigaud made a careful analysis of the matter and concluded that their was no evidence to substantiate the charge" (pp 121-122)".

I rest my case!Thony C. (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Edmond Halley - Claimed atheism as stated fact?
Adding individuals to atheism category may be in violation of several WP rules and guidelines. Derek Gjertsen The Newton Handbook makes a claim. Yes that is okey, but multiple sources and scholarly consensus must be the main aim when something is stated as a reasonable fact. There are so many loose ends when relying one claim in one book.

Statements and claims presented as a fact must be backed by balanced, certified and strong unequivocal research and scholarship with the help of multiple sources. Loose claims here and there are just opinions and does not amount to an fair and balanced view. Varying authors can be be used as a source for presenting an opinion for such and such, but it is still not to be deemed authoritative and conclusive.


 * PLEASE OBSERVE THE FOLLOWING


 * WP:BLPCAT - Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question


 * WP:CHERRY fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject,  a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to  be bold and trim off excessive biased content


 * WP:EXCEPTIONAL - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources


 * WP:SCICON The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.


 * WP:FRINGE -A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article


 * WP:YESPOV Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.


 * WP:WEIGHT -Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.


 * WP:YESPOV -Avoid stating opinions as facts


 * WP:NOR -Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)


 * PS


 * These may be furthermore of use


 * WP:NOTOPINION -Opinion pieces, although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes".
 * WP:NOTRELIABLE - Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional
 * WP:ASSERT When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution.
 * WP:SYN :Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.


 * Thank you and hope to make Wikipedia a better place!


 * Pgarret (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Calendric confusion
Are we not mixing apples and oranges with his vital dates?

His birth on 8 November 1656 is according to the Gregorian calendar; the Julian calendar equivalent was 29 October 1656. Yet the death date we show, 14 January 1742, is the Julian date, the Gregorian counterpart of which is 25 January 1742, according to this. Should we not be showing both Julian dates, or both Gregorian dates, but not one of each? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If the calendar officially changed during his lifetime, then IMO we should give the official dates, but clarify which calendar they're in and give the modern equivalent of the one that's different. — kwami (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In the UK it changed in September 1752, ten years after he died. That leaves us with the situation whereby, if there's a case for showing his Gregorian birth date, then ipso facto there's a case for showing his Gregorian death date.  Equally, if we show his Julian death date, then we must also show his Julian birth date.  Either pair will do (suitably footnoted).  What we have at the mo is neither.  I'd happily change it myself, except that the source I provided above is the only one I've found so far that discusses which date he died on in each calendar, and I'm not entirely sure it can be considered a reliable source, and I'm calling for assistance in confirming this detail.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned on Cosmos
The TV show Cosmos gives great credit (and explanation) to Edmond Halley. He supported Isaac Newton and printed his work being paid with only copies. The TV broadcast was 3/24/2014. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Noting the pronunciation of Halley’s name to rhyme with Haley, the article states that this variant is common among those who grew up with Bill Haley and the Comets and that this was a pronunciation common in America at the time. Yet it was also common in the UK. And if it was common in both countries before Bill Haley named his band the Comets, then it is quite likely it would have remained common with it without the rock band. The pronunciation “Haley” is common with people who have not grown up with the rock and roll band and so I think the reference is misleading. It could be moved to a “in popular culture” section. Bacon Man (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Visualisation
The wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_map might give the desired citation for Halley's "contribution to the emerging field of information visualisation.[citation needed]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.128.176 (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Prediction of 1715 Solar Eclipse
While this article includes an image depicting Halley's map of the 1715 solar eclipse, it contains no mention of his eclipse prediction in the article text. I came here looking for this specific information after reading an online article that commented on how accurate he was in his prediction. Should this be added to the article text with an appropriate reference, or are there no references available to support it? Bz8x8c (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, I just came here to make the same point. The eclipse he predicted - to within 4 minutes - Solar eclipse of May 3, 1715 has its own Wikipedia article, but no mention here! JezGrove (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)