Talk:Giovanni Schiaparelli

Comments
Maybe a good idea to lock this article against vandalism. It's the first link under today's Google logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.232.26 (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems that someone beat you to it. 'H*** F***' shows up in the article body, but it is not possible to edit it out simply. .... and now it is gone. Seems very strange to me. Is something wrong with Wikipedia?
 * Just people vandalizing the article. It's been fixed and protected now. wodup 05:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Canali"
The Italian word "canali" does not mean "cats", it means "gutters" or "grooves", but is actually also applied to canal-like structures, see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canali_artificiali. The Italian word for "cat" is "gatto", see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatto (the pictures speak for themselves, you don't need to speak Italian). Maybe that's where the misunderstanding lies: "gatto" (where "a" is pronounced like the "a" in "harm") sounds a lot like "gutter", but this last thing is just a guess.217.157.175.46 (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

He was Piedmontese
Hello, why don't you copy the article directly from the Italian wikipedia??? The page is blocked, so add these info, please. Giovanni Schiaparelli, born in Savigliano, Piedmont 14 march 1835 - dead in Milan, 4 july 1910. He was piedmontese, and some moron wrote he's born in Australia. Delete those bulls, please... jack482186

Could I add my own plea to the prior one that you correct the ludicrous reference to Schiaparelli having been born in Australia? He was apparently born in Savigliano, Piedmont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.148.83 (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * done. i fixed the article. --Grond (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

ok thank yuo unsigned comment added by 94.99.126.164 (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Grond, thank you very much! jack482186 —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

Re: Consensus

 * After Lowell's death in 1916, astronomers developed a consensus against the canal hypothesis

I'm not entirely certain about this statement, although I have read it in other places besides here. From what I can tell, the consensus was already in place during Lowell's most active period of publishing (18955–1908), and didn't just pop into existence post-1916. My guess is that one of the astronomical organizations released a paper of some kind at a conference solidifying their ideas. I'm looking into this now. Wallace had already debunked Lowell by 1907 and his position was considered to be in the majority; but yes, Lowell did have his supporters like David Peck Todd, so I'm wondering if the post-1916 consensus put an end to that, and how it was first publicized. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like I was correct. Smithsonian says "few astronomers accepted this theory" (Launius 2018) and there was an informal consensus in place, based on collective sets of observations, before 1900 (Kanas 2013).  However, because Lowell fueled the popular literature with this kind of rife speculation, it wasn't until 1930 that it died down, and even then, wasn't fully extinguished until NASA took the first photos of Mars with Mariner 4 in 1965. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)