Talk:Physics in Medieval Islam

This was for WikiBlitz for my class at the University of Oklahoma. Denn4657 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Discourse on the Tides

 * In 1616, Galileo Galilei wrote this paper on the tide based on his voyage on a barge to Venice. While on the barge, Galileo noticed how the water moved according to the speed and movement of the barge; for example, the water would slouched around whenever the boat sped up or slowed down. Galileo believed that the Earth's dual movement, the daily rotation on its axis and the yearly rotation around the sun, caused the tides to move similar to the water around the barge. This was Galileo's attempt to convince the church not to ban Copernican theory.


 * Galileo believed that the Copernican Theory, where the Earth revolved around the sun, was right. When he was writing this paper, he explained that the "absolute motion" of the Earth was caused by two movements where one is faster than the other.

Proposed merge with History of physics
Physics in Medieval Islam is a stub that would be better suited as part of section 1.2 or 1.3 in History of physics C 1776 M Talk 09:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * C1776M: The intention here was actually to use this content to expand already existing stub Physics in medieval Islam, and the user accidentally created a new article with a slightly different title instead. It's a topic that can definitely stand on its own, though. The current article is only a stub because it had to be cut down after its author was found to have systematically misused sources.--ragesoss (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ragesoss That makes sense, I didn't even think to look for another article of the same name, slightly changed. I agree it could stand on it's own with work. C 1776 M Talk 18:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that you've created a new article with a substantially similar name to an extant article, which will cause confusion. This should be a redirect to Physics in medieval Islam with the lower case 'medieval'. If you have referenced additions to that page, you're welcome to add them, but the recent wholesale replacement of content wiped out a number of references, and removing references or referenced content without prior discussion is discouraged on wikipedia.Dialectric (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good job pointing out the exact thing that was talked about for two comments above you. Very helpful. Next time read the talk page of the article before reverting someone's edits. You might find that the user proposed the deletion more than a month before doing making it on the article's talk page and there were no objections. The new content was properly sourced, removing improperly sourced material. I'm merging the two articles. C 1776 M Talk 07:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith, and sarcasm like 'very helpful' is not constructive. There is no proposed deletion on the talk page, which I did read. At no time was removal of old refs discussed. I saw that the user wrote 'too much references', which is an opinion, and not the same as proposing their deletion. It is clear that one or both of these editors is new to wikipedia, so I was looking for clarification of their intent.Dialectric (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, it wasn't constructive, and the editor didn't say deletion, they said they were looking to fix the article for a class. The edits they made did remove references from the original article but the newly written article is clear, and correctly referenced without being over referenced. The original article had more text in a list of uncited references than it had in the actual content of the article. Those references aren't deleted, as they're saved in the revision history and anyone can go back and include information from them using proper in-line citation as prefered by the community. The editor does appear to be new and therefore probably doesn't understand things like edit summaries, properly wording their proposal when they intend to completely rewrite an article etc. However, the edit wasn't disruptive, it was just BOLD and lacking a summary. The new text properly covered the topic as stub and assuming good faith and leaving a note on their talk page would have been better instead of biting a new user then leaving a comment on another page they created. C 1776 M Talk 09:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)