Talk:Sun

Unsafe conclusion in Motion and location
Under the subtitle "Motion in the Solar System"

There is an unsupported conclusion with an orphan reference. To wit: "[…] The orbits of the inner planets, including of the Earth, are similarly displaced by the same gravitational forces, so the movement of the Sun has little effect on the relative positions of the Earth and the Sun or on solar irradiance on the Earth as a function of time.[140] […]"

Checking footnote 140 reveals:

Retraction of: Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-019-45584-3, published online 24 June 2019 The Editors have retracted this Article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding the interpretation of how the Earth-Sun distance changes over time and that some of the assumptions on which analyses presented in the Article are based are incorrect.The analyses presented in the section entitled “Effects of SIM on a temperature in the terrestrial hemispheres” are based on the assumption that the orbits of the Earth and the Sun about the Solar System barycenter are uncorrelated, so that the Earth-Sun distance changes by an amount comparable to the Sun-barycenter distance. Post-publication peer review has shown that this assumption is inaccurate because the motions of the Earth and the Sun are primarily due to Jupiter and the other giant planets, which accelerate the Earth and the Sun in nearly the same direction, and thereby generate highly-correlated motions in the Earth and Sun. Current ephemeris calculations [1,2] show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article. As a result the Editors no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented. S. I. Zharkov agrees with the retraction. V. V. Zharkova, E. Popova, and S. J. Shepherd disagree with the retraction.

[1] 	Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G., Boggs, D. H., Park, R.S. & Kuchynka, P. The Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE430 and DE431. "The Interplanetary Network Progress Report", Volume 42–196, February 15, 2014.

[2] 	JPL Horizons on-line solar system data. Horizons System

Reference: Retraction Note: Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale

FAR
I feel like an FAR may be needed. This article contains unsourced text and there is a tag. The lede would also stylistically look better if the second and third paragraphs were about the size of the current fourth paragraph, but that isn't a requirement. 750h+ 15:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could mark what text specifically needs sourcing. From a quick skim, I could only find one paragraph without citations. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, there's likely more than three paragraphs that aren't unsourced. There's numerous sentences too:
 * Third paragraph in "Etymology" section is fully unsourced
 * Second paragraph in "General characteristics" has an unsourced sentence
 * Third paragraph in "General characteristics" has an unsourced sentence
 * Third paragraph in "Magnetic activity" has an unsourced sentence
 * Fifth paragraph in "After core hydrogen exhaustion" has unsourced sentences
 * First paragraph in "Motion" has unsourced sentences
 * First paragraph in "Early understanding" section is fully unsourced
 * Fourth paragraph in "Early understanding" section is fully unsourced
 * Third and fourth paragraph in "Development of scientific understanding" has an unsourced sentence
 * There's quite a few more I can count. The article would not pass FAC if it were to go through now. 750h+ 13:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that the last FAR for this article appears to have been done all the way back in... 2009?! I'd certainly agree on one being needed. It necessarily is not only unsourced text which may be an issue too; piecemeal revisions over ~15 years could potentially impact clarity, and I'm pretty sure FA criteria back in 2009 may have been different than they are now. ArkHyena (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is more nitpicky, but also a lot of the references are missing various fields (authors, etc). Sgubaldo (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is a large problem on many FAs that are over 5-7 years old 750h+ 08:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A notice was also given in 2022. 750h+ 12:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

An FAR of this article is underway as of May 24, 2024. See Featured article review/Sun/archive2. Praemonitus (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Better source needed.
Reading the topic "FAR" (which I believe is wiki-speak for "Featured article review") I saw the article has a "better source needed" tag. I thought I could make a quick fix.

Surprise! The tag concerns a retracted article on Solar motion relative to the solar barycenter (center of mass for solar system). The article failed to account for correlated motions of the planets and thus incorrectly connected the Sun's motion to Sun-Earth motion.

So easy fix: find a different source? Oh, it turns out that one of the leading theories of the cycles of Sun spots relates to the Sun's motion relative to the barycenter, and that in turn relates to climate change. Consequently you can find lots of refs with lots of different stories. I guess that may explain why the paper was officially retracted rather than say publishing a correction.

For this reason I am changing the paragraph to include content based solely on the 1964 paper by Paul Jose. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

mainly as visible light, ultraviolet, and infrared radiation.
The intro currently says but this is not in the article as far as I can tell. The closest thing I found was: which would mean the intro should say "all as visible light, ultraviolet, and infrared radiation." Which is equivalent to "mainly as pretty much anything". Johnjbarton (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ...radiating the energy from its surface mainly as visible light, ultraviolet, and infrared radiation.
 * Sunlight at the top of Earth's atmosphere is composed (by total energy) of about 50% infrared light, 40% visible light, and 10% ultraviolet light.
 * The statement in the intro is correct. A tiny fraction of the Sun’s radiative energy output is in the form of X-rays and radio waves, so it would not be correct to say that “all” of the energy is in the form of visible, UV, and IR radiation. Aldebarium (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with your summary but the source does not. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The source (which I just corrected the ref for) ambiguously confusingly defines IR as >0.7 micrometers, visible as 0.4-0.7 micrometers, and UV as <0.4 micrometers. Are you saying that since this range encompasses all wavelengths, it follows that all EM radiation can be considered IR, visible, or UV? CoronalMassAffection (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I am not saying that, the source is saying that. The three ranges add up to 100%.
 * What we need is a source that says "A tiny fraction of the Sun’s radiative energy output is in the form of X-rays and radio waves" Johnjbarton (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Right. That is what I meant to say. And I agree. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Solar apex ref is synthesis.
The sentence on Solar apex is referenced by combining two sources of data. IMO the content should be removed until there is a proper reference. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No need to be snarky. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. Praemonitus (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph on work by E. Biemont
I deleted an out of place paragraph about solar composition in the solar missions section The parargraph had a few primary references from the 1970s. A modern review like barely mentions the work. It also did not make much sense. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. (2021). The chemical make-up of the Sun: A 2020 vision. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 653, A141
 * It seems like the type of content that could belong on Abundance of the chemical elements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The amount hydrogen fused in a second
Is 600 million kilograms and not 600 billion. The page is of coursf protected, thus I am unable to correct it. Dengaleugle (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dengaleugle It's 600 million tonnes of kg, which is 600 billion kg. @Rasnaboy, I've reverted your change. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh. I missed that. @Sgubaldo, Thank you for spotting it. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Rotation section
In the second paragraph, "vestage" should be "vestige". 24.19.149.125 (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Poetic Access
There is a poem by Baudelaire ´´ The Sun ´´, which is of high quality. Perhaps one of the english versions could improve this article! ( Ulftomme ) 2A00:1830:A001:F007:0:0:0:6 (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The original text and various English translations can be found here: https://fleursdumal.org/poem/101 . A mention (that the Sun hasn't only inspired aspects of religions but poetry as well), could be added to the article. Dhrm77 (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Will the sun go away
Any experts know if the sun will go away. Due to it's age or pollution. 50.106.91.66 (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That content already exists, Sun. ✅ Johnjbarton (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info. I am only 11 and the only one who likes astrology in my family I use the Internet for answers. Please look at my "Questions from a kid" on Wikipedia talk 50.106.91.66 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)