Talk:Ptolemy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

I've moved the resolved discussion of the WikiProjects above to the section #WikiProjects. --Jerzy•t 05:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Topics from 2005

The Geography

Claudius Ptolemy "The Geography" in English language has been first published by Dover Publications, Inc , New York in 1991 . It is now available at amazon.com and other book stores. This is an unabridged republication of the work originally published by The New York Public Library, N.Y. in 1 9 3 2. At that time it was translated and edited by Edward Luther Stevenson.

Although Ptolemie's "Geography" was well known in Europe for almost 1900 years , 1932 was the first time ever of its translation into English. (User:Conversion script)

The preceding 2 (unsigned) paragraphs were the whole of this talk page at 15:43, 25 February 2002, when the portion of its editing history that is preserved begins .

A word to the wise: that translation is very, very bad, and cannot be relied on for much of anything. (It is a poor translation of not the original Greek, but of Karl Müller's Latin translation, with errors of every conceivable kind, including egregious typos and other corruptions.) Considering that most of the Geography consists of a mere index of placenames, you're far better off reading the original Greek, even if you just have limited Greek. It's the Stevenson translation that I started putting online on my iste (referenced as the external link in the article), but as it became more and more apparent to me just how bad it was, I just abandoned it. Bill 11:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

article

I wrote a nice article about Ptolemy's sky theory on everything here. Where should it go? Under "Ptolemy", "Ptolemaic System", or "Almagest"? For now I'll put it in Almagest... - TOGoS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.104.74.25 (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2002

Ptolemy

What is "Hellenistic ethnicity"??? It's a totally bogus term concocted to avoid to say that he was Greek. "Hellenistic" is a term that designates the time period after Alexander the Great. So "Hellenistic ethnicity" is total nonsense, and should be expunged from this article.

The correct description is as follows:

Ptolemy was a Greek mathematician, astronomer, geographer and astrologer who lived and worked in the Greek city of Alexandria in Hellenistic times.

Miscellaneous

Why is the "p" not pronounced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.142.144 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2004

Presumably "pt" was originally pronounced, but we find it difficult to do so, so the "p" is silent in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curps (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2005 This is the first part of a refactor of a single edit.

the circa date of birth and death are not labeled as bc or ad. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.118.92 (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2005

If it's not labeled BC or AD, then by default it's AD. Just like 2005 is 2005 AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curps (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2005 This is the first second part of a refactor of a single edit.

Who said that last comment above here? "by default it would be AD"?!?! My social studies eacher would kill you! Ved 01:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)TRUPET —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRUPET (talk • contribs) 01:42, 16 January 2006

Accuracy

Note: My understanding is that the Ptolemy incorrectly estimated the actual size of the Earth by almost half, but the article claims "he was well aware" that he only had a quarter of it mapped. Does someone have evidence to confirm or deny the article's position? Thanks, Griff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.81.50 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2005

Yes; we all do. His Geography gives latitudes and longitudes of all the places mapped: the farthest east he gives is "180°", measured from what he feels is his farthest point west; the farthest north he gives is 62°30, the farthest south is 8°25. He doesn't wear it on his sleeve, then, but he realizes perfectly well he covers at very best only (180/360 * 71/180) of the globe. Bill 20:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image of Ptolemy at Top

Though it is indicated that the image represents a 16th century adaptation of him, the image should still be eventually removed and replaced by a much more realistic image of Ptolemy. Decius 03:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good luck!!! This would be a major historical find.... Bill 07:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Must be a joke, Bill. I've seen more accurate artist's representations of Ptolemy before. There is one, for example, in this book I have, which is much closer to reality than the current image (closer to reality if only by the fact that he is depicted as a Greek of his time, not a 16th century German). Decius 07:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No joke, Decius. Costume doesn't make the portrait of a person any more realistic, and there is no contemporary portrait of him, nor any verbal description. This fanciful picture is as good as another.... Bill 11:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But that's where I disagree. The costume, style, and look of other images available (such as some I've seen) are more accurate, just by the fact that he's not in 16th century garb. Decius 12:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess you're just defending that image because you like it or gotten used to it. I don't have another image available for upload anyway. I just think its style is not what's needed, in the sense that it doesn't "create the mood" or fit his era. Decius 12:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ptolemy's Canon

In the July/August issue of Archeology Odyssey, there is a fascinating article "How to date a Pharaoh."

It discusses howdates of ancient events can be determined, and it discusses the history of trying to determine the dates of ancient events.

One important document that had great impact on accurate dating of events going back to ca. 700 B.C. was a kings' list named "Ptolemy's Canon."

It became known in the West in a defective form in the 16th century, but more copies have since come to light.

Rather than go on about the matter, I will just refer folks to the article. At any rate, it seems that an entry for Ptolemy's Canon might be in order.

Jim Oppenheimer
Hyde Park, NY
jwally@prodigy.net
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.230.62 (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2005

Help needed on Scientific Mythology article

We have a section in the Scientific Mythology article that reads as below,

Copernicus, his theory, and his reasons for withholding publication. According to Arthur Koestler, Copernicus did not propose a true heliocentric theory; he added a system of cycles and subcycles that made his system even more complicated than the Ptolemaic system, and he withheld publication out of fears of being ridiculed by other scholars, not out of fears of persecution. (However simply looking at pages from the original manuscript would seem to eliminate the first part of this claim. [1] (http://www.bj.uj.edu.pl/bjmanus/revol/qprev_e.html) Likewise, "more complicated" refers to the greater number of epicycles, with whcich Copernicus replaced equant circles, achieving what was considered a simplification.).

I wonder to what extent did Copernicus use epicycles; were there more or fewer epicycles than in the Ptolemaic system? As I understand, epicycles and other corrective mechanisms were added to the Ptolemaic system over time, so I would expect it to be more complex, if only because it is older, here (in the extract) we say the opposite.

Also I would lke to know of the Copernican system was more or less accurate than the Ptolemaic. My understanding is that there was initially no great difference. --Chris 08:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisSteinbach (talk • contribs) 09:01, 24 June 2005

Removal of "See also" section

These See Also sections are very intrusive and ugly, and usually serve merely as dumps for topics that should have been mentioned in the article, but because the article is poorly constructed, were not. Here, however, only one of the five (Deferent and epicycle) fails to appear in the article; nor should it, once there is an article on the Ptolemaic system: no one will go to Ptolemy seeking deferents and epicycles; and no one, interested in Ptolemy's astronomy, somehow fail to go to the already linked Ptolemaic system. This last, and the three other articles linked in the former See Also section, already appear as links in the body of the article — making a special section with them redundant. Bill 15:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Astrology section: vandalism just now caught

User:152.163.100.132 restored the long-lost astrology section, asking why it had been deleted. Good catch, anonymous friend! and consider registering for your own user name; you've proven the exception to the rule, that edits by anonymous users tend to be vandalism. So it was in this case; the person responsible was "User:71.247.101.23" on 15 Sep 05. The "why" is easy; there's a certain breed of people out there, who, not satisfied with being opposed to astrology as a form of charlatanry (fine, it's certainly a defensible position), irrationally vent some kind of spleen against the subject wherever they find it — and that Ptolemy, undoubtedly a great proto-scientist to whom we owe much, should also have been involved in astrology strikes them as an awful crime to be expunged.... There's been quite a lot of astrology vandalism of this type in the articles Ptolemy, Tycho Brahe, Newton, Pope Silvester II, etc. Bill 13:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

EGYPTIAN?

so he lived and worked in egypt. about 2000 years ago. was he born there? isn't he an EGYPTIAN? somebody please get the facts about this, and we can describe him more accurately.

considering the idiotic and GRAVELY misleading illustration of him as a 16th century german, and the "he was an ancient. he worked in egypt" silliness, it seems pretty easy to come away thinking that ptolemy was a european who lived a few hundred years ago.

i find these two points very unprofessional and very unencyclopedic. 128.119.233.55 03:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC) This 1-sent 'graph & sig were removed in the 01:37, 16 January 2006 edit – perhaps for reasons relating to overlap with the edit of the preceding section that was completed 16 minutes earlier.

Briefly, no, he wasn't Egyptian. He was a Roman citizen (hence "Claudius") and Greek by nationality, as is shown by his personal name, Ptolemaios. I don't think there is any picture of him older than the Renaissance; if there is, we should use it. Septentrionalis 03:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Having a Greek name does not necessarily make him Greek by nationality/ethnicity. The Greek language became the official language of Hellenistic Egypt (and the Hellenistic world), so it was common for most Egyptians to have Greek names at the time (like how most Egyptians today have Arabic names). Most evidence suggests Ptolemy was a native of Egypt, where he was born, raised, and died, which is why "Hellenized Egyptian" would describe him better. There is also no evidence that he was Greek by nationality, or that he was from Alexandria. The following sites also acknowledge his Egyptian heritage (aswell as my university mathematical history professor), and describe him as a Hellenized Egyptian and/or a native of Egypt:

http://www.fredonia.edu/department/geosciences/Chapter3-Greeks-Fin.pdf

http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/nts/PARRY-01.NTS

http://www.hssonline.org/teach_res/resources/Non_Western_Project/Non-west/Africa.htm

http://www.pewtergallery.com/betsy/teaching/support/lateantique-notes.html

http://www.nndb.com/people/035/000029945

http://www.malaspina.org/home.asp?topic=./search/details&lastpage=./search/results&ID=80

Jagged 85 06:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he was anything ethnically one way or the other, except for the fact that he wrote of the most abstruse matters in Greek; not that many native Egyptians spoke and wrote Greek at that level. But some did. Net conclusion: ethnicity quite unknown. Bill 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the recentest edit, deleting that nifty image: in the context of an encyclopedia article, I'm in favor of the deletion: the picture doesn't add anything. Those who miss it can squint at it [on my own site], after all. Bill 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's the one I put up on Almagest to demonstrate the importance of his work in the Renaissance. Maestlin 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

whoever said the comments above, thank-you. I totally side with U. The article had me confused. As confused as my 6th science "teacher" was when he tried to teach us me... we are talking some serious confusion here... Ved 01:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)TRUPET —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRUPET (talk • contribs) 01:37, :38, & :39, 16 January 2006 Edits refactored to more conventional position, & annotated per multi-edits. The "comments" referred to may be either the first 2 or first 3 paragraphs of the 1st contribution, since the 3rd was removed in the 1:37 edit. --Jerzy•t 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Topics from 2006

Tetrabiblos

I wanted to talk to the main editors who have been working on this article to see if it would be all right if I made an addition to one of the opening paragraphs. Specifically this one

Ptolemy was the author of several scientific treatises, two of which have been of continuing importance to later Islamic and European science. One is the astronomical treatise that is now known as the Almagest (in Greek Η μεγάλη Σύνταξις, "The Great Treatise"). (See Ptolemaic system.) The other is the Geography, which is a thorough discussion of the geographic knowledge of the Greco-Roman world.

I wanted to add that there was a third treatise by Ptolemy which also had an enormous influence on the western world. This was his astrological treatise known as the Tetrabiblos where he attempted to reformulate horoscopic astrology to be in line with the more 'scientific' Aristotelian cosmology of his day. The revised paragraph would read something like

Ptolemy was the author of several scientific treatises, three of which have been of continuing importance to later Islamic and European science. The first is the astronomical treatise that is now known as the Almagest (in Greek Η μεγάλη Σύνταξις, "The Great Treatise"). (See Ptolemaic system.) The second is the Geography, which is a thorough discussion of the geographic knowledge of the Greco-Roman world. The third is the astrological treatise known as the Tetrabiblos ("Four books") in which he attempted to adapt horoscopic astrology to the Aristotelian natural philosophy of his day.

Does anyone have any issues with this addition? --Chris Brennan 01:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The preceding final paragraph and sig were removed, and are now restored by me. --Jerzy•t 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ptolemy's cultural and historical context

I redid the first sentence to clarify and not over-simplify Ptolemy's cultural and historical context: "[Ptolemy] was a geographer, astronomer, and astrologer who lived in the Greek culture of Roman Egypt." Though I am now wondering about the three named areas he is being said to have worked in. I have also seen him described as a mathematician, and an author. I think author at least should go in there. It was as a synthesiser of ideas that he is most famous - the Almagest. Does anyone know how much actual scientific experimentation he is said to have done? Did he just write about things (like they all did back then)? If so, the author comment is even more relevant. Carcharoth 17:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Mathematician" is technically accurate, but the word meant a lot more back then. He's called a mathematician mainly because he worked in astronomy, geography, and optics (I'm not sure how the astrology was categorized back then). A modern reader might not think of those disciplines, so I believe they are worth retaining, maybe alongside an addition about mathematics. As for "author," well, I guess there were some mathematicians who weren't authors (Pythagoras comes to mind). Usually "what did s/he write?" is one of the first things I ask about any scientist, but I suppose it's not automatic.

I am not a follower of R. R. Newton and I do object to the characterization of the Almagest as a synthesis. Greek astronomers made observations infrequently (nobody did "experiments" back then) and Ptolemy probably made as many observations as just about anybody. And his "just writing about things" included a lot of calculation and some original mathematical thought. In some ways his situation is parallel to that of modern theoretical physicists. Mostly they just write, too. Maestlin 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship for His Family

Just a note: The first Julio-Claudian emperor to bear the nomen gentilicium "Claudius" was the fourth emperor, Claudius (AD 41-54). The first emperor, Augustus (27 BC-AD 14) was an Octavius by birth but became a Julius in 44 upon his posthumous adoption by Julius Caesar. He ruled as Caius Julius Caesar Augustus. The second emperor, Tiberius (14-37), while by birth a Claudius was adopted into the Julii beforehand and reigned as Tiberius Julius Caesar. Emperor number three, Caligula (37-41), was properly called Caius Julius Caesar Germanicus. The ancestors of Claudius Ptolemaeus thus would have been granted Roman citizenship during the reign of either Claudius (Tiberius Claudius Caesar) or his adopted son, Nero (Nero Claudius Caesar, 54-68). I have made the appropriate edit to reflect this. Catiline63 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.82.167 (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2007

Move Discussion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 10:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

Oppose. The dis-ambiguation page you probably want to make can be titled Ptolemy (disambiguation). Georgia guy 21:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

• Ptolemy → Claudius Ptolemy … Rationale: There are numerous other well known people named Ptolemy, particularly the kings of Egypt. There's a perfectly well-known disambiguated title where this article can go. john k 21:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support john k 21:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Maestlin 23:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It seemed like a good idea last night, but in the cold light of day, I want to change to neutral for the reasons Septentronialis gave. Maestlin 20:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support I did a large part of the present article a few years ago under such a name. Just "Ptolemy" should redirect to the disambiguation page; actually I think this article should be Claudius Ptolemaios or Ptolemaeus, not Ptolemy. If graeco-roman suffixes are dropped in English why don't you call him "Claude"? Tom Peters 23:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

English doesn't have to make sense. Why do we call that other astronomer Galileo instead of Galilei? A quick and very unscientific Google search gave me 253,000 results for Claudius surnamed Ptolemy, vs. 99,600 for Ptolemaeus and a scant 17,500 for Ptolemaios, but are these numbers relevant? Ptolemaeus is the most consistent and also happens to be the form preferred in the books I just checked. Maestlin 00:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, his name was Galileo Galilei, and I see him frequently called by his surname, not his first name. Tom Peters 13:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In English? In what contexts? I see him called "Galilei" mainly in contexts where a formal style has been superimposed, e.g., some reference works. Every book I have read (in English) with his name in the title uses "Galileo." Students ask questions about "Galileo." Van Helden created the "Galileo Project" and NOVA did a program about "Galileo." The space probe is "Galileo." The commonest usage doesn't always follow the rules. Maestlin 20:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Ptolemy is certainly the English name for the astronomer and for the kings. I believe the astronomer to be the primary use in modern English (and I have edited all the articles concerned); but making Ptolemy a redirect to the dab is pointless. Septentrionalis 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternately, we could move the dab to here. I don't think that's important. Can you provide any evidence to support the idea of the astronomer as primary use? john k 05:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What is a "dab"? What is everybody proposing to move where? I am totally confused now. Tom Peters 13:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• dab = Wikipedia:Disambiguation page. Septentrionalis 17:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Gryffindor 13:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Adding Claudius removes any ambiguity - the Latin Ptolemaeus should be included in the article for searchability. Zeusnoos 19:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Septentrionalis. Jonathunder 22:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. When "Ptolemy" is used in the absolute, no context being given, it is always the scientist that's meant. Bill 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  You mean if I said "Ptolemy's account of Alexander's campaigns is mostly preserved in the narrative of Arrian" you would assume I meant that Claudius Ptolemy wrote an account of Alexander's campaigns? john k 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No. As stated, contextless. In various respective contexts the corresponding Ptolemy will be meant, of course. Bill 23:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fairly contextless, unless you already know that Ptolemy son of Lagus wrote an account of Alexander's campaigns, and that Claudius Ptolemy did not. What's an example of a contextless statement of the sort you're looking for? What about "Ptolemy became king of Egypt"? "Ptolemy was one of Alexander's generals"? What on earth is a statement "in the absolute, no context being given?" john k 06:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily a "statement", but a question or a reference: "Who was Ptolemy?" • "According to Ptolemy... (followed by pretty much anything)', etc. Bill 11:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"According to Ptolemy, Alexander's victory at Gaugamela..." ? And I'm not sure that "Who was Ptolemy" is necessarily going to refer to the astronomer, either - it is probably more likely to refer to him than anybody else, but I'm still not sure this Ptolemy qualifies as a primary reference. john k 18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If the context gives clues, it could be either; although descriptions of Gaugamela "acoording to Ptolemy" beg several questions, chiefly that the text actually being cited (probably Arrian) reflects Ptolemy accurately. If there is no clue, as in "According to Ptolemy, the location of Alexandria Areia..." I would read it as the astronomer, in the Geographica. Septentrionalishe fuched his mumn 19:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that one would probably assume the geographer, but such a situation could also plausibly be Ptolemy son of Lagus (and, yes, obviously there is the issue of whether Arrian is citing Ptolemy accurately). I'd say that "Ptolemy" alone is probably most likely to refer to the geographer and astronomer. I'm just not sure that that usage is so overwhelmingly strong that it qualifies as a primary reference when there are several other very famous people who are also called just "Ptolemy," especially Ptolemy I Soter/Ptolemy son of Lagus. It seems to me that this is an instance where disambiguation would be a good idea. john k 20:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Answering in discussion. Septentrionalis

• Oppose per Septentrionalis and others. Vsmith 11:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ptolemy (unqualified) in current English means this guy. Andrewa 18:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I can't speak for anyone else, but if someone says 'Ptolemy' to me, I would reply 'which'? I certainly learnt about 'the Ptolemies' in school, but not about the astronomer Ptolemy till considerably later. dab pages are the way to go, people. Hornplease 08:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

As I said above, I think that this title is highly ambiguous, with numerous other well known people who could easily be referred to as just "Ptolemy." Claudius Ptolemy is a well-known alternative, and a more appropriate title for this article. john k 21:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I recently dabbed a few links that wanted some other Ptolemy. No doubt more will crop up in the future. I don't think I understand what the user above is getting at, who said that there is already a dab page for the issue. Yes, there's a page, but why should people be shunted here automatically? The name is not consistent with Wikipedia naming practices AIUI. Maestlin 23:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Other Ptolemies fall into two classes:

• The members of the ruling dynasty, the Lagidae. None of them (with the possible exception of the founder, Ptolemy I Soter) should be linked to as Ptolemy simply; they should be disambiguated from each other by number or epithet.
• A handful of fairly obscure persons of the same name, none of them anywhere as well known as the astronomer, or Ptolemy II Philadelphus. (see Ptolemy (name))
  • Some of the royal Ptolemies (for example Ptolemy VII) fall in both classes.

The reasons for shunting people here are:

• The plurality of them want to be here;
• Anyone looking for a King Ptolemy, with no more information, will have to go through a dab page anyway; the extra cost of clicking on a header is relatively small.

Rearranging these pages will inconvenience a large of people significantly, while helping a small number to a lesser degree. Septentrionalis 17:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Several well known people? Who? I would have expected, and google seems to confirm, that

• The majority of discussion of Ptolemy is for the subject of this article.
• The remainder has about equal chunks for
  • Ptolemy Soter, for his own generalship and his history, which does not survive.
  • Ptolemy Philadelphus, for the Museum, and the settlement of Egypt.
• Euergetes is mentioned because of the Rosetta stone, but less than either his father and grandfather.
• The others split the fraction remaining.

Three, or three and a half, is not several. Septentrionalis 21:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely Epiphanes is the Rosetta Stone one. One might add to Ptolemy I, II, and V several people. Ptolemy VI is referred to as simply "Ptolemy" in the First Book of Maccabees. Ptolemy XIII appears in any version of the Caesar and Cleopatra story, and is often referred to as just "Ptolemy". For instance, Richard O'Sullivan is credited as "Ptolemy" in the 1963 Cleopatra[1]; Ashley L. Clark is credited as "King Ptolemy" in the 1999 miniseries Cleopatra (the one starring Billy Zane as Antony and Timothy Dalton as Caesar)[2]. Shaw's play Caesar and Cleopatra also refers to Ptolemy XIII as just "Ptolemy". And, basically, pretty much any of the Ptolemies who were kings could be referred to as just "Ptolemy" in the right context. Reading just about any ancient text on the subject (Polybius, for instance, or Josephus, or just about anyone else) one might come across an unclear reference to a "Ptolemy" who is not referred to by another name. I think that, if one comes to wikipedia having encountered this, and types in Ptolemy, there's no reason to have to go through the page on the astronomer to get to the proper disambiguation page. Especially since the astronomer has a very clear, and commonly used, disambiguated in the form of Claudius Ptolemy. john k 21:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving it would not be a disaster; but the present arrangement minimizes inconvenience. (And, yes, I am well aware of all the Ptolemies; I edited those articles first; and then came here. They are, put together, less well-known than the astronomer.) Septentrionalis 04:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Google

For what it's worth, half of the google hits for Ptolemy -wikipedia do not appear to include "Egypt Alexander astronomer astrologer geographer OR astronomy geography OR astrology" google result

Of those that do not most appear to deal with modern software named for the astronomer.

I think it is unlikely that any reference would be made to the Kings without mentioning Egypt or Alexander; and yet these are only half the out of 2 million (and some of them doubtless are about Claudius Ptolemy and Alexandria) with Egypt OR Alexander. Excluding Claudius gets rid of 200k of these. Septentrionalis 20:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Categorization

Articles should in general be in the most specific categories possible. If anyone wants to know why this is in category:Greek and Roman astrologers instead of category:astrologers, he need only look at the unmanageable size of the larger category. It should be divided. Don't fuss. Septentrionalis 21:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

addition of picture

I added a picture of Ptolemy (fanciful guess though it may be) that I often see associated with him in articles, books, and webpages. Feel free to remove if you think it is useless. I also added a See also link to Ptolemy's Canon (Canon of Kings) as many ancient history buffs and biblical chronology folks know of Ptolemy only through the Canon. (And the Canon is unmentioned in the main Ptolemy article!) TuckerResearch 17:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Just saw that an old picture in German style was once on top of the page – I see that it was removed, hopefully the picture I added will be liked better as it is much more "historically accurate" or rather appropriate. TuckerResearch 17:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be some medieval iconographic tradition for Ptolemy, much as for christian saints, that would have him always depicted wearing a crown (legend falsely makes him a member of the Ptolemee royal family) and holding a geographical globe. I would appreciate such an image above the less distinctive one now on the page. My favourite is in the "School of Athens" by Rafael, who at the front right (just left of the supposed self portrait of Rafael) painted two figures holding a globe: the one seen on the back must be Claudius Ptolemaeus, wearing his crown. The other one is usually called Zoroaster, which I think is an error: what would a Persian profet do amongst Greek filosophers, and why would Z hold a globe? Instead, I think this represents Hipparchos, who is famous for having made a celestial globe. See e.g. http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/r/raphael/4stanze/1segnatu/1/athens.html Tom Peters 23:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the Greeks wrote of Zoroaster as a philosopher, that's why. Septentrionalis 21:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Commons has an image of "School of Athens." An ingenious person could crop it to show just Ptolemy. He's rather obscure in the picture, though; my preference would be for one of the old woodcuts. Still, I agree that one of these iconic pictures would add some historical value. Maestlin 16:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProjects

I object to this classification. At Ptolemy's time there was no real distinction, but he was more an astronomer than an astrologer, as well as a geographer, and made other contributions. Claiming this article for the astrology project feels like usurpation. Tom Peters 21:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that there is no intention to usurp this article for astrological purposes, but only to make sure that that specific aspect of his work gets the proper attention and explanation that it deserves, as should the other areas. His Tetrabiblos is thought to be one of the most, if not the most, influential astrological works ever written due to the scope of his reconceptualization and the effect that it had on the way that astrology was practiced in later cultures. His reformulation of astrology as a causal science modeled after Aristotelian natural philosophy instead of a system of 'signs' or omens had a profound impact on not only the way that astrology was practiced, but also other fields such as agriculture and medicine. The intent is not to hijack the article with astrological mumbo jumbo, but only to acknowledge the impact of his work in every field- even the erroneous ones. But in order to do so it is important to direct those with the needed expertise to the area under consideration, right? It’s no different than when we are dealing with any other field of study. --Chris Brennan 07:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as an usurpation, for the reasons Chris Brennan so eloquently gave. I have seen other articles with banners for two projects. They aren't made to signal some sort of exclusivity. Maestlin 19:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed.--ragesoss 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, if the article gets multiple relevant classifications. Tom Peters 21:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Classical mediators of ancient Egyptian wisdom" (!)

Leaving aside whether the category itself isn't absurd (and it'll be interesting to see whether blatant "POV" only applies to traditional views, but not to fashionable gobbledygook), Ptolemy is one of the most Greek of all Greek writers. Not as to his personal ethnicity, which is quite unknown — for all anyone knows he may have been 100% Nilotic Egyptian, or Macedonian, or Greek, or just about anything — but as to what he writes and how he writes it. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, not one line, in the Geography or the Optics that can be considered "ancient Egyptian wisdom"; I can't recall anything of the sort in his musical writings. And there is, despite the subject matter, only a few bits of traditional Egyptian stuff in the Tetrabiblos, reported for completness' sake, just as astrological doctrines of other provenances. (The Almagest I haven't read, but from all accounts of it, it's mostly Greek astronomical theory.) I have a suspicion whoever is adding Ptolemy to this absurd category hasn't read him and is doing so based merely on his name. Bill 19:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the Almagest, but it begins with Euclid and Apollonius. The cat was imposed by User:Connection, who appears to think that if it's Alexandrian it must be mystic Egyptian wisdom: he's also included a Category:Library of Alexandria scholiasts in it. Let's find out; his last cat was deleted; you missed it. Septentrionalis 21:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bill, You agree with me while totally missing the point. A mediator is par excellence a non-Egyptian. Members of the category are a starting point to research Egyptian tradition input in the Hellenistic context.--Connection 21:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Connection, I didn't miss the point at all: no, he's not Egyptian. But, no, he didn't write about Egyptian topics, from any standpoint. Except as noted, which is quite marginal, no "mediation" of Egyptian wisdom. Greek science almost exclusively. PManderson, I did notice that cat, like one notices a curious beetle in one's rosebushes: warily, but without alarm until it kills one; and if the collective wisdom of Wikipedia keeps the cat, who'm I to toss it out? I'm not going to fight it. There is, after all, a group of writers (among whom the Gnostics, etc. some of whom are wending their way into the cat) who transmitted Egyptian stuff. Plutarch for example is also on my watchlist, but he really did "mediate ancient Egyptian wisdom" to some extent, so I didn't grouse. But Ptolemy, that's just dead wrong. Bill 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, Ptolemy doesn't belong in the category, since his use of, er, Egyptian tradition input is minimal. (Not entirely nonexistent--for instance, the Almagest uses the Egyptian calendar!) The concept behind the category might be useful, but the current name is awful and the description worse. Maestlin 23:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In the Tetrabiblos, Ptolemy removes aspects of the astrological tradition he is working with that were considered Egyptian (such as the decans, Egyptian 'terms'). He does the same with 'Chaldaean' techniques to make astrology more 'logical'. Zeusnoos 00:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Although for arguments sake one could point out that he does refer to the alleged Egyptian pharaoh Nechepso a few times and appears to be drawing on the work attributed to him in several places. For example in the introduction of his length of life treatment when he is trying to explain why that particular analysis of a natal chart should come first he says

The discussion concerning the years of life goes before the events subsequent to birth, since according to the ancient one, it is ridiculous to match particular [cases] of the events to one who, on the basis of the years he is likely to live, will not at all make it to the times productive of these events. (Tetrabiblos, 3, 11, trans. Schmidt)

Although, the almost universal attribution of this major textbook on horoscopic astrology to Nechepso and his priest Petosiris is itself questionable since horoscopic astrology didn't actually develop until several centuries after these two figures in Egyptian history actually lived. So while the astrology that Ptolemy and others were drawing on was largely a Hellenistic innovation that synthesized Babylonian and Egyptian systems of astrology, Ptolemy and a number of other astrologers such as Valens, Firmicus and Hephaistio do appear to have been under the impression that they were drawing directly on certain aspects of an Egyptian tradition as evinced by the common references to Nechepso and Petosiris in their works. I’m not really advocating any position on the cat, but I’m just sort of laying out the arguments that could be made from both sides. --Chris Brennan 01:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, nobody operates in a vacuum; and Ptolemy, living in Egypt, and (from internal evidence) making his observations in Egypt, for example uses the Egyptian calendar in his astronomical work; also in part because the records went back farther than the Roman and thus avoided negative dates. But even there, can one say he mediates Egyptian wisdom because he uses the calendar? The current issue of People Magazine bear a date in "2006": duzzat make them mediators of Christian wisdom? Nope, no matter how you slice this baby (babyophiles please pardon the horribly mixed metaphor) it's nonsense.... Bill 13:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes. In Tetrabiblos, obviously when he refers to hoi palaioi and in the case you mentioned ton arkhaion he means those astrologers before him which of course included the notable Hellenistic Hermetic line. It still holds that he identified with the Greek natural philosophy tradition. Robbins made the connection between the line you cite and Petosiris, but he based it on Reiss' inclusion of this part of Ptolemy in the Nech/Pet fragments. I'm guessing Reiss did so on by thinking that every mention of the ancient one by astrologers was to either Nechepso or Petosiris. That this attribution is universal in Ptolemy's time is debatable. (BTW, did you mean III.10 instead of 11? I'm not aware of this numbering in any of the edited manuscripts.)

When Ptolemy specifically mentions Egyptians, in book I, he indicates that they have some medical theory - but he does not discuss it.

I suppose the real question is why Connection included Ptolemy in that category based on your hypothesis or something else? Secondly, the category favorably assumes that Egyptian 'wisdom' is wise. It might even imply that it is pre-Hellenistic. Zeusnoos 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeus, I am so sorry for the extremely delayed response. I totally forgot that I had started this discussion with you and haven't followed up on it until just today when I came across this page again. The translation of Ptolemy that I'm working with draws on the Boer edition of the Tetrabiblos published by Teubner. Robbins was working with his own assembled edition of the text, so it is not surprising that it is different from the critical edition that we used. Perhaps the notion that the attribution of 'the ancients' to Nechepso and Petosirus is debatable as far as Ptolemy is concerned since he never mentions them by name, but this is also a common title given to them by Ptolemy's younger contemporary Vettius Valens who refers to them with this title interchangeably along with their names dozens of times in the Anthology. Granted, it is a general title that could be applied to a number of ancients, but in the astrological world at this time the main authoritative text seems to have been this Nechepso & Petosiris compilation which spanned over a dozen books and supposedly explicated almost every area of the subject. The longest and most numerous quotations of this work are in Valens' Anthology, although a number of other 'Hellenistic' astrologers before and after him refer to this work as well as being some sort of exposition of the work of Hermes. So, it is a pretty good bet that Ptolemy is referring to this apparently authoritative text with reference to the ancients. This argument has nothing to do with the reason the cat was put forward though, so it would not really seem applicable. This was just sort of a side note. --Chris Brennan 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, thank you, you are correct and it was a dumb question. I'm looking at the Boll-Boer edition now and its the first sentence of 3.11.1. I forgot it was the third book that has the extra material. The ancient one is mentioned twice in Ptolemy, always in the singular, while in Valens it is always plural. Valens refers to Petosiris more frequently than Nechepsô, perhaps his books survived more intact than N's. Ps-Manethô only refers to Petosiris of the pair: "Petosiris alone, to me, is a man of much wisdom" (compared to Hermes and Asclepius). I'd put my bet on Petosirus. I have my doubts that this was a single compilation of both authors before the 2nd century CE. Zeusnoos 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that I'm not so sure that it was a compilation of both authors per se since we have references to the names of certain books that are attributed to them separately, it is just that in several of the chronologies given Nechepso and Petosiris are often grouped together as king and priest, respectively. For example in Firmicus Maternus IV, pref.5

For everything that, Mercurius [and Hanubus?] have handed down to Asclapius, which Petosiris and Nechepso have explicated, and which Abram, Orfeus and Critodemus have made known...

And then in Anonymous of 379

The Babylonians and the Chaldeans, then, were just about the first to discover the knowledge of phenomena, as far as we knew from our progenitors. For Apollonius the Myndion and Artemidorus write accounts... [lacuna]. And Berosus and those following wrote about them. And the ancestors of our Egyptians bore them in mind and made predictions concerning them, from whom Hermes first arose and wrote in his cosmic predictions concerning the annual rising of the Sirius, and Nechao and Cerasphorus, and Petosiris and Nechepso, and some others wrote about them in a different zone...

There is also this anonymous papyrus fragment in the CCAG 8,4;95

Seven gods. By examining in many books how it was handed down to us by the wise ancients, that is, by the Chaldeans, and Petosiris and especially the King Nechepso, just as they also based themselves on our lord Hermes together with Asclepius, who is of Imouthos, son of Hephestus--in accordance with the time given me for the first year of the lord Antonius Caesar.

Valens tends to refer to Nechepso as 'the King' the most often it seems, especially in his extensive quotes in book 7 of the Anthology. I made the connection between Nechepso in regards to the length of life treatment because Valens specifically mentions that this was dealt with by the king and appends a kleros-like calculation which was apparently included in Nechepso's length of life treatment

There is also another numerical procedure that joins together with the matter concerning the length of life and that matter which concerns propitious and unpropitious times, which the king also explicated in a mysterious fashion.

However, in the intro to the length of life treatment in book 2 he makes it clear that the tradition is varied in this area

Concerning the support for the duration of life, then, different writers have handed down the tradition in different ways.

So the assertion that the length of life treatment dealt with by Ptolemy comes from Nechepso or Petosiris is an assumption, but it does seem like a decent assumption based on the evidence available. Nothing is certain though. [All quotes above are taken from Robert Schmidts translations of the Greek material in the preliminary translations published by Project Hindsight and the Golden Hind Press. I can provide more exact citations if anyone wants to follow up on anything.] --Chris Brennan 17:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

N and P are of course grouped in antiquity due to the supposed letters written by Petosiris to Nechepso. I'm not questioning that they were associated, but that a single work was handed down in the name of both, particularly as a collection originating in the same time and place, so we're not in disagreement.

Perhaps the linking of the two as a single work appears stronger than it is due to translator interpretation. You quote Anon of 379:

kai ho Nechaô te kai ho Kerasphoros kai ho Petosiris kai ho Nechepsô kai alloi... (5.1.21)

"and Nechao as well as Cerasphorus, Petosiris, Nechepso, and others."

The grouping treats C P N and others in the same way, without a special grouping of P and N as a pair. They are, however, more closely assoc. by other authors such as Thrasyllus. It's not a big deal, but I think it's significant that the two are treated separately more often than as a pair, indicating different works by them. Zeusnoos 19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I enjoyed this exchange and you have given me something to think about. It is nice to meet people who really know their stuff, and it is also quite rare. So my hat goes off to you. --Chris Brennan 19:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've put it up for deletion; this discussion should perhaps be at its cfd nomination.Septentrionalis 14:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Additions: Shall we reflect the above "data" on the article?--Connection 16:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Anything you need to demonstrate on a talk page should be considered for the article- Piotrus's Law. Septentrionalis 21:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

stadia and the measure of the Earth

I reverted the edit by CGlassey: the statement that Ptolemy was x% in error while Eratosthenes 4 centuries earlier would do much better, is unfounded if there is no reliable reference to which length of the stadion each of them used. History of Geodesy is a flawed article because it uses miles and not stadia, and is not a reliable reference. Tom Peters 23:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference citations

I think the article is generally well written, but in dire need of reference citations. If someone could produce them, please do so. Badbilltucker 16:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)i have to write a sentence for class and i can't find anything helpful.

Cultural depictions of Ptolemy

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ptolemy (name) (which I have to admit to being biased about) might be a good source of relevant items (which should of course be here already, but such synchronisation isn't always perfect). Some of the things named after this Ptolemy are listed there. Carcharoth 15:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Birth and Death

They are disputed, shouldn't that be mentioned? Clay4president 20:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

They're marked c., which covers a certain amount of dispute; what alternate dates were you thinking of? and from what source? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Topics from 2007

What is this?

Hi.

I saw this:

"Ptolemy also devised and provided instructions on how to create maps both of the whole inhabited world (oikoumenè) and of the Roman provinces. In the second part of the Geographia he provided the necessary topographic lists, and captions for the maps. His oikoumenè spanned 180 degrees of longitude from the Canary islands in the Atlantic Ocean to the middle of China, and about 80 degrees of latitude from the Arctic to the East Indies and deep into Africa; Ptolemy was well aware that he knew about only a quarter of the globe, and he knew that his information did not extend to the Eastern Sea."

What is the "Eastern Sea", anyway? Should it be clarified what this means? mike4ty4 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Content vandalized

This page's content appears to have been vandalized. You will find that George Bush and The USA make frequent appearances. Please correct this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.214.122.18 (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Ethnicity

How can Ptolemy be said to be Greek or Egyptian if he was born in Thebaid? If he was born in Thebaid he is most certainly Greek. I would change the wording to something like "probably greek, born in Thebaid, although historical records are not clear" Fab144.160.5.25 (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ptolemy's maps and the New World

At the moment, the entry contains the following claim: "Interestingly, some of his maps shown parts of the "new world". This topography fits apparently parts of New England and Canada. Some have seen Antarctica and South America too, misplaced near China. All this always before Columbus travel. This is similar to Piri Reis enigmas."

I can't verify the citation given because it is in Spanish, which I can't read. However, I don't see how the claim could possibly be justified since none of Ptolemy's own maps have survived to the present day. I plan on deleting the claim unless someone can provide better support for it. Tyrrell McAllister (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Topics from 2008

Long quote

I removed this text from the 1998 Katz work:

"But what we really want to know is to what extent the Alexandrian mathematicians of the period from the first to the fifth centuries C.E. were Greek. Certainly, all of them wrote in Greek and were part of the Greek intellectual community of Alexandria. And most modern studies conclude that the Greek community coexisted [...] So should we assume that Ptolemy and Diophantus, Pappus and Hypatia were ethnically Greek, that their ancestors had come from Greece at some point in the past but had remained effectively isolated from the Egyptians? It is, of course, impossible to answer this question definatively. But research in papyri dating from the early centuries of the common era demonstrates that a significant amount of intermarriage took place between the Greek and Egyptian communities [...] And it is known that Greek marriage contracts increasingly came to resemble Egyptian ones. In addition, even from the founding of Alexandria, small numbers of Egyptians were admitted to the privaleged classes in the city to fulfill numerous civic roles. Of course, it was essential in such cases for the Egyptians to become "Hellenized," to adopt Greek habits and the Greek language. Given that the Alexandrian mathematicians mentioned here were active several hundred years after the founding of the city, it would seem at least equally possible that they were ethnically Egyptian as that they remained ethnically Greek. In any case, it is unreasonable to portray them with purely European features when no physical descriptions exist."

Either of two reasons would suffice:

1. Obviously copyright protected, and such a passage does not fall under fair use if it is not there to support a discussion in the article of the parts that are included.
2. A footnote of such length harms the article, by throwing it out of balance. Refs are not there to prove the truth of our text, but to provide the means to do so. (There might be a place for most of that quote in WP, even tho Problem of the ethnicity of C. Ptolemy is surely deletable – perhaps Egyptian Hellenism could fly, with work.)
3. The spirit of SYN could be broad enough to make a third reason.

I've copied the quote here rather than discarding it, on the chance that discussion of it will lead to identification of a very short quote or two that might belong in the footnote.
BTW and for the record, quotes need better attention than this to verbatim et literatim transcription.
--Jerzy•t 06:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevancies removed

What Khwarizmi thought is not useful, since it's wrong. Nero had no children and Claudius' line became rapidly extinct (see the Wikipedia articles on his children). If someone perversely wants to add Khwarizmi back, it's sufficient to note his name, date, and his connection with Ptolemy. The full name, Persianness, etc. are irrelevant here; the interested reader will find them under his own article. Bill (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

the theory

He created the theory that the earth is the center of the universe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.238.161 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

He didn't really invent the idea. He just formalized it a bit.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Greek?

Is it really appropriate to describe Ptolemy in the opening paragraph as simply a "Greek" scholar. Without qualification most people would interpret this to mean he was a citizen of Ancient Greece (or perhaps a later "Byzantine"). Obviously this is not the case. It is not even definitively established that he was descended from the Greek settlers in Egypt (i.e. that he could be considered "ethnically" Greek). All that is known is that he lived his life in Egypt and knew Greek, as most educated people would.

I'd suggest this should be changed to "Greco-Roman", "Eastern Roman", "Roman Egyptian", or simply "Roman".

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the Greek nationalists have been by. Nevertheless, there is a case for Greek, at least as an adoptive nationaliy; would you call Lucian non-Greek?

Moving the paragraph on his background back into the lead would help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Done; upon consideration, any national adjective in the first line ignores too much. In compensation, I have removed the weasel-wording against Greek in the third paragraph. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrofit topic year headers

26-Oct-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2005" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. The topic-year boundaries were located by searching from bottom for the prior year#. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)