|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sun article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 90 days|
|Sun has been listed as a level-2 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as FA-Class by WikiProject Vital Articles.|
|Sun is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|Sun is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 20, 2006.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Daily pageviews of this article
The following anchors linked on this page are no longer available.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
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. […]"
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.
 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.
 JPL Horizons on-line solar system data. https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons
Power density of the sun myth perpetuated here
"The large power output of the Sun is mainly due to the huge size and density of its core (compared to Earth and objects on Earth), with only a fairly small amount of power being generated per cubic metre. Theoretical models of the Sun's interior indicate a maximum power density, or energy production, of approximately 276.5 watts per cubic metre at the center of the core, which is about the same power density inside a compost pile."'
This is wrong. The cited source is some abc austrailia blog.. This is the power density of the entire sun, NOT the core. Fusion only takes place in the core. This lie is being repeated all across reddit and the internet, it is an embarrassment and should be removed. 2800:BF0:A400:D2F:E139:9AFB:9816:4CEA (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- No, the power density at the extreme center of the core is ~280 W/m^3. It is much lower than that when averaged over the entire sun's volume. VQuakr (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- The sun is very, very big. So when you times that power density by volume that still gives an insane amount of power. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Do we have a source for File:Evolution of a Sun-like star.svg?
Several sentences are also unsourced. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
History of spectroscopy of stars
I miss info about history how these things were discovered and/or developed. I tried to find more, and found info about close to current affairs, but most articles about EM spectrum, spectroscopy etc. lack a section about history, and where I saw it, it was more superficial than not.
Some might say that that is not notable, but if we need, and want, next generations of passionate researchers, they need, preferably as children, to be able to see how we got to the current level of knowledge, not only how to find useful data in WP. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Marjan Tomki SI, then let's ignore all rules and make it happen! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is sources...
- Several (at least 4) decades ago I encountered several books, in my native Slovenian language that influenced me massively on areas of chemistry and biology (and with some others to science in general).
- A generation later a niece of mine read the same 4 books from my bookshelf, and it went on through teachers training for biology and chemistry, and university study and graduation in biology, through masters and PhD in moleculary genetics, to what she is working on now. And she was through her studies, and is now an excellent source for current state of science in that area for mne (but not published and peer reviewed I can cite, so not valid as WP verifiable).
- I can still recall (and retell) most of the contents of most of those books (and from time to time do that in suitable chunks to interested audience of junior generations, in which case I check the up-to-date validity of the facts the story is about if I can, or we do that check together).
- As far as I recall we found those facts still valid, even if in some cases a bit incomplete. But that checking and taking conclusions would be probably taken as original research by WP (unless we would search, and took notes about that, for literal citations for them - which children and also most adults would find boring, and that would kill their interest instead of enticing it. (Being rigorous about sources is a pretty much later step - usually when they ask where I know something from I can introduce both checking and looking for sources, and requiring them being as rigorous with it as they require it from me, and same rules for everybody usually get easily accepted by most).
- On biology those books were a series of Paul de Cruifs that can still be found, and cited; on chemistry it was a book (supposedly translated in Slovenian from Russian) Stories about Elements (Povesti o Elementih, in Slovenian) of Nechayew (Nečajev in Slovenian, probably Нечаев in Russian). Problem is that I couldn't find any mention of the author or his book in any language but that edition in Slovenian. My copy from those years back was read by a lot of people and didn't return (yet). I found another copy for my niece (the one mentioned above) for her son in Germany (to have something to read to both keep him used to her native language and get interested in chemistry), so currently don't have a Slovenian copy at hand.
- So at the moment I can't add citations to the source for the stories I needed when young, if I retell them. Do we dare to ignore that WP rule? Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
HD 162826 and HD 186302 in " Formation"
I have found a possible source to prove the following sentence:
HD 162826 and HD 186302 are hypothesized stellar siblings of the Sun, having formed in the same molecular cloud.
In the German Wikipedia a similar assumption was made and cited with the following publication:
I am not a professional astronomer, but in my scientific experience this source seems to be plausible...
Basketcase88 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia level-2 vital articles in Science
- Wikipedia FA-Class vital articles in Science
- Wikipedia FA-Class level-2 vital articles
- Wikipedia featured articles
- FA-Class Featured topics articles
- Wikipedia featured topics Solar System featured content
- High-importance Featured topics articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- FA-Class physics articles
- FA-Class physics articles of Top-importance
- Top-importance physics articles
- FA-Class Astronomy articles
- Top-importance Astronomy articles
- FA-Class Astronomical objects articles
- Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
- FA-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
- FA-Class Solar System articles
- FA-Class Solar System articles of Top-importance
- Top-importance Solar System articles
- WikiProject Solar System articles
- FA-Class Version 1.0 articles
- Top-importance Version 1.0 articles
- Natural sciences Version 1.0 articles
- FA-Class Version 1.0 vital articles
- Wikipedia Version 1.0 vital articles
- FA-Class core topic articles
- Wikipedia Version 1.0 core topic articles
- Wikipedia Version 1.0 articles
- FA-Class Weather articles
- Low-importance Weather articles
- FA-Class Space weather articles
- Low-importance Space weather articles
- WikiProject Weather articles