Talk:Jeremiah Horrocks

Large amounts of material copied from another web site recently have been added to this Jeremiah Horrocks article. It is, of course, inappropriate to take material from others and then add it to Wikipedia without proper citations, as was done here twice. Large, multi-sentence sections of recent additions were copied straight from Chapman's article on Horrocks. That constitutes plagiarism. Also, please note that Wikipedia has pages covering verification of material. The burden for verification is on the editor who adds new content. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. - Astrochemist (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. I believe you are talking about http://www.longtononline.co.uk/his_horrocks.html from which Allen234 has been copying. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Over the past week or so, similar incorrect or plagiarized materials have been added to the Horrocks article by the following:

1. Allen234
2. Anonymous user, IP number 59.184.187.7
3. Anonymous user, IP number 59.184.172.45
4. Anonymous user, IP number 59.184.187.53
5. Anonymous user, IP number 59.184.145.81

I think that there is a pattern there. - Astrochemist (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"his Puritan upbringing gave him an inbuilt suspicion of witchcraft, magic and astrology" Wishful pseudohistory: the Puritans were at least as credulous about witches as anyone, as the Salem witch trials attest.

"In 1635 he left without formally graduating, presumably due to the cost of continuing his studies" A modern imagining: In the 1630s didn't Dissenters leave without taking formal degrees because of the onus of subscribing to the Thirty-Nine Articles?.--Wetman (talk)

:A number of writers have suggested he left because of the cost of his studies. I've changed it for now as Aughton didn't believe it was likely either, and I've added his speculations, however I'll put it back in as a possibility when I have time to find the references for it. Someone else wrote that he may have intended to graduate later, as many did then. If I can find that again I'll put that in as a possibility also. As for the first point, it's referenced to Aughton. I would be grateful if you wouldn't add your own unreferenced speculations though - I've not seen anything in what I've read that suggests it was due to the onus of subscribing to the Thirty-Nine Articles. If you want to add something please find the citation for it first. Richerman'' (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

::The reference to an Anglican curacy seems to be wrong. Puritans would not want such a task or be accepted by the Anglican authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.11.202 (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

:::Whatton calls Horrocks "Rev." but I am not sure that this is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.11.202 (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The article shows an image of the title page of the posthumous edition. The original clearly shows an imprint of " M D C LXXIII " i.e. 1673, but the caption says "published ... in 1672".

A number of published statements (all unsupported by evidence) do repeat that the publication occurred in 1672, but none of the original title pages say that. 31.125.153.172 (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

:Such dates in printed works are not always 100% accurate, for various reasons. The Calendarium Naturale Magicum Perpetuum gave a date of 1582, though the surviving edition was printed around 1619, and it's not too clear that there ever was a 1582 printing... AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

:According to Plummer, H. C. K. (1940). "Jeremiah Horrocks and his Opera posthuma". Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, 3(1), 39-52:

::"The first impression was finished in 1672 and copies reached Newton before the end of that year and Gregory early in the next. A copy in the library of the Royal Society is dated 1673. These were hard times for publishers (bookseller undertakers) of this class of book. Collins,who had a large share in transactions with the trade, reports that Hickman, the undertaker of Horrocks s work, 'broke', and a few years later that the booksellers had lost so much by the books of Wallis, Horrocks and Barrow ('the best things extant') that it was hard to persuade them to undertake more. In fact Moses Pitt bought a 'remain' of over two hundred copies of Horrocks, 'a very good book . . . very damageable to the undertaker'. But this must have been a profitable transaction, for shortly afterwards Hearne mentions that the book was 'now very scarce' and in 1678 a new edition, a reprint of that of 1673, was produced. All this is evidence that the book after a slow beginning had established itself in favour. Not that its merits had failed to find recognition from the first. [...]"

:–jacobolus (t) 03:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

:P.S. If you want to answer this type of question in the future, I found this by doing a google scholar search for [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=wallis+horrocks+%22Opera+Posthuma%22+1673 {{code|Wallis Horrocks "Opera posthuma" 1673}}]. –jacobolus (t) 06:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

this is a non-bio cat. In general we do not categorize people by every feature they studied. I do not think this should be an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Who is "we", and what do you mean "every feature they studied"? The transit of venus is the primary thing Horrocks (who died young) is famous for, and he is one of the main people associated with the topic of the transit of venus. You haven't given any kind of convincing rationale here. –jacobolus (t) 21:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:We are discussing this edit which removed :Category:Transit of Venus. I don't know if there is a rule about that but someone interested in the transit of Venus might use the category (that's what it is for). In that case, this article should definitely be listed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::There's also a discussion at {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Should biographies go in non-biographical categories}}. –jacobolus (t) 04:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)