Talk:Eclipse

Solar Eclipses, Religion and Mythology

In the section "Eclipses in mythology and culture" I had added the fundamental concept that the moon precisely covers the sun - this is why eclipses appear so magical. There is no mention at all of this in the article. Alas a Philistine has removed my valuable contribution, and I am hereby reverting it and request a fair consideration.

The American author Gene Weingarten described the tension between belief and eclipses thus: "I am a devout atheist but can't explain why the moon is exactly the right size, and gets positioned so precisely between the Earth and the sun, that total solar eclipses are perfect. It bothers me."

86.158.22.171 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

IP, while I recognize that (or at least I assume that) your description of the editor that reverted your edit as a "Philistine" was intended to be humorous, not everyone will read it that way and it could be interpreted as a personal attack on another editor, which is prohibited here. Please avoid commentary that intentionally or unintentionally could be interpreted as an insult directed at another editor, and limit your comments to those that address the content of the article and your proposed edit. General Ization ^Talk 17:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, when you have a disagreement with another editor about content you would like to discuss with them on a Talk page, it is customary to notify them of that using the {{ping}} template, as I am doing here: @Shadow311. General Ization ^Talk 17:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the photo of Weingarten from the article (as I did here on the Talk page), as it is certainly not relevant to an article about eclipses, nor needed to evaluate or understand his comment regarding them. General Ization ^Talk 17:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. But may I suggest you voluntarily remove your "personal attack" paragraph. You are effectively saying that others are less intelligent than yourself and might not recognise humour. While it is true that IQ has been dropping among youngsters in the past 20 years (after rising decade by decade in the 20th century), it is all the more important that we intellectually challenge youngsters, not insulate them from the world. Once you have deleted your lines, feel free to delete my most recent lines here, and the matter is closed.86.158.22.171 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

No, sorry. I stand by my advice to you, and I refer you again to our policy on the subject. If you did not intend the comment as an insult, well and good, but I see no need for me to retract my reminder to you that what you intend to be humorous may not be perceived as such by those to whom your comments are directed (regardless of their intelligence or level of life experience). Comment on content, not on the contributor. General Ization ^Talk 18:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The moon does not "precisely cover" the sun. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not (annular eclipse). This is just one more instance of people being astonished at actually non-astonishing things, and for people being bothered by their inability to explain things. It is normal to not understand something. It is not remarkable. Also, WP:PRIMARY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Basic science

@Www alsh 102.90.64.14 (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Correction of 1934 to 1935

Article states that there were 7 eclipses (five Solar and two lunar) in 1934. This is incorrect as these eclipses occurred in 1935. Article already corrected. ~2025-37991-63 (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Can I ask why - and who - is reverting my correction? There were not 7 eclipses in 1934! These happened in 1935. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-37991-63 (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Please, please, please, leave the correct date of 1935 in the article and NOT 1934! See timeanddate for verification!

Can anyone help in correcting this glaring error. timeanddate website (on its Eclipses page) can verify that 7 eclipses occurred in 1935 and not in 1934 as the article states. My corrections are being constantly reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-37991-63 (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Article now seems to have the correct date of 1935 - with NO citation added…..! ~2025-37991-63 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)