This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

This text was added, while accidentally blanking the page. Not sure where it goes so have put it here.

, in the Geographia Ptolemy uses 500 stadia. It is highly probable that these were the same stadion since Ptolemy switched from the former scale to the latter, between the Syntaxis and the Geographia and severely readjusted longitude degrees accordingly. If they both used the Attic stadion of about 185 meters, then the older estimate is 1/6 too large, and Ptolemy's value is 1/6 too small, a difference recently explained as due to ancient scientists' use of simple methods of measuring the earth, which were corrupted either high or low by a factor of 5/6, due to air's bending of horizontal light rays by 1/6 of the earth's curvature. See also Ancient Greek units of measurement and History of geodesy.

OrangeDog ( talk • edits) 22:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured I would check Morris Kline's "History of Mathematical Thought", vol. 1. Surely if the vast majority of sources referred to Ptolemy as Greek, then Kline would doubtless follow suit. Interestingly, Kline unabashedly refers to Ptolemy as Egyptian, without qualification, although in a section on "Greek" trigonometry. This would, at least, seem to suggest that his status as "Greek" is not entirely uncontested, even by fairly mainstream sources. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

the point is not his irrelevant and unknown ancestry but the tradition he worked in (sure, some day we might get rid of such labels as "Greek astronomy/mathematics", "Islamic astronomy/mathematics", "modern European astronomy/mathematics" but the literature still makes use of them). the pro-"Egyptian" or pro-"Greek" crowds are fraught with modern (also irrelevant) anxieties. since you're familiar with the literature, read (e.g.) Neugebauer on the subject as well.

p.s. I checked the Kline too and he calls him an "Alexandrian Greek" and an "Egyptian" in different sections. see what I'm getting at? 87.203.193.22 ( talk) 11:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Greek or ethnic Egyptian is probably unanswerable. There will always be arguement. In light of the uncertainty regarding this issue, best to just mention his citizenship: Roman. Catiline63 ( talk) 15:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the prior discussion on Ptolemy's origin which is precisely why I wrote that the was "an Egyptian-born Greek with Roman citizenship" which seems to capture the relevant points of his background. If a better phrase can be written it should be, but to discard any of the three countries is not only misleading but smacks of nationalism. Ptolemy wrote in Greek and in the Greek tradition. He wrote in that language expanding the treatises of prior Greek philosophers (Euclid and Apollonius) and his family name was of Greek origin. To not mention this is to throw away important and interesting content. It is also important and interesting that he was born in Egypt and lived his life there. It is also an important to know that he had Roman citizenship. All three are important to a discussion of the man. Calling him "Roman" in English is quite misleading. Merely referring to him as "Roman" without explanation connotes to a native speaker of English, a person born in Rome and operating under the Roman traditions. There were Roman citizens from England to Egypt at the time and many of them in history are indeed not referred to first as "Romans". If person from Finland moves to Japan and gets Japanese citizenship, he is not referred to as "Japanese". The article should be clear on these points, they are all relevant and there nothing to be gained by deleting any one of Egypt, Greece or Rome.

1. All three of his origins are important and interesting and none should be deleted, if a better phrase than "an Egyptian-born Greek with Roman citizenship" can be written, it should be
2. A careful writer should not mislead his readers by using the term "Roman" but instead should refer to his Roman citizenship
3. I find no scholars or references that simply call him "Roman" and to do so is against WP:No Original Research
4. It is not necessary, desirable or accurate to refer to him by only one of his three heritages, they should all three be mentioned BobKawanaka ( talk) 13:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the points I have raised on your talk page:

Ptolemy's ethnicity is ambiguous: it is not certain whether he was ethnically Greek or Egyptian. Calling him simply "Roman" in the lead is thus not only factually correct but also counters this uncertainty and prevents edit warring between those who'd claim him solely for Greece, and those who'd claim him solely for Egypt. (Similar unending and nationalistic edit wars are seen also on the Pyrrhus and Alexander the Great pages.) Outside the lead - in the main body of the article - there are ample references made to his Greek and Egyptian influences/facets. See the piece on his name, for example, which touches upon the whole Roman/Greek/Egyptian issue.

"Ptolemy wrote in Greek and in the Greek tradition". In an bilingual empire, the language one wrote in meant relatively little: many 'proper' Romans (those whose first language was Latin) also wrote in Greek, and the phenomenon went as far back as the Republic. So to the "Greek tradition": there wasn't much else to follow!

"His family name was of Greek origin". I think you'll find that his family name - Claudius (a nomen gentilicium) - is Roman. Granted his cognomen was of Greek origin, but at this point in history, cognomina did not tend to be strictly hereditary.

"A careful writer should not mislead his readers by using the term "Roman" but instead should refer to his Roman citizenship". I fail to see how calling a Roman citizen "Roman" is misleading. I also fail to see why calling a Roman citizen a "Roman" is "nationalistic"!

"I find no scholars or references that simply call him "Roman" and to do so is against WP:No Original Research". Which scholars and references are you refering to? Writers on mathematics perhaps should not be adduced as qualified in the intricacies of Roman citizenship: no doubt they call Ptolemy "Greek" or "Egyptian" merely because of his cognomen and birthplace. There are many sources on Roman citizenship and associated Roman naming conventions, but see also Sherwin-White The Roman Citizenship. See also the section in the article regarding Ptolemy's name.

"If person from Finland moves to Japan and gets Japanese citizenship, he is not referred to as "Japanese".": You're confusing ethnicity with nationality. For example, just as there are many people of ethnic African and Asian origin who are correctly called British or American, if a Finn took up Japanese citizenship it would indeed be correct to call him Japanese. Japanese would be his nationality; Finnish his ethnicity. Catiline63 ( talk) 15:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In the article on Simon Maccabeus, the first Prince, Nasi, of the re-established Judean Nation, it is told, that Ptolemy (in 135 B.C) was about to be instigated on the throne, I suppose, by his father-in-law when a coup occured, in which Simon and two of his sons, except the third son John ( Hyrcanus I). Who is told was absent at the time. If Ptolemy would have accessed the throne he would most likely have been proclaimed King of a re-united Israel and Judeah (a.k.a Messias/Christ). Thus it is peculiar that it is held that Ptolemy has become a major suspect for the coup/coup-attempt. I'm curious about what happened to Ptolemy during this event. In stead the third son John apparantly took the regnal name Hyrcanus upon his accession to power, establishing Judeah as a Kingdom ruled by the Hasmonean dynasty, although obviously not a United Kingdom. The matter of curiousity is what Ptolemy's historicians are saying about the issue. -- Xact ( talk) 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

Texts and translations

Ptolemy's Almagest, Translated and annotated by G. J. Toomer. Princeton University Press, 1998 Claud.ptolemy ( talk) 19:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Claud.ptolemy ( talk) 19:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Claud.prolemy

Done elektrik SHOOS 22:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at Cleanup4. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.

A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.

• Ptolemy: [1 [2 [3 [4 [5 [6 [7 [8 [9 [10 [11 [12 [13 [14 [15 [16 [17 [18 [19 [20 [21 [22 [23 [24 [25 [26 [27 [28 [29

Johnuniq ( talk) 11:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am currently looking critically at the text in the astrology section of this article, to ensure that the information is reliable and properly referenced. I've started introducing some citations and hope to bring this section up to standard over the next 2-3 weeks.

I propose the deletion of this comment regarding his Tetrabiblos:

"That it did not quite attain the unrivaled status of the Almagest was perhaps because it did not cover some popular areas of the subject, particularly electional astrology (interpreting astrological charts for a particular moment to determine the outcome of a course of action to be initiated at that time), and medical astrology, which were later adoptions."

Whatever Ptolemy put in or left out of the Tetrabiblos is not the reason why it never attained the status of the Almagest. This comment exagerates the scientific significance of the astrological text compared to the indisputable importance of the astronomical one. I will give some thought to the best way to clarify this point in a nutshell. In the meantime, if anyone objects the deletion of this comment, please open a discussion here. Zac Δ talk 09:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out an opportunity for the improvement of this article in its "Astronomy" section.

While this article mentions the importance of the Ptolemaic system in the next millenia and a half after its contrivance, it lacks a proper explanation for geocentricity. The article does mention that Ptolemy was not the first to ascribe to the geocentric model of the heavenly bodies, but more must be said about the defining attributes of Ptolemy's system that provided for its immortalization.

Geocentricity is based on Aristotlean physics, which implies that the earth moves along a linear path and the motion of the heavens is circular. ^{[geoc 1]} Plato was the first to establish the idea that the earth was fixed at the center of the universe and the heavenly bodies moved in a circular fashion around it. Hipparchus expanded this idea to account for the "apparent retrograde motion of the planets" by introducing epicycles, circles within circles, and eccentrics, which are deviations in a planet's circular orbit. ^{[geoc 2]} Ptolemy expanded Hipparchus's idea even further to account for the way Mars seems to change speed in the course of its orbits. Ptolemy proposed that the earth was not the center of the orbit of Mars, or the "deferent" of Mars, but was seated just slightly off kilter. He also introduced the "equant," which is the line from the earth, through the center of Mars' deferent, to the center of Mars' epicycle. ^{[geoc 3]} According to Ptolemy, the epicycle of Mars traveled around the earth at the distance of its equant at a uniform rate. To him, this solved the problem of Mars' nonuniform motion at certain points in its orbit without deviating from the perfection of circular motion. ^{[geoc 4]}

This is the difference between the Ptolemaic system and earlier forms of geocentricity. While the most basic form of geocentricity describes the simple earth-centered system, the Ptolemaic system describes a complex network of epicycles, deferents, eccentricities and equants. It was Alphonso X, King of Castile in A.D. 1221-1284, who reportedly said in response to learning of the Ptolemaic system, "That if God had asked his Advice when He made the world, he would have given him good counsel." ^{[geoc 5]}

AgoLaetus ( talk) 00:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is all very important information that should be touched on more in the main article. I'm confused as to why the accomplishments of people on Wiki are made into entirely different pages rather than as sub-categories on their main page. It is interesting how the ideas of geocentricity evolved overtime between mathematicians. Your quote is great! 199.245.238.2 ( talk) 04:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Kelsey, History of Mathematics student at Saint Martin's University

Seeing as though he was the author of many books and subjects...Word on the street is that his peers scoffed at him because they felt he should focus on one subject and master it. Do you know if his knowledge was limited because he took on so many subjects or was his works on par or if not better than his peers? Do you feel that its possible for a person to master multiple subjects just as good as the "next guy" who only specializes in 1? Morgantw (smu student, history of math...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgantw ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully some of this content will be integrated into the main page. Also, unfortunately, not much is known about Ptolemy's personal life or peer reviews. What is known is gleaned from a fragmented collection of his own writings. His studies were revolutionary in both astronomy and geology. According to the source in my fourth citation, Ptolemy's Geographia did for geography what his Almagest did for astronomy. AgoLaetus ( talk) 05:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What AgoLaetus suggested above is a great idea and I hope s/he, or someone else is able to develop that. As it stands, the first paragraph of the astronomy section is weak and requires further attention. We need a citation for the opening statement: "The Almagest is the only surviving comprehensive ancient treatise on astronomy". I also have concerns over the comment:

"Ptolemy, however, claimed to have derived his geometrical models from selected astronomical observations by his predecessors spanning more than 800 years, though astronomers have for centuries suspected that his models' parameters were adopted independently of observations.[19]"

I have read Ptolemy's Almagest and this doesn't seem to me to be a reliable assesment. For the most part it is obvious where Ptolemy is forwarding the respected opinions of illustrious predecesors, and where he is contributing from his own experience. Because there is a lack of reference it is not clear which claim this comment is specifically referring to. I'm writing from memory without access to the Almagest tonight but I assume it is where he talks about having access to Babylonian eclipse records that go back to the 8th century BC (?) and yet that is easily proven to be true, so perhaps it refers to something else that I don't recognise.

In any case, reference number 19 which qualifies this comment does not link to a reliable source that meets the policy guidleines of Wikipedia. It leads to a very informal and controversial discussion based on one person's research, and published on an individual's webpage.

Does anyone feel strongly attached to keeping this remark? If not, I suggest removing it and keeping the content focussed on non controversial information which gives a straighforward account of known and verifyable facts. Zac Δ talk 20:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To the list of Ptolemy texts and translations please add: Smith, A.M. (1996) Ptolemy's theory of visual perception: An English translation of the Optics with introduction and commentary. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 86, Part 2. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society. Lejeune, A. (1989) L'Optique de Claude Ptolémée dans la version latine d'après l'arabe de l'émir Eugène de Sicile. [Latin text with French translation]. Collection de travaux de l'Académie International d'Histoire des Sciences, No. 31. Leiden: E.J.Brill.

Eilidhrosach ( talk) 15:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Favonian ( talk) 15:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a contradiction in emphasis in the opening paragraph:

"He lived in Egypt under Roman rule, and is believed to have been born in the town of Ptolemais Hermiou in the Thebaid. This theory, proposed by Theodore Meliteniotes, could be correct, but it is late (ca. 1360) and unsupported.[4] There is no reason to suppose that he ever lived anywhere else than Alexandria,[4] where he died around AD 168.[5]"

"is believed to have been" makes us think that this theory is pretty likely, but later we are deflatingly told that "there is no reason to suppose" it is actually true. Meanwhile, "could be correct" seems to add nothing of value. 81.159.111.3 ( talk) 11:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ptolemy's work on Astrology was cited as an example by 18th Century philosopher and economist, Adam Smith of “how easily the learned give up the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of ideas in their imagination.” ^{[nec 1]} Smith suggests Ptolemy was guilty of a kind of "metascience by combining astrology with atronomy". Find here a use of Smith's criticism of Ptolemy in NYT blog opinion by John Paul Rollert: ^{[nec 2]}

Astrology and astronomy were archaically one and the same discipline (Latin: astrologia), and were only gradually recognized as separate in Western 17th century philosophy (the "Age of Reason"). Since the 18th century they have come to be regarded as completely separate disciplines. ^{[nec 3]}

Oxenhandler ( talk) 20:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Inexplicably, the Tetrabiblos at LacusCurtius is characterized as incomplete? It's all there, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.6.157 ( talk) 12:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The Geography at that site is incomplete: but the Tetrabiblos is not "a portion of the material"; it's complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.6.162 ( talk) 23:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed

Thank you for picking this up.

David Wilson ( talk ·  cont) 13:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to extend the 'Named After' section with an additional item:

• A software package for Model-based Design is named Ptolemy II and a book on this software with the fictional editor Claudius Ptolemy has been published.

Hellospencer ( talk) 09:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nero died in 68. Ptolemy was born in 90. How could he get a Roman Citizenship, if there is 22 years of difference? Unless, the citizenship was to his father and was transferred to the son? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.173.17 ( talk) 15:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am curious to know the source of the claim that Ptolemy set the position of the fixed stars at 20,000 earth radii.

[ [1]]

Ptolemy knew the Earth to be a 'point' as compared to the heavens... which is to say that the Celestial Sphere is effectively an infinite distance away. He gives three excellent arguments for this.

1. Angles between stars appear the same from every point on the Earth. 2. Sundial calculations work as if the sundial is at the center of the Earth. 3. The Horizon cuts the Celestial Sphere exactly in half.

None of these things would be true if the diameter of the Earth were an appreciable fraction of the diameter of the Celestial Sphere.

To quote the entirety of chapter 6:

"That the Earth has the Ratio of a Point to the Heavens:

"Now, that the earth has sensibly the ratio of a point to its distance from the sphere of the so-called fixed stars gets great support from the fact that in all parts of the earth the sizes and angular distances of the stars at the same times appear everywhere equal and alike, for the observations of the same stars in the different latitudes are not found to differ in the least.

"Moreover, this must be added: that sundials placed in any part of the earth and the centres of ancillary spheres can play the role of the earth's true centre for the sightings and the rotations of the shadows, as much in conformity with the hypotheses of the appearances as if they were at the true midpoint of the earth.

"And the earth is clearly a point also from this fact: that everywhere the planes drawn through the eye, which we call horizons, always exactly cut in half the whole sphere of the heavens. And this would not happen if the magnitude of the earth with respect to its distance from the heavens were perceptible; but only the plane drawn through the point at the earth's centre would exactly cut the sphere in half, and those drawn through any other part of the earth's surface would make the sections below the earth greater than those above.

Pcholt ( talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ptolemy gave the distance to the fixed stars as 20,000 Earth radii in his Planetary Hypotheses, just as the article says in the second-last paragraph of the Astronomy section. It cites a good secondary reference for this—although it's not one I have consulted myself. I have read pp.81–3 of Chrisopher Linton's From Eudoxus to Einstein, however, where a good explanation of how Ptolemy arrived at this figure is given. This doesn't contradict the conclusion he draws in the Almagest because the diurnal parallax of a star at a distance of 20,000 Earth radii is only about 10 arc-seconds. To Ptolemy, an object subtending such a small angle would have been indistinguishable from a geometrical point.

David Wilson ( talk ·  cont) 12:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that David! Search google books for "Planetary Hypotheses 20000" and there are some interesting results. I'm reading https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Albert_Van_Helden_Measuring_the_Universe?id=L-yb7GX9mQIC this reference now Pcholt ( talk) 03:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I stumbled on an interesting text (originally written by Moses Maimonides in Arabic with Hebrew letters) in which he discusses the need for self-preparation and extensive study before entering the study of Jewish writings and traditions, just like the need to understand trigonometry and astronomy before understanding the facts about the earth and sun. He recommends the book of Almagest, and writes that earth's circumference is 24,000 miles and writes: and I repeat that in words, twenty-four thousand miles. (Google gives 24, 941)

Maimonides lived circa the year 1100, so, obviously, Ptolemy's numbers survived many years and copies.

Morris Kline in 'Mathematics for the Non-Mathematician' wrote about the dispute at Columbus' time on the actual size of Ptolemy's mile, and that Columbus set out to reach India in a world with a circumference of only 15,000 miles. This caused a revolt when they did not reach India, (and seemingly were nearing the end of earth?), and if I remember correctly I read somewhere else that Columbus was able to get (3?) a few more days, at the culmination of which they found Cuba. (I think I participated in adding this information somewhere in Wikipedia, but can't remember where).

In an exhibit at the Naval History Museum in Haifa, Israel in the early '90s, and the booklet (which is in front of my eyes right now) they showed that the navigation was done according to Abraham Zacuto's tables. I wondered if he had read the Rambam's book (most probably, he was a scholar and author of Jewish commentary, and this was one of the fundamental textbooks), and if the different circumference number is due to Zacuto's calculations.

The exhibition was about the Jewish involvement in, funding of and joining the Columbus expedition, which left on the 9'th of Av fast day, boarded two days earlier at the culmination of the Spanish expulsion edict, and brought about a future refuge for Jews from antisemitic Europe. The exhibition also discussed Columbus' Jewish roots and perhaps beliefs. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 12:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I just found it online!! Definitely non-scientific but nonetheless interesting. Anyway, more appropriate for discussion on Columbus' page. But still has to do with one of Ptolemy's major discoveries and what happened with it. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 12:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

In Hebrew his name is written with a Thaff (which changes to Taff at the beginning of a word). Just wondering what the original pronunciation would have been, and if there is any way of knowing? How is his name pronounced today in Greece? Was there a unique Alexandrian Greek accent, and is there still an Alexandrian Greek community in Alexandria today? פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 12:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

So, I was looking for [Ptolemy_project], for which there was no way besides Google to find. I could have been looking for [Geography_(Ptolemy)], the [Ptolemic_Kingdom]. Linking to a disambiguation page for the names might work for some searchers; a general redirection page would be better. 2620:0:2E80:A002:C882:5BAD:2D47:E2B1 ( talk) 23:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ptolemy. 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/20080918003658/http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~fhasele/ptolemaeus/index.html to http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~fhasele/ptolemaeus/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205163915/http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/JAVA/ptolemy.html to http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/JAVA/ptolemy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516005122/http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/java/demos/kennett/Epicycle/Epicycle.html to http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/java/demos/kennett/Epicycle/Epicycle.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

What is meant by the "elevation of the north pole for a few cities" is this the distance to the North pole? Is this the angle that points to the North star? Can someone clear this up. -- RAN ( talk) 04:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done

"North pole" here means " north celestial pole". Since this concept is likely to be unfamiliar to many readers, I have added a footnote briefly explaining it, and a wikilink to the relevant Wikipedia article.

David Wilson ( talk ·  cont) 10:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I accidentally misclicked - the reason I reverted this is because the language template is for modern greek, not koine [2] - can a regular editor here please confirm if it would be correct to change the language template to ancient greek? Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 23:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

From the Greek Wikipedia article it would appear that the spelling used in this article is the correct modern Greek spelling of the name. I therefore see no good reason to change the template—although I guess that if this is also the correct spelling in Koine Greek (which I do not know), it would do no harm to indicate that this is the case.

David Wilson ( talk ·  cont) 03:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

What other sources besides a modern book exist about the times that he lived in, and how was that determined? I remember reading (perhaps in Moris' book about the history of Math?) that he lived and died circa 300 BC! Thanks פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 10:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

In Chapter 5 of Book 12 of the Almagest Ptolemy wrote that he observed oppositions of Saturn in years 11 and 17 of the emperor Hadrian's reign, and in Chapter 1 of Book 10 he wrote that he made observations of Venus in year 14 of Antoninus Pius's reign. Thus the span of his adult life must have encompassed the years 128 AD and 152 AD. I doubt if there are any professional historians who have suggested he was alive at any time before Christ, let alone anywhere near 300 BC.

David Wilson ( talk ·  cont) 14:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that what you remember reading might have been about Ptolemy I Soter, one of Alexander the Great's generals, who established himself as Pharaoh of Egypt after Alexander's death, founded the Ptolemaic dynasty, and turned Alexandria into a centre of Greek culture, where the famous library was established either by this Ptolemy, or by his son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus. The pharaoh Ptolemy I did indeed flourish around 300 BC, but he is a completely different person from the astronomer who is the subject of this article.

David Wilson ( talk ·  cont) 12:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with David J Wilson that you, User:Pashute, have got Claudius Ptolemy confused with the line that descended from one of Alexander the Great's generals. As it appears to be common for many people to be confused about the 2 unrelated heritages, Claudius Ptolemy was a scholar that was to history's knowledge, unrelated and unconnected with the Ptolemaic dynasty of which Cleopatra was the last of the line of ascent. While it is a common misunderstanding, you clearly have the two historical personages confused... As Claudius Ptolemy is one of the most vetted scholars in Western Civilization, the corroboration of his dates, are quite established. There are literally hundreds of papers and books that have been published on various aspects of his work, in a number of languages, simply, if for no other reason, because of the enormous influence and impact he had on the development of Western and Arabic Civilization, from his publishing outset until the Late Middle Ages... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 07:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The categorisation of Ptolemy as a poet appears to be based upon the attribution to him of a single epigram appearing in the Greek Anthology. According to Otto Neugebauer, modern scholars "tend to agree" with the attribution, but he himself merely says that the epigram appears in manuscripts of the Almagest "[a]t least from the third century onwards", thus implying that there are some early manuscripts from which it is absent, and thus casting some doubt on the attribution. In any case, authorship of just a single epigram is hardly sufficient to make one a poet, so I'm going to remove that categorisation from the lead.
David Wilson ( talk ·  cont) 23:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Was Ptolemy's written language actually Koine, the spoken vernacular of his period, or was it more classicizing?

We have no source on this; the note on that sentence actually discusses his use of Babylonian theory as well as observations. And it was not uncommon for someone writing for posterity - and quoting Aristotle - would to some degree have avoided the language of the streets. Pending comment, I have altered to ancient Greek, which is a broader description. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a claim in the article that says Ptolemy was Roman or a Roman citizen. All the given sources cited don't say this, and only says he is Greek and/or Greek-Egyptian. I can find zero sources that support this view. As we know so little about Ptolemy that him being declared a Roman citizen seems unlikely to be proven as fact.

I've added a dubious tag with the comment. [3] Points.

• The cited source on page 273 (Heath) does not mention 'Roman' at all. See URL attached to current cite. [4]
• Quoted Ref #13 also says otherwise.
• Ref #4 now self cites the Ptolemy article.
• Roman citizen" does seem to be an assumption, and I find no source that supports it.
• Britannica only says "Greek"
• Ref #2 and #14 are the same source. mucfalseh about

Needs better sources to prove or this should be deleted. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 00:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a reliable source: [5], saying only that he was "perhaps" a Roman citizen. Attic Salt ( talk) 14:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but this still looks like a supposition/assumption but not proof. However, it is an excellent citation for the article. (I think the 'Claudius' evidence is scant, and have a Roman-ised name seems too convenient.) Roman Emperor Caracalla in 212AD gave universal citizenship across the Roman Empire, but Ptolemy was certainly before this was decreed. He was also not necessarily known in the Roman world, as we know of him through the Middle Eastern cultures centuries later. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 22:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The origin of these 'Roman' sources of these additions is earlier discussed under:

1. User Septentrionalis, now Pmanderson, saying in 2005/06 under Talk:Ptolemy/Archive_1#EGYPTIAN?: "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." (This appears as sourceless opinion, and well explained by Jagged 85 following this.)
2. Under Talk:Ptolemy/Archive_1#Ptolemy's cultural and historical context#Citizenship for His Family in 2006 was written by an IP with a clear Roman slant [6] appears flawed. (This is perhaps the original source of the problem here.)
3. Under Talk:Ptolemy/Archive_1#Greek? Mcorazao claiming in 2008: "All that is known is that he lived his life in Egypt and knew Greek, as most educated people would.", but contradictorily follows with: "I'd suggest this should be changed to "Greco-Roman", "Eastern Roman", "Roman Egyptian", or simply "Roman"." (There is no justification or actual source it seems to draw this conclusion for any of these four.
4. Talk:Ptolemy/Archive_2#The Greek question in 2009, and is based on the discussion by BobKawanaka. (I find their argument fails in citing the "Roman" context.)
5. Also under Talk:Ptolemy/Archive_2#Misuse of sources I agree that, as Johnuniq says in 2011 that ; "This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views." This edit is relevant. [7] using this source : Martin Bernal (1992). "Animadversions on the Origins of Western Science", Isis 83 (4), p. 596-607 [602, 606]

None seems to be very helpful. There needs to be a final consensus to fix this issue which has occurred over 13 years. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 01:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried searching the whole history of the article to see where the Roman stuff was added and what Jagged 85 did in the early edits. I can't spend any more time on it at the moment but in the first (oldest) of Jagged's edits, there was no mention in the lead of Ptolemy being Roman or Greek. A Feb 2009 edit by someone else who is no longer active claimed that Claudius "proved" Roman. The origin remains unclear to me. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. Use of a Roman nomen was an assertion of Roman citizenship.

"Slaves and provincials without Roman (or Latin) citizenship were known by an individual name, and thus lacked a praenomen and nomen; peregrini used their individual name followed by the father's name in the genitive and (optionally) by f(ilius -ia), e.g. Tritano Acali and Tritano Lani f., from Dalmatia. When enfranchised, new citizens normally retained their individual name as their cognomen. They were free to choose their praenomen and nomen; during the empire, it became common for new citizens to adopt those of the reigning emperor, less often of the intermediary (e.g. the provincial governor) who brokered their enfranchisement. " - Oxford Classical Dictionary: "Names, personal, Roman" by Heikki Solin ((Subject: Roman History and Historiography Online Publication Date: Mar 2016 DOI:10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.4329 )) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Fine. It maybe be true, but it is based on a broad assumption and is likely opinion. (His name could have been made after his death to appear Roman in origin or was written by a Latin writer, for example.) You really need to formally cite the text that "Ptolemy was a Roman citizen" or "He was a Roman citizen", and you also need consensus for that. As pointed out, the current given cites don't state nor support this conclusion. Most common available sources do not categorically say this. There is a danger this might be original research.

I've added a disputed section template and dubious tag (again), until this matter can be resolved by editorial processes. e.g. RfC. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 02:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hence implies. What is your agenda here? I cannot suggest compromise language unless I know what you think you are fighting.

Someone might have a nomen without being a citizen, but it must have required odd circumstances indeed. So I would not say proves, but surely the above general statement warrants implies.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I have now added citations to two impeccable sources, Gerald Toomer and Otto Neugebauer, both of whom support the claim that Ptolemy was probably a Roman citizen. Toomer says that the name "Claudius" "shows" that he held Roman citizenship, while Neugabuer says that it "indicates" that fact. I have weakened the statement in the article to say "According to some historians, the name Claudius indicates that Ptolemy would have been a Roman citizen," which would appear to me to be uncontestable, and of sufficient weight to warrant inclusion in the article. Unless someone continues to dispute the inclusion of such information in the article, I will remove the disputed section template in a few days' time. Anyone else satisfied that the claim now made in the article is properly supported should feel free to remove it earlier.

David Wilson ( talk ·  cont) 00:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I still have issues with the Roman connection because it is likely assumed. So little is known about him, and much of what we have is transferred from across several versions. e.g. Greek, to Arabic, then to Latin. Accuracy between those documents will probably never be known. I do, however, think your change is reasonable. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 00:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"According to some historians, the name Claudius indicates that Ptolemy would have been a Roman citizen" The name indicates membership in Claudia (gens), either by descent, or because the person who granted Ptolemy citizenship was a member of the gens. Dimadick ( talk) 11:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

And either would imply he was a citizen. The gens Claudia had been Roman for eight centuries, so if he inherited membership, his ancestor was granted Roman citizenship. We do know how Roman names worked.

In short, his citizenship is not assumed; it is deduced, and not by us. Neugebauer may be the most distinguished historian of ancient astronomy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. We know so very little about Ptolemy at all, let alone his citizenship. Neugebauer maybe right, but this also has little to do his citizenship or this discussion. (So where, actually, does Neugebauer definitively say Ptolemy was a Roman citizen?) Most of his work were published in Latin 1000 years later, and there is not even any record of Ptolemy in Roman literature that has come directly down to us. As weight is on the Arabic manuscript, which was translated into Latin. It would not surprise me the Claudius (or the other variants) was added by one of these translations, as it doesn't appear in the original Arabic text. Moreover, he was born much later than Claudius the Emperor, so he would have had two or more generations in his family to retain gens. As we do not know if any of his family genealogy before him, makes the conclusion an even bigger assumption.

Yes. His citizenship is assumed, as is much of his life. "Deduced" is frankly far-fetched and itself is based on many assumptions. I'm still far more concerned with how strongly you are asserting this is fact, and it presents a deviation from the needed NPOV. Where there is any doubt, the alternative views need to be expressed in a balanced way. The article as it at the moment, does not do that very well. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 06:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

In A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, on page 834, one of the citations I added to the article nearly two weeks ago, Neugebauer writes

"Claudius indicates that Ptolemy was a Roman citizen, belonging to a family of some distinction."

This conclusion is almost certainly not an assumption, as you keep characterising it, but a considered inference based on Neugebauer's knowledge of sources, and what can be reasonably inferred from them. Any such inference must, of course, be based on some basic assumptions about the meaning and relative quality of those sources—but without which the study of history would have to degenerate into a mere tabulation and physical description of such sources.

The assumptions we, as Wikipedia editors are required to make, however, unless we have more evidence than our own unsupported opinions to do otherwise, is that acknowledged experts in the field know what they're talking about. Despite a reasonably diligent search for good sources which question the conclusion that Ptolemy was a Roman citizen, I have found precisely none which express the same degree of scepticism that you do.

The sources I have so far found which mention the possibility of Ptolemy's Roman citizenship, do, however, express their conclusions with varying degrees of conviction:

John North: "Ptolemy, of whom we shall say more in chapter 4, was an Alexandrian—and Roman citizen— ..."

Stephen P. Blake: "Claudius, a Roman name, shows that he was a Roman citizen, ..."

Gerald Toomer: '... “Claudius” shows that he possessed Roman citizenship, probably as a result of a grant to an ancestor by the emperor Claudius or Nero.'

Otto Neugebauer: Quoted above

Elizabeth Anne Hamm: "... his first name, Claudius, indicates that he was a Roman citizen ..."

This is from a Ph.D. thesis which cites Toomer for the information, so it certainly can't be considered an independent source, and merely indicates that Dr Hamm regarded Toomer as a sufficiently authoritative source to rely on for the information.

A. Mark Smith: '... there is no reason to doubt that he was Greco-Egyptian by birth, perhaps also a Roman citizen, as indicated by his otherwise incongruous forename "Claudius".'

David Wilson ( talk ·  cont) 10:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And Neugebauer's deduction is:

Claudius is a Roman name.

People with Roman names were Roman citizens, having either inherited the name from their father or taken it when granted citizenship.

Therefore Ptolemy was a Roman citizen.

And almost all of Ptolemy's work exists in Greek. So what? Appian wrote in Greek, and he was not only a citizen, but consul. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Look. The question was: "There is a claim in the article that says Ptolemy was Roman or a Roman citizen." So why doesn't the original Arabic versions say 'Claudius Ptolemy' but only state him as just 'Ptolemy'?

Saying: "And almost all of Ptolemy's work exists in Greek." OK. What about the oldest version known to us, then..

His name was presented as بطلميوس shown here [8], create in 639AD and produced around 827-28AD. The Qatar source here [9] saying "written by the Greek mathematician and astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) around the year 150 AD in Alexandria, Egypt." and that "...the Arabic name of Ptolemy himself (Baṭlamyūs)"

There is a real possibllity that when it was translated into Latin, they added the name 'Claudius' for whatever reason. None of the quoted text given above can definitively conclude "Ptolemy was a Roman citizen." Neugebauer saying: "Claudius indicates that Ptolemy was a Roman citizen", but that assumes that Claudius was his really part of his name. We don't actually know this fron early ancient records available to us, All we can says is 'possible'. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 03:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have now changed the text of the only place in the article where it said "He was a Roman citizen (and which I had missed in my earlier edits) to read "He might have been a Roman citizen".

P.S. The idea that "Claudius" might have originated only from someone's adding it to a Latin translation doesn't appear to me to be tenable. There exists quite a large tradition of Greek manuscript sources of most of Ptolemy's works—including the Almagest—which have not (or at least are considered not to have by scholars who seem to know what they're talking about) descended from any preceding Arabic or Latin translations, and in some of which Ptolemy is referred to as "Κλαυδίος Πτολεμαίος" ( Vaticanus graecus 180, for example, a 10th-century Greek manuscript of the Almagest where the name appears in its genitive form, "Κλαυδίου Πτολεμαίου"). Although most, if not all, of these Greek manuscripts would appear to post-date the earliest Arabic ones, I don't believe there's a shred of evidence to indicate that they have been derived from pre-existing Arabic (or Latin) sources.

P.P.S. The date of the Planetary Hypotheses manuscript you cite is not 639AD, but 639AH (i.e. by the Islamic calendar). In his translation in Vol. 57, No. 4 of the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Bernard Goldstein gives its date as 1242AD. It is not the oldest version of the Planetary Hypotheses known to us by a long shot. Goldstein cites another Arabic manuscript which is at least 300 years older.

David Wilson ( talk ·  cont) 06:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Because there are no "original Arabic versions", and the Arabic translators (often working at second-hand through Syriac) were not painstaking about details of Greek society of little interest to them. Compare the Arabic explanation of Euclid's name as Uclides, "the key".

A translation is rarely a better reflection of the original than a copy is - and the Greek manuscripts of Ptolemy include "Claudius". That is not added to the Latin, it is in the original. Thus, for example, the first book of the Tetrabiblion has the header, Klaudiou Ptolemaiou mathematikes tetrabibliou syntaxeos Biblion A (I transliterate from the Greek of the Loeb edition).

All this is ignoring what we do know about Ptolemy: his name. At this point, Arianewiki is making up conjectures, unsupported (so far) by any secondary authority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This has gone on long enough. Arianewiki, time for you to produce detailed RS disputing his Roman citizenship, if you have any. Johnbod ( talk) 23:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No. And you know I can't do that. Presenting a fact requires evidence not conjecture, and where doubt exist, the presentation of that fact has to be balanced or weighted for and against to the proposition. There is no existing evidence either for or against that he was a Roman citizen. Yes. Egypt was under Roman rule during the time of Ptolemy, where the population was either granted Roman citizenship or not. He worked in Alexandria, which was in Greco-Roman Egypt. He was probably born in Egypt. No. Nobody can really be 100% certain of his status as 'Roman'. (I find it odd, that in Toomer's book "Ptolemy's Almagest" (1985) that is 673 pages long, "Claudius" only appears four times.) Arianewiki1 ( talk) 02:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the very definition of WP:OR. RS of good quality have been produced saying he was very probably a Roman citizen, and none against this. We can discuss the exact wording, but it is clear what the article needs to say. Johnbod ( talk) 03:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

So all this dispute is about a qualification to was? I have no objection to showing that "A man with a Roman nomen is a Roman citizen" is a bit less certain than "all men are mortal" - Neugebauer's "indicate" seems to me about the right strength, and I have inserted it. Can we call this settled now? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

However, if nobody in the scholarly literature denies Ptolemy's citizenship, we should not write so as to suggest someone does. I can find none; I can find three less distringuished sources which support it, some with with a "probably". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Really. An open discussion on a talkpage is WP:OR? The article originally said "….and held Roman citizenship", hence the comments here [10]. Reference given didn't support this. The article's text has since changed. PMAnderson is saying "was", other sources suggest "perhaps." That's what is being civilly discussed here. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 05:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The statement "There is no existing evidence either for or against that [Ptolemy] was a Roman citizen" is demonstrably false. Not only does the fact that numerous respected experts have written either that he was, possibly was, or was likely to have been, a Roman citizen constitute evidence of that fact, it is the only form of evidence required by (or acceptable to) Wikipedia for an appropriately qualified statement to that effect to be included in the article.

While it is true that the ultimate evidence for what is known about Ptolemy must come from primary sources, the evaluation of such evidence, and conclusions drawn from it, which have not been published in any reliable source is what constitutes original research. Although Wikipedia policy doesn't prohibit this from being carried out or discussed on a talk page, the fact that it occurs on a talk page doesn't disqualify it from still being considered original research, and therefore disallowed as the sole reason for including some item of information in, or excluding it from, the article.

That said, though, it seems to me that everyone here has agreed that what the article says should be something less categorical than the bald assertion that Ptolemy was a Roman citizen. As far as I can see, no such categorical assertion now remains in the article, so do you consider the current version of the article to be satisfactory in this respect? If not, why not?

David Wilson ( talk ·  cont) 03:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It is an example of an eigenstate, where we cannot say it became necessary to formulate clearly the difference between the state of something that is uncertain in the way it is described. e.g. He is not or is Roman. We can only say he was probably Roman. My point. I do openly appreciate this discussion - we all learnt something - and looking at the text as it is is a good compromise. Only Septentrionalis seems to disagree.

{Unrelated, though really poignant. Attic Salt and Lithopsian need to know that 'grey' is near impossible to convey as with current issues with the Supernova article. It is a perennial difficult problem with Wikipedia, as few stated 'absolutes' are necessarily perfectly true. Hence, compromise. Nil Einne might find this issue pertinent.) Arianewiki1 ( talk) 06:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've taken quantum mechanics. This is not a sound analogy. If it were, I would have equal difficulty saying that I see the light across the room, since its travel in a line is actually a quantum effect. If everything is merely probable, either we should add the word to every sentence, or we should use it only where there is genuine, reasonable, and sourced doubt. I remain on the side of the second alternative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. In Vaticanus graecus 208, a 14th-century manuscript—one of those used by F.E.Robbins for his Loeb Classics translation of the Tetrabiblos—the genitive of the full name, Κλαυδίου Πτολεμαίου, can be seen towards the bottom of f4v.

David Wilson ( talk ·  cont) 23:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

What Roman citizenship was

Arianewiki's arguments expose a strongly anachronistic concept of what Roman citizenship was. It did not imply that the citizen was descended from Italians; it does not imply that the citizen used Latin as a literary language; it does not imply that he spoke better Latin than his non-citizen neighbor. (I regret overlooking Paul of Tarsus, as one of the few ancient people whose Roman citizenship is expressly attested; he was Jewish by descent and wrote in Greek.) It did not, in Ptolemy's time, even involve voting; there is no record of a citizen assembly after the death of Augustus.

It did mean that the citizen was subject to strictly Roman law; non-citizens were subject to the "law of nations" which the Romans applied to suits involving foreigners - and to Imperial edicts, which applied to everybody. This means that citizens had certain rights. (It was noteworthy for Imperial officials to override these rights; see Suetonius' Life of Galba for such a note.) It meant that the citizen was taxed more heavily. And it meant that the citizen had a multipart name, of a peculiar form, which only citizens had. (There had been similar names in other parts of Central Italy, but not including Claudius as an element. And all of those people were made citizens well before the beginning of the Empire, after the Social War.)

The advantage of this controversy is to show that we should say some of this in the article text, since some readers will benefit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant. What you are saying isn't the point. I made no assertion about the "concept of what Roman citizenship was." Your argument is a long bow, based on a flawed premise. Logically, we cannot say he was Roman. We can only say he was probably Roman. That is what 'authorities' agree on. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 23:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Then "Most of his work were published in Latin 1000 years later, and there is not even any record of Ptolemy in Roman literature that has come directly down to us. " was not an effort to prove he was not part of Latin-speaking culture? (I don't contend that he was, any more than Appian.)

My apologies. Then what sense was that supposed to have? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Correction. "...any record of Ptolemy in Roman literature that has come directly down to us. " is wrong. Galen mentions him as does Vettius Valens, but they mention only 'Ptolemy' in comment. (Galen was also named Claudius) Also I meant Ancient Roman literature not the literature 1000-odd years later. Sorry. How much of the Roman culture knew of him is not known, though his astronomical views on, say the timing of the equinoxes were more likely. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 03:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

So what does Latin knowledge of Ptolemy have to do with the question here at issue? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 05:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)