Talk:Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Franklin Institute to Rittenhouse Astronomical Society[edit]

I changed the "Rittenhouse Medal from the Franklin Institute" to the "Rittenhouse Medal from the Rittenhouse Astronomical Society" because, while the RAS meets at the Franklin Institute's building, it appears to be a separate organization that originally met in New Jersey. --Monado (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


"Appraisal of her Career" ??[edit]

Someone who understands astrophyisics should write about what CP-G's ideas signified -- i.e. appraise her actual career, her research and theorizing. As it stands now, this section is just about how C P-G was among the first women to get herself (belatedly) established and recognized in her chosen field. It's a generic appreciation of anyone who helped integrate any profession. It's as if what she actually DID within astronomy had no particular significance — as if her only accomplishment worth "appraising" was to help overcome male prejudice in academia and inspire other women to study astronomy. Ironically, this has the effect of making the entire article belittling, demeaning, and sexist, surely not what its authors intended. Would any man who did what she did be appraised as anything less than a towering figure? I'd be interested in seeing an appraisal that puts her ideas in historical context. Was she any less significant in astrophysics than Stephen Hawking or George Gamow, if her ideas laid the foundations for their ideas, and were no less revolutionary? She doesn't quite rank with Copernicus, Newton or Einstein, but why not Kepler, whose discoveries of the shape of planetary orbits apparently served the same purpose as Payne's discovery of the substance of the entire universe, laying the groundwork for a new view of how everything works? Everyone knows about Kepler's ellipse; who knows about Payne's hydrogen>helium insight?

The problem is not just in this section; three-quarters of the article is about academic gender politics. That aspect of her life mattered a lot, and it is appropriate to tell that story in detail. But it's wildly inappropriate to skim over a discovery that tells us why stars shine and how the universe evolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.39.180 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Chelydra (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #7[edit]

In the section on "Personal life", we read that she became an agnostic. Next to the word "agnostic" is a note, note #7. In that note (visible when putting the cursor over it, or at the bottom of the page), there are two sentences joined by an ellipsis (...). I don't understand the point of providing, and of joining, those two sentences. I also don't understand what the second sentence is referring to (What marks? What prayerless group? When? Where?). CorinneSD (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "group" refers to an incident that Payne-Gaposchkin wrote about in her autobiography. While still a young girl in school she divided her exams in two groups and prayed for success in only one of them in order to test the effectiveness of prayer (not of God). She thinks she may have arranged the groups to show that prayer wouldn't work. At the end of the paragraph she says, "The only legitimate request to God is for courage. This conviction has persisted through the years." See Payne-Gaposchkin, Cecilia (1996). Katherine Haramundanis (ed.). Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin: An Autobiography and Other Recollections. Cambridge University Press. p. 58. ISBN 978-0-521-48390-2.. It seems to be Keith Laidler's conclusion in his book that Payne-Gaposchkin became a life-long agnostic at that point. The quote does not support this. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. That's very interesting. While the second sentence in the note is appropriate at that point in the article, perhaps more should be included in the quote in order to make it clear what it's about. The first sentence in the note seems unrelated to that part of the article. @Vsmith: What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the agnostic bit up to follow the "experiment" it was presumably referencing and chopped the irrelevant "composition of the sun" bit as irrelevant. Not sure I understand what a "devout agnostic" means 'thogh :) Vsmith (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
added a bit of detail, rearranged, it seemed before that the article was talking of her arranging groups of people. It being exams is quite endearing (how did she randomnize?) YamaPlos talk 06:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lexington is not a village[edit]

Lexington, MA is a Town under Massachusetts law, not a Village. Unless you can show it was a Village at the time she moved there, which I think is unlikely, the term Village is in appropriate here. While not the most populous place, Lexington is a typical Eastern Massachusetts suburb, albeit with a bit more woodland. 66.231.142.124 (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it became a town in 1713, so I have changed the text. LynwoodF (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin. 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:

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) 15:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin. 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:

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) 14:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russell's "short" paper[edit]

Can't figure why, except some sick sense of humor, someone would call "short" an astrophysics paper that counts 72 pages. Then, anyone reading pages 54-55 would notice that Russell did acknowledge with admiration, "This is a very gratifying agreement...", etc,. slightly dissing the Harvard equipment :-) but not at all Dr. Payne's expert use of it. Was it that Russell was embarrassed from not having supported Payne earlier? perhaps, but not like the meme doing the rounds would imply, that she had not published - Russell mentions in this 1929 paper two 1925 publications by Payne. YamaPlos talk 06:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The paper is not short. I've added a quote from pages 54-55 in reference to Russell's acknowledgment of Payne's work. I however removed "admiringly" as this is a matter of debate. Russell does (very briefly) acknowledge the significance of Payne's work and mention that is gratifying to see an agreement between his work and hers, but to me he doesn't particularly show admiration of her work. [Anonymous User, June 15, 2021]

Date Confusion.[edit]

I just read this sentence in the post: "Payne-Gaposchkin retired from active teaching in 1966 and was subsequently appointed Emeritus Professor of Harvard.[20] She continued her research as a member of staff at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, as well as editing the journals and books published by Harvard Observatory for twenty years.[21]"

I fear that passage is a bit confusing. She died in 1979, but that passage makes me think she edited for 20 years after she retired in 1966, which would mean that she was editing for 7 years after she died. Please clarify, someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.125.171 (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

career : number of observations[edit]

I doubt the number of observations done by her and coworkers. First there should have been 1.25 Million and soon after 2 Millions both on variable stars. They didn't have computer controlled telescopes and data acquisition then. Estimating optimistic 12 stars per hour, 8 hours per night, 360 nights a year, make 34'000 per year. That'd be 30 years for a million. Could you double check the numbers ? 62.202.180.180 (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming the observations were taken after the project started rather than using existing observations. Variable star studies have to be done over a long period of time. These studies of variable stars used the Harvard plate collection with half a million plates dating back to 1885. Each plate could have many variable stars, and the variations were measured using plates of the same star fields taken at different dates. See her proposal for the study here. StarryGrandma (talk)

Surname[edit]

A citation for "Payne added her husband's name to her own" would be helpful. It is shown hypenated in some reliable sources, but as simply "Payne" in others. Within astronomy she is frequently referred to as "Cecilia Payne". It is a minor issue but if there is some source stating her preference it would be nice to uphold it whichever way it may be. 2601:601:4500:1D90:D9EF:F4C7:11E4:8DD5 (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Around the lab she was known as "Mrs G."[1] In her autobiography she writes of her marriage as "In March 1934 I became Cecilia Payne Gaposchkin".[2] I dare say she had other things to think about than whether there should be a hyphen in her name. Thincat (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture scheduled for POTD[edit]

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Cecilia Helena Payne-Gaposchkin (1900-1979) - Science Service.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 6, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-11-06. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs. 06:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin

Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin (born Cecilia Helena Payne; (1900-05-10)May 10, 1900 – (1979-12-07)December 7, 1979) was a British-born American astronomer and astrophysicist who proposed in her 1925 doctoral thesis that stars were composed primarily of hydrogen and helium. Her groundbreaking conclusion was initially rejected because it contradicted the scientific wisdom of the time, which held that there were no significant elemental differences between the Sun and Earth. Independent observations eventually proved she was correct. Her work on the nature of variable stars was foundational to modern astrophysics.

Photograph credit: Science Service; restored by Adam Cuerden

Recently featured:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cecilia_Payne-Gaposchkin&oldid=1195008784"