Talk:Aryabhata

Latest comment: 1 month ago by 2409:40F2:12F:AAD9:8000:0:0:0 in topic Evidence Needed
Former good article nomineeAryabhata was a Mathematics good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 2, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed


Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2023

edit

Aryabhata or Aryabhata is a Hindu-Indian (Bharat) brahmin mathematician Rejinoi (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heart (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Religion Hindu

edit

Aryabhatta god is ram he wokship of ram . Ram temple situated in ayodhya. 2402:8100:208B:4984:0:0:C893:7490 (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

No. ChandlerMinh (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Addition

edit

Add that , he believed that panets and moon were reflected by sunlight and earths rotation causes motion of stars.

"Qualifies as a major physicist"

edit

The lede currently has "For his explicit mention of the relativity of motion, he also qualifies as a major early physicist.", citing Encyclopedia.com [1] which seems to be an aggregated website, and I don't think it is appropriate to cite. It also has no mention of Aryabhata being a physicist, or being "major". I suggest this is removed since it appears to be original research. Horep (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Evidence Needed

edit

This Wikipedia page says "Aryabhata's major work were based on previous discoveries by Greeks, Mesapotamians." Yet the source it cites doesn't provide enough information to make this claim. In fact, the source actually says "The conjecture that Aryabhata's value of π is of Greek origin is critically examined and is found to be without foundation." So where did this claim come from, and are there other sources that prove it? Or should that line be removed? LouMichel (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks like that line was added in this edit, which does not seem to be very well-founded. I've gone ahead and reverted whatever was left of that edit. Shreevatsa (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
DON'T TALK LIKE THIS 2409:40F2:12F:AAD9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply