Talk:Pierre-Simon Laplace

celestial mechanics

Could we have more on his celestial mechanics? Charles Matthews 15:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Express evidence that Laplace saw himself as an atheist, rather than a deist or agnostic. for example, should be supplied. It will be difficult to come by for anyone favored by the Restoration Bourbons, of course...

The famous anecdote about Napoleon and the Celestial Mechanics is not sufficient. Septentrionalis 15:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

revolution

What part did he play in reducing violence? None and that should be stated— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.224.34 (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Optics

Before the 1800, Laplace was the main reference with respect to optics. This article barely says anything about it aside from the black hole anecdotes. ReyHahn (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Name

I changed the first sentence to

Pierre-Simon Laplace (/ləˈplɑːs/; French: [pjɛʁ simɔ̃ laplas]; 23 March 1749 – 5 March 1827; from 1808 Count, from 1817 Marquis de Laplace) was a French scholar ...

In the summary I gave the explanation

let us not overemphasize his nobility titles; in science he is universally known as Pierre-Simon Laplace

Now @User:Zacwill reverted without giving any reason. Why this unfriendly behavior, and why should we dilute the name of the great scientist with a ridiculous Marquis de awarded late in life to the opportunistic careerist? -- Dyspophyr (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the original formatting. You may consider titles of nobility "ridiculous", but this is an opinion rather than a fact. Zacwill (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

We do not write Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Werner Heisenberg either, though some in Germany consider doctoral degrees as part of the name. What are the rules here, quite generally? -- Dyspophyr (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this topic, exactly the right approach.

The rules are 1) what do the sources say and 2) what will editors agree too. Several sources in the article use "Marquis". No source is cited that disputes the title or its use. Consequently the evidence is that "Marquis" is part of the name by which this person is commonly known. Contrary to your claim, there is no evidence from a source that this was awarded for any other reason than to honor his work. For example "In 1816 he was admitted to the Académie Française and in 1817 he was raised to the rank of a Marquis."

If you have a source that says the "Marquis" was declined or ignored by Laplace or otherwise disputed, please post it for discussion. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Good question, I am not sure how this is handled entirely but nobility titles are treated differently from academic titles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography and WP:NCROY.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Citing "A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities"

I note inconsistencies between the text of the quote under "Laplace's demon", and the texts listed below

The article cites: "Laplace, A Philosophical Essay, New York, 1902, p. 4.", which I assume to be the same as appended below.

However, the Wikipedia article's translation is different. The text quoted, Chapter 2, Page 4, in the article, on the specific "forces" his intelligence/demon could quantify: "all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed"

Below: listed from the Library of Congress: New York, J. Wiley & sons; [etc., etc.] 1902. Translated by Truscott and Emory.

Counterexample text on the specific "forces" his intelligence/demon could quantify: "all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings who compose it" (from Gutenberg)

https://www.loc.gov/item/02016933

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Philosophical_Essay_on_Probabilities

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/58881/58881-h/58881-h.htm

There are plenty of other minor differences, but this is (to me) the most striking, as the latter places less of an emphasis on particles ("atoms", he explicitly states in both versions), and more on (it seems) individuals (the "beings who compose [nature]").

I am unsure of what course of action to take here, as this discrepancy is (largely) irrelevant, but a conclusion others are likely to come to if using Wikipedia as a launching-off point for their research into Laplace's unique (for the time) philosophies.

Edit: The article "Laplace's demon" has the same text as the main article, but cites a 1950s translation by the same two, but I cannot access this to verify it.

Tar-Atanamir the Great (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)