Talk:Sirius/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Astrology and Astronomy

The infamous 'Eye in the Triangle' seems to have a deep connection with the Sirius star system (a trinary star system, as believed by the Dogons and later confirmed by science in 1995). The pentagram also bears connection to Sirius (it was a symbol for Sirius in Ancient Egypt, as well as in several other cultures).

The pentagram consists of five triangles, typically with either 3 points pointing up or 2 points pointing down. 2-3-5. I actually have a theory that much of the 23-5 archetype that arises all over the place has to do with fractal patterns. Carbon-based organisms tend to include pentagram-based formations (apples, starfish, human hands, flowers, etc.), and this has to do with the Golden Mean, which directly relates to the pentagram geometrically, and is the rate of exponential growth in most carbon-based organic systems, as well as several non-organic (in the sense of non-carbon-based) systems, such as the Stock Market.

Therefore 23 and 5 showing up all over the place directly relates to the Pentagram, which also directly relates to the Holy Chaos, which portays a pentagram in opposition to an apple. The inner pentagon of a pentagram can be seen in crystals, and the outer star formation in carbon-based organisms like the Apple.

23 and 5 perhaps have so much synchronicity surrounding them because of a sort of Pythagorean ratio that shows up in all systems based on Phi (1.6180339).

Obviously, the Pythagoreans were obsessed with the pentagram and Phi (tatooed the pentagram on their palms and did a secret vesica pisces handshake).

Pythagoras' name means literally 'I am the Serpent', and in his esoteric religion, he apparently spoke of Sirius as being in some way sacred.

Get this: the eye in the pyramid was thought to have been adopted by Pythagoras as a symbol whilst travelling through Egypt, learning the secret alchemies of Thoth.

Thoth was the Egyptian god of wisdom, and was sometimes metaphorically called 'The Serpent of Wisdom'. It is thought by some that Thoth and the Mayan god Kukulcan are actually the same entity...

The Eye in the Pyramid archetype actualy may have originated with the Triple-Goddess symbolism associated with Sirius. Sirius was referred to by some ancient sects as 'The Mother Star'... The Greek word for this Great Mother was either written as a single letter, Mu, or as two succeeding letters, MU MU. Mu Mu also denotes Light, which was said to emanate magnificently from SIRIUS (and it does, of course, in comparison to other stars besides the Sun).

Light was/is known as the Menstruum of the Red Dragon to alchemists and high-level Freemasons. This relates to the ISIS myths.

Believe it or not, the ancient Egyptians referred to ISIS as actually being Sirius at one point in their history, and related Orion to her husband, Osiris. She was said to be the 'Bringer of Light'...

Which is interesting, because the Eye of Horus, deeply associated with ISIS, was one version of the Eye in the Triangle archetype... And, to the Freemasons at the turn of the 19th century, the Eye in the Pyramid was called 'The Eye of Lucifer'. Lucifer means 'light bearer'... Light is the Menstruum of the Red Dragon. The Red Dragonn is ISIS. Red as a colour has also been associated with Sirius for thousands upon thousands of years because Sirius appears red when it is close to the horizon...

- Khranus

"later confirmed by science in 1995" is factually incorrect. There are speculations but no evidence. Provide valid references for your claim if you think otherwise.
above by user:130.233.16.105

companion star?

The "mysteries" section reads: "it has been suggested that there is a third very small companion star". Suggested by whom? When? Why? A statement like this seems to me to be worse than useless. --Misterwindupbird 03:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That was a confusing way of putting it-- I've clarified & linked to the relevant reference via footnote. Lusanaherandraton 11:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Greek nationalists

I deleted this section. At best, even if it were both sourced, and true, then it would not be appropriate to put this in the article. Maybe, if there is an article somewhere on eccentric political claims by Greek nationalists, then a link to that article in the "See Also" section of this one might be ok. But there should certainly not be a section on that sort of thing in this article by any means. --Deville (Talk) 04:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This article should be moved.

This may be the "original" Sirius, but most people who type "Sirius" in Wikipedia's search box these days are probably looking for Sirius Satellite Radio. I think this article should be changed to a redirect to "Sirius Satellite Radio," which will then include a disambiguation link to something along the lines of "Sirius (star). I think that would be most beneficial to the average user.--Josh 07:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? As a resident of Australia, I've never heard of Sirius Satellite Radio. After what better-known entity do you believe that it was named, anyway? -203.11.167.254 03:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
That's crazy. That's like saying that if someone types in "Betelgeuse," we should redirect them to the movie Beetlejuice. Most people, when you refer to "Sirius," know you're referring to the brightest star in the sky. user:Jsc1973
An utterly unencyclopedic suggestion. -Rikoshi 23:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose — The company was named after the star, not vice versa. — RJH (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
What is "Sirius Satellite Radio"? Never ever heard about it. Said: Rursus (☻) 16:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

UFO conspiracies and grammar

I edited the (horrible) grammar for the articles regarding a hypothetical Sirian race and the Roswell "theory". The article about a Sirian race is interesting, but needs to be backed up by sources in numerous places (most notably the part about Sirians being Reptilian). Also, the Roswell article should be deleted altogether, since it's been widely accepted that it was just a weather balloon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.158.138 (talk)

The Roswell incident is such a part of pop culture that it is definately encyclopedic. However, I'm not sure the level of detail about theories of Roswell aliens origins from Sirius is warranted in this article. Especially as it's unsourced, I'm inclined to remove the "UFO Mysteries and Suprising Facts" section in its entirety. Any other views? -Satori (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

These two articles, along with the bottom part of The Dogons (past the 'The Dogon Controversy' link) seems to have been written by the same author.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.158.138 (talk)

I've gone ahead and remove that section entirely, as well as the section on Sirian lifeforms. The incredibly speculative nature of that section, and the only source cited being the always authorative "it has been said", I don't think it belongs in a factual article on a scientific topic. -Satori (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed lizard people paragraph in Dogon section

I made another removal of unsourced speculation, specifically the last paragraph in the section on the Dogons, refering to "lizard people". The only source given was the infamous "many people claim", and even the article on the Dogon that is linked to doesn't mention anything about reptillian aliens. -Satori (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sino-Korean and Sino-Japanese

I removed the "Sino-" from these two words. Did the author mean the on'yomi pronunciation in Japanese? If there's consensus for using terms other than the accurate and clear "Japanese" and "Korean", I'd suggest "the pronunciation of the Chinese-derived name is Tenrōsei in Japanese and Cheonlangseong in Korean." We don't talk about the pronunciation of "chic" or "menu" or "coup d'etat" in Franco-English; we talk about the pronounciation in English of words borrowed from French. We should follow a parallel practice here.

And if the article is going to give the "Chinese-derived" (or "Sino-Japanese" and "Sino-Korean") names, then it should also give the indigenous names for the star in Japanese and Korean, respectively.

Also, although I like languages and find it interesting to read about the Chinese name, how does this belong in this article? There's no information on the names for this star in other languages. Interlingua talk email 14:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian temple orientation

There was a sentence of text in the history section that read, "and many ancient Egyptian temples were oriented so that light from the star could penetrate to their inner altars." As I couldn't find a solid reference for this statement, and I wanted to move the page forward for GA review, I temporarily removed it. Does anybody know where this assertion about the templet orientation came from? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Dogon

The Dogon people also describes a third star in the system, Sirius C, which they call Emme Ya, and that this star has a single satellite (eg. planet). If the Dogon people is mentioned in the article, I think this should be mentioned also. Kricke 03:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think Emme Ya Tolo should be mentioned as there is no any astronomical evidence of its existence. In fact, there's no scientific evidence that even the myth itself is real. However, the Dogon myth has acquired considerable popularity, so it deserves own article where it could be described in detail. Now it is described in both Sirius and Dogon people articles where it really doesn't fit.--JyriL talk 21:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
"the Dogon myth has acquired considerable popularity, so it deserves own article where it could be described in detail." I agree. This Sirus article should be scientific only, and only link to the other article. It would take considerable space if all myths and religion containing Sirius would be mentioned in this article, and it's a bit confusing mixing myth with science. Kricke 00:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nibiru

For comparison to other similar myths about a dark star ... see... See also discussion of dark star/or comet Nibiru , that some speculate is a larger comet with extreme long elyptical course / orbit and so reappearing only in a very long cycle...

Nibiru —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.75.17 (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sirius can be seen from every inhabited place?

"Sirius can be seen from every inhabited region of the Earth's surface and..."

Its declination is −16° 42' 58.02", which means it's visible in all of the southern hemisphere but only south of 73.284 degrees of latitude in the northern hemisphere (-16.7162 + 90). There are people living north of this latitude, so the statement is not true. --Bowlhover 11:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. — RJH (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A good article, indeed

I enjoyed reading this article and feel as though it meets the criteria to make good article status. I will be reviewing it again, to be sure that I haven't missed anything, and then I will add any necessary further commentary. Congratulations on an excellent job! Cheers! Chuchunezumi 01:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sirius in popular culture

'In Dogsbody by Diana Wynne Jones, Sirius is a celestial god sent to Earth as a mortal dog, as a punishment after being framed for killing another star. As a star, he turns red when he loses his extremely volatile temper.' This does not match what is found in the main article: Sirius in popular culture.68.148.165.213 03:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

SIRIUS Radio

I put the advert template there because the line about SIRIUS radio reads like an advertisement and I want to gauge response before truncating its abstract in the Popular Culture section . Valley2city 18:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely an advert. I'm removing that line and just saying that it's a sattelite radio provider. Sloverlord 16:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sloverlord. I'm not as assertive as I should be and though I should have taken care of it myself, it is not in my nature to delete something. Edit the hell out of it, yes, but not delete for some reason. There's always revert, but still. Maybe I'll take the initiative next time. Oh well... Valley2city 23:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Color of Sirius

I'm glad to see the article describing Sirius as "blue-white" as that's what it looks like to me.

But doesn't the stellar heat scale or whatever classify it as fully out of the blue range and into the white range?

Is it perhaps some terrestrial atmospheric effect that (sometimes) gives it a bluish tinge?

I believe you'll find many reputable astronomy Web sites describing it simply as "white", so this issue should be broached in some way in the article.

(Also, I vaguely recall once upon a time reading of Sirius described as a "blue" star. This could be merely a pigment of my imagination or a simplification in a children's book, but might be interesting to research how it was described prior to the modern era of gas chromatography or whatever they do nowadays to determine the heat and class of stars...)

http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/sirius.html

"The star, a white class A (A1) hydrogen-fusing dwarf with a temperature of 9880 Kelvin..."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.40.70 (talk)

Yes, white, rather than blue-white, would be an appropriate description for a class A star. I updated the text. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I have watched this star for years and to me (and others to whom I've pointed it out to) it looks positively green. I find it flickers between green-red-white, but the green stands out most of all. Haven't heard of any other stars being considered green, though; maybe it's just its location on the horizon (rather low) at this latitude... Icemuon 13:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I sometimes get that flickering effect when a bright star is near the horizon or the air is turbulent. Do you live at a high latitude? — RJH (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I live at 64.10N (Iceland). Icemuon 11:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
That'll do it. But at least you probably get to watch plenty of northern lights up there. :-) The Scintillation (astronomy) article covers the effect (somewhat). — RJH (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting that I read in places this star was described as 'red' by ancients [1]. But I concur that in today's skies, to my eyes the greenish tinge stands out most in the scintillation because of low altitude in the sky. Perhaps Sirius B was a red supergiant before becoming the white dwarf it is today, explaining the 'ruddy' descriptions in ancient texts? Who knows.Pomona17 (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Michael Busch - some person claiming to be a Cal Tech student named Michael Busch removed

the comment following this section that accurately explained why ancients caslled the star Sirius the "red" star.... whoever that person was - Cal Tech or no - is completely misinformed and completed uneducated... Add your location Michael for demo ... Note-Cal Tech education if this bad is defrauding students of their money to claim it is educating them in e.g. astronomy when no one there apparently is informed about the subject. /s cincu sr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.75.17 (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Heat of Sirius

I don't recall where it was, but the heat from Sirius is apparently tangible. That would have been enough to give it special importance in ancient times. It would be most perceptible at lower latitudes, and a confirmation by anyone who has observed Sirius' heat themselves would be good here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyntheticET (talk • contribs) 23:49, February 19, 2007

It is not possible for people to feel the heat of stars light-years away. Icemuon 10:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Heat in the near infrared from Sirius is perceptible. That would have been enough to give it special importance in ancient times, and seems to be part of what led to the mythological Egyptian being Osiris, a dog-headed man. It would be most perceptible at lower latitudes. It is in fact perceptible and any one can enjoy it on a clear night, and a confirmation by anyone else who has observed Sirius' heat themselves would be useful here. SyntheticET (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC) )

"Heat in the near-infrared from Sirius is perceptible." How? By infrared telescopes and electronic detectors, no doubt, but not by human skin. Is this comment a late April fool legpull? Skeptic2 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
People can believe the most peculiar things, and perception is often subject to illusion. It is doubtful that a human could perceive the minuscule amount of infrared flux coming Sirius; more likely it is a case of self-deception, or, as you say, a joke. Occam's razor strikes again.—RJH (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sirius is a very hot, fairly large star close to the Sun. It has high infrared radiance. Heat from Sirius can easily be felt on human skin, if one feels anything.

To quote others, "The ancient Romans were very impressed with the brilliance of Sirius, and they believed that, when Sirius was in the same part of the sky as the Sun, the heat from Sirius combined with the Sun to cause the hot weather in the Summer." http://www.dudleyobservatory.org/InTheSky/Skywatch2001/skywatch_02_2001n.htm .

Also "Rather, the Romans believed that the heat from Sirius rising with the Sun was driving the dogs mad." http://astroprofspage.com/archives/205 SyntheticET (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel heat from the Moon? I don't. The IR flux from Moon is actually much larger than from Sirius. I envy you, because you have such a sensitive skin! Ruslik (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
SyntheticET says, above: "The ancient Romans believed that..." You are talking about beliefs. We are talking about verifiable scientific facts. Odd that no one else has noticed this heat from Sirius, isn't it? Skeptic2 (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The heat of Sirius itself has nothing to do with the Roman belief of heat from Sirius. The Romans believed, like all ancient people, that the stars and constellations had a direct effect on the weather, so that seasons were governed by the stars that rose just after sunset at that special season. We have primary sources for that, just read the PHAENOMENA of Aratus. Said: Rursus (☻) 17:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Eclipsing variable" Sirius

I know this info is on Solstation.com, but it is untrue, for two reasons:

1.) The brightness disparity between Sirius A and B is so great that contribution of the WD to the primary's light is, for all intents and purposes, zilch.

2.) Sirius B's orbit is inclined some 136 degrees from Earth's line of sight (to put it another way, 46 degrees from edge-on); at no point does it cross in front of the primary. See the data and diagram on Dibon Smith's site:

http://www.dibonsmith.com/elements.htm http://www.dibonsmith.com/cma_a.gif

One can find a similar graphic in Burnham's Handbook, on page 397.

Hindu Mythology

The following text was posted by an anonymous contributor who admitted in the comments that this was original research. I'm moving it here in case somebody can track down some sources to validate this information. — RJH (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

in Hindu mythology "Rudra" is "Sirius A "who is a god called Shankar , same as Sakkar of Egyptians. A God who resides in cemetery and is a god of knowledge, art, music , dance etc. He is married to Parvati- which may be his companion star "Sirius B" and has a child called "Ganesh" which may be the third companion. This Ganesh is supposed to have gone around his mother once. This whole mythological story fits in with latest findings.Rudra is supposed to have drunk poison and stored it in his throat. That is why its colour may be blueish as depicted in story. On No moon day night on 16 Feb 2007, Shankar is worshipped from 12:28 AM to 01:18 AM when the star is in the sky. His another son Kartikeya is the name given to Another Constellation nearby called Krittika. We all know that he is the hunter who has shot an arrow to the deer.There are 36 "Jyotirlingas" in india which are symbolic of Shankar and are blue/black in colour.These may be the meteor fall outs from sky.

recent vandalism??

read this article from the top and notice that it has been vandalised someone more qualified should fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.147.46 (talk) 04:09, March 26, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Icemuon 10:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dogon section

What does everybody think of just replacing this section with a one-paragraph summary and leaving the debate to the Dogon people page? It's not adding much to our knowledge of Sirius; this is just an anthropological discussion. — RJH (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am in favour of this. I also had the feeling that this section is a bit out-of-place here. Icemuon 10:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like at least four people agree to this, based on another discussion above. So I shortened it down to one brief paragraph and added a main article link. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps trying to reinstate this unsupported "Dogon and Sirius" business in a non-encyclopedic style, so let's deal with it once and for all. As I understand it, it's all based on some pretty unreliable anthropology, but it seems that the Dogon have a concept of twinning -- a bit like yin and yang, dark and light, good and evil, that sort of thing. So they naturally attribute two companions to Sirius. That's their myth, if you believe the early anthropological work. Trouble is, there is only one real companion star. End of story. The more recent stuff about white dwarfs and the moons of Jupiter, assuming that's been reported correctly, can easily have been grafted on a century or so ago. These people have had plenty of contact with Europe for yonks. This whole silly story started with a von-Daniken-type book in the seventies and I'm surprised anyone still takes it seriously (although I suppose I shouldn't be...) Skeptic2 14:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked that a "skeptic" would have the audacity to comment on a book that they haven't bothered to read. (Do you also offer reviews on films you've never watched?) To be blunt, you are not qualified to comment upon this subject. I've read both editions of the 'Sirius Mystery' and it is just that: a mystery. A single article published in the "Skeptical Enquirer" back in 1978 doesn't change that. Especially considering the *fact* that the paper cited in the preceding paragraph shows evidence of Sirius being a triple star, information unknown until recently. (Although for thousands of years Sirius/Sothis has been identified with the Egyptian goddess Isis who always formed part of a divine trinity...) While I'm more inclined to believe the "ancient astronomer" theory more than "ancient astronaut" one, the author's extra-terrestrial hypothesis is certainly possible and cannot be disproven given our current lack of evidence. (Not that I even mentioned it...) However, it is certainly more plausible than the rather far-fetched notion that Europeans traveling across Africa were also teaching tribes astronomy one hundred years ago. (Really?!?) This "explanation" does not tell us from whom Hesiod (c. 700 BC) must have received his "cultural contamination" when he stated that Cerberus (the Greek equivalent of Anubis/Canis Major) had fifty heads? And why did the Dogon's sister-tribe referred to Sirius A as "the seat" and Sirius B as "the eye", as these are the hieroglyphs for Isis (throne) and Osiris (eye+throne)? Were the Europeans also teaching them hieroglyphs?!? (I could go on, but I hope you have gotten the point...) Simply put, you don't know these facts because you haven't read the book. And the "cultural contamination" you uncritically parrot would most likely have to have been from Egypt, an ancient civilization that was once obviously technologically-advanced enough to build the Great Pyramid(s), possibly the most impressive building(s) of all time. BTW- Comparing Robert Temple to Erich von Daniken is roughly equivalent to comparing Stanley Kubrick to Michael Bay. PS- Do you "skeptics" have an explanation for the 10,000+ year-old Yonaguni monuments???

Tcob44 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've read it. Believe me, I've read it. The book has been sitting on my shelf since 1976. I opened it again just now and found inside a photocopy of an article from Fortean Times titled Dogon Shame which doubtless you could have found on the internet: http://www.philipcoppens.com/dogonshame.html. When you have the facts to back up your argument, please publish them and add the reference to Wikipedia. It will be a useful addition to our knowledge and preferable to unsupported speculation which, as you may know, has no place here. Skeptic2 01:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As a picture is worth a thousand words, I've placed an image of the hieroglyph for Sothis (who was identified with Isis) on the page. Speaking of "unsupported speculation", do you have any evidence of "cultural contamination"? Even according to the 'Skeptical Enquirer' article : "There is no mention in the missionaries' summary reports of their activities that they discussed Sirius with the Dogon." And are we supposed to believe that Griaule and Dieterlen told them about Sirius C now?!? It's funny how if church fathers don't believe something, they declare it's a heresy and if skeptics don't believe something, they declare it's a hoax... Tcob44 21:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I see the relevance in that last statement's comparison. I'm assuming that there is an intended contrast here, but I only see semi-synonymous terms.--C.Logan 13:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you read the references it seems that the cultural contaminator may well have been Griaule himself: http://www.geocities.com/martinclutt/ethnogc.htm. Skeptic2 13:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think it's absolutely absurd how often that little section has been re-written. It's not even all that relevant to the star as such. Perhaps it should just be added as a link in the "see also" section? — RJH (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's even more absurd that "skeptics" won't allow other Wikipedia users to hear both sides of the story and make up their own minds, especially considering their own lack of evidence for their unsupported speculation about "cultural contamination". Not to mention, they also feel compelled to delete information which they apparently have personal objections to. Leave the internet censorship to China. Tcob44 14:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is quite along discussion about the whole sorry Sirius Mystery affair in the Dogon people article in Wikipedia. I have added a couple of skeptical references to that section to help readers understand the problems with these claims. Skeptic2 10:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between censoring information and eliminating redundant source. This article is specifically about the star Sirius. The cultural beliefs of the Dogon people are incidental to the subject and are covered in more than sufficient detail on that page. It's also appropriate to continue deleting redundant additions when that material is already covered on the same page (which somebody clearly hasn't bothered to read *cough*). — RJH (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops. You accidentally deleted non-redundant information which neither appears on the Sirius page nor the Dogon page, so I went ahead and corrected your mistake(s) for you. (Specifically, the paragraph about a possible third member from 'Astronomy & Astrophysics' and the Sirius/Sothis information.) Cheers.

Tcob44 14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, you missed the migration of the information about the possible third member to the Observation history section. I went ahead and restored the changes. Slothis was already covered by the "Etymology and cultural significance" section, and so your additions were redundant. Thank you for attempting to check. — RJH (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Robert Temple versus the Skeptical Inquirer stuff strikes me as being irrelevant: they're both red herrings that only seem to obscure what really matters. What is most significant about the Dogon in this article is that Sirius plays an important role in their mythology; the fact that some elements of their mythology match the findings of modern astronomy is interesting, but need it be controversial? All that is needed here is a statement outlining what the Dogon believe about Sirius. How they allegedly acquired specific knowledge of astronomy is a mystery, and is probably beyond the scope of this article. And it is maddeningly condescending coming from both sides: the Temple supporters still insist to this day that extraterrestrial intervention must've happened, and the skeptics believe the Dogon would only be capable of coming up with facts about Sirius if white Europeans came and bestowed the knowledge upon them. How about a third alternative - that the Dogon were capable of evolving their own unique mythology over several centuries, and it coincidentally matched modern astronomical information, and also happened to inspire Temple's speculations about extraterrestrial visitors? (Not that this should be included in the article; I'm just sayin', is all...) My recommendation is to just state the known facts about the Dogon beliefs without trying to determine the veracity of them in the shadow of Temple. Hipsterlady (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Classification of Sirius B

The last paragraph of the lead section was modified to give a spectral classification for Sirius B as "DA...". However I have been unable to confirm this classification and all sources just appear to use DA. Here is the modified text:

"What to the eye appears as a single star is actually a binary star system, consisting of a bright white main sequence star of spectral type A1V, named Sirius A, and a faint white dwarf companion of spectral type DA..., named Sirius B. The dwarf companion is thus categorized as a hydrogen rich white dwarf (DA) with further undescribed peculiarities (the ellipsis "..."). See the System section for a further discussion of the unusual properties of Sirius B."

I removed the discussion of the "DA..." classification until a confirmation can be found. — RJH (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Order of discovery of 40 Eri B and Sirius B

40 Eri B was first observed by Herschel in 1783 (Catalogue of Double Stars, William Herschel, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 75 (1785), pp. 40–126, at p. 73), and by 1862, when Sirius B was first observed, it had been observed again a number of times by the Struves (Astrometric study of four visual binaries, W. D. Heintz, Astronomical Journal 79, #7 (July 1974), pp. 819–825.) So, whether you choose to take discovered as meaning observed or found to be a white dwarf, 40 Eri B appears to have been first. Spacepotato 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

40 Eri B/C was first observed in 1783. It was found to be a binary in 1851. So technically it was discovered in that year. Sirius was found to have a companion in 1844. But as long as it's clear that the "discovery" applies to it's composition as a "white dwarf", rather than its actual discovery, then there's no issue. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
40 Eri B/C was split by Herschel in 1783, and again by Struve in 1825. Spacepotato 20:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle

I may have transgressed WP:NOR a bit too severely this time, but I added the Aristotle quote because how many stars with "tails" in the thigh of the Dog can there be? It certainly lends some context to suggest that some the Dogon observations debated here are not unreasonable - if Aristotle saw Sirius B then the Dogon people could have seen it as well, possibly even deducing the shape and period of its orbit from a normal process of astronomical observation.

Still, this raises the question of how Sirius B could have been brighter in the past (perhaps this is related to the ancient observations of Sirius as a red star?). Mike Serfas 07:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sirius B was brighter in the past, and at one time it may have been a Red Giant. But that would have occurred millions of years ago. I think any of these descriptions could be ascribed to observational error, literary or cultural misinterpretation, or horizon effects. Occam's razor seems the appropriate tool here, unless records from independent locations (e.g. China) corroborate the observations. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I should clarify I wasn't imagining it as a red giant, which is inconsistent with observation. Nonetheless, a relatively small amount of infalling matter should be able to make the white dwarf visible through formation of an accretion disk (Given that the white dwarf is the size of Earth, and it only needs to be about nine times brighter to be visible to the naked eye). Of course, I can't put wild speculation like that in a Wikipedia article, but it seems notable for the article that we know of two, maybe three, maybe more cultures looking at this one star system and noticing something about it that doesn't match its current appearance. Mike Serfas 02:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The Aristotle quote still appears very vague to me. It seems to me that if he meant Sirius—the brightest star in the night sky—then he would have said as much. The fact that he didn't specifically mention Sirius tends to lead me to believe he meant a fainter star without a unique name. But I do find it curious that Chinese astronomers, who recorded supernova events that others missed and much of which lies at a lower latitude than Rome, apparently did not note a red Sirius. Still, anything is possible.—RJH (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Holberg's book has a good discussion on the whole Red Sirius thing and I was planning to expand upon it and reorganise a little. There is alot of discussion about it in the book so we don't have to stay into OR. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Update

Sorry, I had to remove Aristotle passage. The webpage link talks about M41 and does not really talk about Sirius at all, apart from commenting on a 'star south of it' and linking to M41. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Heliacal rising today versus 3rd m. BC

The article says: "The Middle Kingdom of Egyptians based their calendar on the heliacal rising of Sirius, which occurred just before the annual flooding of the Nile and the summer solstice." Question: Has the heliacal rising of Sirius drifted forwards (presently late July) in the last four thousand years? -- Fullstop 17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because of precession of the equinoxes. According to Oppolzer (quoted on p. 370, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 34 (1915), pp. 369–373) the heliacal rising of Sirius at Memphis and the summer solstice should have coincided around 3,000 BCE. Spacepotato 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. -- Fullstop 20:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Working towards an FA (?)

I can see lots of activity on this so presume follks are buffing it up for FAC (?); at least Sirius has some rich folklore about it to mix it up with some of the drier stuff. I've tried to flesh it out a bit so far. Anyone taking the lead on this. A to-do list? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I've started to make a modern legacy bit.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that if this article was up for FA, I'd have to challenge that quote by Aristotle. It seems to have little or nothing to do with Sirius. The only relevance is that it is in the neighborhood on the celestial sphere. Also I am of the opposite opionion concerning the folklore; it is the least interesting part of the article. There should be more physical information about Sirius, including the kinematics, in order to call this article comprehensive. (The article doesn't even mention why Sirius is no longer considered a member of the Ursa Major Moving Group, for example.) Thanks. — 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall (talk • contribs)
  • Good point - astronomy is not my strong point but I did like it alot as a kid. Not sure where to find authoritative info. I am reading Sirius:Brightest Diamnod in the Night Sky at present. If you have a good ref for hte Ursa Major point that would be great to add. I have mused on layout and feel that having Etymology and Cultural Sig. all in one at bottom suits star pages better than planets and bio articles.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'll try to dig up some more astronomy details. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Google Sky

Did anyone notice that in Google Sky Sirius A has been cut out with a big orange shape? I don't really know what to make of it. - (Linguist_Writer_MentalPatient) 20:39 12-28

;-) Said: Rursus (☻) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

External link

This page talks about deriving a calendar based on Sirius. What benefit is there to readers of this article in having this link at the end of the article? At best it's a curiosity... Mike Peel (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion...delete? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this link from Professor Kaler's page couldn't be included as an external link? I believe it was in there at one time.

There's also an APOD of Sirius B in x-ray:

Finally there's a nice article on the Chandra site about the whole Dogon/ruddy thing:

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep - agree, they all add something extra, are reputable and good directions to go for further study. Done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations in lead

Are the citations of every fact in the lead necessary? They slightly disturb the flow, and every fact in the lead is mentioned and cited in the article proper. Ashill (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that I am not fond of them but Wikipedia:Lead_section#Citations this suggests inline reffing of controversial points. I have found at FAC that erring on the side of more rather than less is prudent. Frustrating I know....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not my reading of the policy; it only says that "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited" in the lead -- there's nothing controversial about any of the material in this lead, and it's all cited elsewhere in the article. But I don't feel strongly. Ashill (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on changing of order of article at FAC currently

Marskell and I have been discussing article order (Moved from FAC page):

My main concern is rationalization. Observational history covers both culture and some of the science. The System section subsequently seems weak in comparison. And then at the end we return to culture. Hm. I must say a fine job has been done tracking down cultural references and ancient observation. Marskell (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(Yep. Has been tricky to figure out what goes where. Originally the Observational History section began with a sentence from antiquity and then jumps to Edmund Halley, whereas I figured ancient material directly related to observation and navigational use e.g. heliacal rising etc. should go there instead of at the cultural significance section, which I left for symbolism etc. I suppose one could quite easily put the 3 paras, say, on discovery of Sirius B/spectrum of Sirius B and Hertzsprung/moving group para into the system bit. If all the astronomers think its a good idea I am happy to do it for consensus' sake.) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm no astronomer :). Just an editor that thinks ToCs are critical. OK, one possible reorganization would be something like this:
  • Everything in Observational history after the paragraph beginning "In 1844..." gets moved to the System section, with para's into Sirius A and B, accordingly.
  • Move Visibility and System above history—this prioritizes the science.
  • The now smaller Observational history gets renamed Early observation (and navigation, maybe).
Note this would break up the attempt at a chronological presentation but it would keep the scientific data together. This can be discussed on article talk, to avoid lengthening this. Marskell (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, it becomes hard to fulfil all criteria but am happy to follow consensus. Hopefully the others will voice opinions there. I can see issues with varying order as most other astronomical FAs have history of observation as a first or section, and I do like ordered sequence of sections for conformity.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Other opinions?

Actually, to update, I have moved all info on Ursa Major group to system now and removed duplicated ref as well as trimmed some text. This leaves a nice coherent subsection on the discovery and early observation of Sirius B. Given the layout of other astro articles, my preference would be with the way as it is now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Astronomical articles with some form of observational history/discovery at the top

Yes

No

Abbreviation mas

Hi, I am not confident with this english abbreviation mas: In chapter Sirius A: ...giving an estimated angular diameter of 5.936±0.016 mas. What does that mean? Thank you in advance! --FrancescoA (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Milliarcsecond. I linked it. Ashill (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! --FrancescoA (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Visibility

The visibility of the star Sirius in the middle and upper-middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere is a freak of procession of the equinoxes. Sirius lies almost 40 degrees south of the ecliptic, and only because the point of the ecliptic closest to it is well to the north of the equator is the star visible as far north as it is. About 14,000 years ago or 12,000 years from now the position of Sirius was/would be around 62° S, precluding its visibility north of 28° N, precluding visibility from places farther north than Tampa, Florida or New Delhi, India. This can be verified from star-gazing software.

Original research?Paul from Michigan (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The positions of all stars change because of precession. I don't think there's a particular reason to single out Sirius as a so-called "freak". The only reason this is usually of interest is that certain stars serve as pole stars during some part of the precession cycle.—RJH (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's notable because it is Sirius, the brightest star except for the Sun as viewed from the Earth. It is a freak of time that Sirius, so far south of the ecliptic, is visible as so far north as Barrow, Alaska, and that about 12,000 years ago it won't be visible north of Tampa, Florida. Nobody cares so much about the more 'ordinary' stars.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Greek evolution of the article

I remember two years ago this article had the GREEK name Sirius in Greek letters on the first line inside parentheses. I suppose that since then some predators with good intentions have made the necessary steps to remove it. And to hide this act they needed an excuse. I quote from the article: " from Greek Σείριος (Seirios, "glowing" or "scorcher"),[85] although the word is possibly not of Greek origin ". possibly not Greek??? what does that mean? and without any reference to support it?? Possibly? Very scientific, very academic and very informative!! Congratulations! However, I have corrected it and added a citation and also a link which presents more than 15 ancient Greek references to the Greek word Seirios. Since we are dealing with a Greek word I suggest that the Greek word is not removed again since it is common practice in wikipedia for names to have the original language word in parentheses in the first line of the article. Kassos (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Kassos - I am sorry if the article didn't explain it - yes the word is in ancient greek, but the theory is that it was somehow imported from somewhere else as etymologically it doesn't add up. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The article did not explain it because there isn't an explanation. And still with the changes you made, it does not explains it. And certainly does not prove it. We are not interested in speculation and unproven theories. Everyone can have his theories. You present no etymological analysis and no reference. And if you want to analyze this etymologically you will start a very big discussion with many theories. Not every word must 'add up' to be Greek. We are not dealing with dinosaur names here. So please don't start theories. The fact is you are using a Greek name which is used ancient Greek literature. Someday people like you with your 'imported' theories will have to respect Greek history and also should accept suggestions rather than throwing lines with implications.

Kassos (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed lead change

To remove the (to me) unnecessary and distracting clutter from the lead paragraph, I propose changing it to the following:

Sirius is the brightest star in the night sky with a visual apparent magnitude of −1.47, almost twice as bright as Canopus, the next brightest star. Pronounced /ˈsɪɹiəs/,[1] Sirius has the Greek name Σείριος[2] and the Bayer designation α Canis Majoris (α CMa, or Alpha Canis Majoris). What the naked eye perceives as a single star is actually a binary star system, consisting of a white main sequence star of spectral type A1V, termed Sirius A, and a faint white dwarf companion of spectral type DA2, termed Sirius B.

Any thoughts?—RJH (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Much improved and less clunky. To be consistent with the etymology section, I might change the second sentence to
Pronounced /ˈsɪɹiəs/,[3] the name Sirius is derived from the Ancient Greek Σείριος.[2] The star has the Bayer designation α Canis Majoris (α CMa, or Alpha Canis Majoris).
Without the brief etymological note, it's not clear why the Greek name is worth including in the introduction, and I don't want to see it removed as I'm sure that would lead to a protracted discussion I'd prefer to avoid. :) ASHill (talk | contribs) 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That works for me.—RJH (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with RJH's proposal of the introduction and I also agree with Ashill's proposal of the change of the second sentence. However, we must not overlook the 'Etymology and cultural significance' section in which we currently have: 'although the Greek word itself may have been imported from elsewhere before the Archaic period.[citation needed]'. Are we looking for a citation which speculates other origins rather than proving them? Why include such a theory?Kassos (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I searched but was unable to find a reference for the pre-Archaic import, so it is unclear where that came from. It's probably not strongly relevant to the article unless somebody can dig up some interesting historical correlation.—RJH (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Casliber added the assertion, and I tagged it as needing a reference (with a slight rewording to, I hope, more clearly reflect what (s)he said here on the talk page). I too searched briefly without finding anything, although I don't have ready access to Liddell and Scott, which seems the most likely place. I assume that Casliber has a reference somewhere. I see no harm in leaving the phrase up for the time being, but not longer than a few days. ASHill (talk | contribs) 19:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

is siriusresearchgroup a reliable source?

During the era of the Middle Kingdom, Egyptians based their calendar on the heliacal rising of Sirius, namely the day it becomes visible just before sunrise after moving far enough away from the glare of the sun. This occurred just before the annual flooding of the Nile and the summer solstice,[18]

Citation 18 is ^ The Sun Behind The Sun — A Special Day In Egypt's Remote Past. The Sirius Research Group (December 2004). Retrieved on 2006-07-04.

I tried to read that reference, but got an impression of pseudo-research. Also, doesn't Sirius, at right ascension of 6 hours 45 minutes, rise after the solistice and not before?

I added a reference. The cited book states that the "heliacal rising of Sirius occurred at summer solstice around 3000 BC (Schaefer 1987). The event marked the rising of the Nile and the start of the year. As such, the star appears to have served as the primary calibrator of the Egyptian calendar for at leat two millenia, starting with the First Dynasty (Krupp 1983)." Hope this helps. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked this using http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8611/star_eph.htm, using latitude of 27 for Egypt, Sirius's RA of 6.75 and declination of -16 degrees, I found that Sirius rises at 5:22 on July 20 and the Sun rises 5:25, just 3 minutes later. Earlier than July 20 and the Sun rises before Sirius. When the Sun rises Sirius would be about 40 degrees away. But at June 20 the Sun rises at 5:09 and Sirius rises a full two hours later. Please could someone fix this or explain what I have misunderstood? -84user (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Using that tool, how do you set the date to 3000 BCE to compensate for precession?—RJH (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That's today; due to the precession of the equinoxes, the timing was different then. According to the source RJH added, it rose with the Sun about May 27–30 in 3000 B. C. E. (See the first full paragraph on p. 500.) ASHill (talk | contribs) 19:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The Sirus Research Group is run by the amateur astronomer Uwe Homann. You might want to see this.[2] and [3] -- I'd say it's not a reliable source.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the ref is concerning at best, based on that. I've removed it, as it's not needed anymore anyway. ASHill (talk | contribs) 20:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is an astronomer. Said: Rursus (☻) 17:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Jay B. Holberg

Concerning the line posted by Casliber in the Etymology section: "although the Greek word itself may have been imported from elsewhere before the Archaic period.[86]"

I quote from Holberg p.15-16: "The precise origin of the name Sirius itself is obscure, it is certainly not Arabic, like many of the most familiar stars in the sky, such as Vega and Deneb, nor is it strictly Greek, such as the stars Arcturus or Procyon. The early Greeks often simply reffered to Sirius as the "the dog" or "the dog star". The name Sirius (Σείριος) first appears in the 7th century B.C., in the poem Works and Days by Hesiod. Although the bame Sirius may well be associated with the Greek word Σείριος ("seirios"), meaning searing or burning, the Ancient Greeks themselves were uncertain as to the source of the name. It is likely pre-Greek, possibly of Indo-European origin. This is suggested by the sacred Hindu texts, the Vedas, which originated in about 1500 BC, and refer to Sirius as Tishiya and by other variations that are also echoed in the ancient Iranian Tishtrya. If these names bear any linguistic relation to the word Sirius, then the origin of the name is indeed very old and its genesis is lost in the prehistoric movement of peoples of the Near East and eastern Mediterranean."

1) speculations, speculations, speculations....The worse etymologic and unsupported linguistic analysis I ever saw. In other words he says: Although ancient Greeks called it Seirios (as we call it today), it may have not been of Greek origin because Hindu called it Tishiya and Iranians Tishtrya!! Furthermore no enough attention is given to the fact that Greeks associated Seirios with heat and the name seirios itself means scorcherer or burning, ie it is associated with heat!

2)We consider valid the ancient Greek opinion only when it suits us. I quote: "the Ancient Greeks themselves were uncertain as to the source of the name". Why would they be uncertain about the origin of the name if it is associated with heat? And why the Amazons article of wikipedia does not consider the ancient Greek opinion valid of the word 'amazon' even though the ancient Greeks were certain about it (Wikipedia article calls the ancient greek opinion 'naive'!! Maybe they know better. The amazons were part of Greek history, not Iranian, get it right. Greek called them 'amazon' as we call it today. Iranians called it 'hamazakaran'. Which of the two words more closely relates to the word amazon? The Greek'amazon' or the Iranian 'hamazakaran'. These two words have different meanings. I am just asking where you get your etymological inspirations.

3) I quote from Holberg: "The early Greeks often simply reffered to Sirius as the "the dog" or "the dog star." Yes the early Greeks. But the Greeks that followed after Homer all call it exactly as SEIRIOS. You may want to look at this link to see which ancient Greek texts call it 'dog star' and which 'Seirios'. http://www.theoi.com/Titan/AsterSeirios.htm Let's be precise about this matters.

4) I quote from Holberg: "nor is it strictly Greek, such as the stars Arcturus or Procyon." I wonder what strictly Greek means here. A synthetic word like procyon? Or a well known Greek word like Arctos?

5) I quote from Holberg: "If these names bear any linguistic relation to the word Sirius, then the origin of the name is indeed very old." The word 'if' used here. Who is to decide that? And based on which analysis? I haven't seen any valid analysis.

6) I quote from Holberg: "its genesis [name of sirius] is lost in the prehistoric movement of peoples of the Near East and eastern Mediterranean". Is this a reference to the Indo-European THEORY? In other words one single tribe who became black hindu and white european?

Conclusion: I suggest the line posted by Casliber be removed as it is not based in any scientific analysis, it is a speculation which is unproven and is misleading. Kassos (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Holberg is clearly a reliable source, and the book quoted above clearly makes a statement which supports the current wording in this article. The wording in the source is speculative, and the wording in the article effectively reflects the speculative nature of the source. A speculative reliable source is fine for Wikipedia; unpublished criticism of his etymological analysis is not. Moreover, the reference is there for any reader interested in further investigating the claim.
I've frankly had enough of this discussion; unless we're actively trying to be pro-Greek, there's nothing problematic that I see in the wording. (I see no argument from Kassos about any anti-Hindu or anti-Iranian bias in the article, even though the facts presented in this discussion could be twisted to make such a claim.) ASHill (talk | contribs) 15:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying he is not a reliable source. I'm saying he does not prove anything. Very simply. I'm criticizing the fact that you accept speculations. But you say speculation is accepted by wikipedia. That is fine. And anyway it's not his analysis, he has his references too. But I wonder what a reliable source is and what is the definition of a reliable source which we can all accept. You may think I pay too much attention to details. If you come from where I come from you tend to treat historical details will great caution. A reliable historical analysis is a very relative term. Is a reliable historical analysis one which is done by a person who holds a degree in history? Then you can try many Skopian historians and many American historians who support them and say that Alexander the Great was not Greek. Go to the wikipedia Alexander article. It changes everyday. Now it says he was Greek. A month ago it just said he was Macedonian. There are two nations now arguing about the history of Macedonia. Where are the 'reliable sources' now to solve the problem? I ask. You see we cannot agree on Alexander, how can we agree on Sirius? For us Greeks, to deny the Hellenic origin of Macedonias, Tojans, Spartans, Cretans, Minor Asia tribes (as is done by many 'historians') is not acceptable. This is the reason why I pay attention to details. And therefore when I see the Greek name Seirios been deleted from the first line, as it happened before I posted the anti-greek evolution section, I get a bit suspicious. And I'm sorry you had enough of this discussion. But if I find a reliable American source that totally contradicts your speculation be sure I will post it.130.88.165.30 (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Given that you deny the validity of long-established scholarly concepts, such as the Indo-European culture and the Sumerian invention of writing, your historical perspective is, at best, a fringe view and, let me be frank, I treat it with as much caution as you seem to treat the mainstream. You are trying to spin astronomical articles to reflect a biased, pro-Greek view that isn't supported by the historical evidence. For that reason I don't trust any revisions that you might make. Serendipodous 16:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem to forget those who deny more established historical facts like the Hellenic origin of Macedonians. This is a fact which no one in the scientific world cares to support for the sake of the truth. I guess they shouldn’t really, because that would make them pro-Greek. Instead they like to devote time to theories of Indo-europeans and Sumerians (and Dinosaurs) that nicely serve some peoples’ intentions. May I remind you that Sumerian civilization was totally invented by American universities the last 100 years. There goes your great Sumerian civilization. Your reluctance to mention who really proposed Heliocentrism is, in my opinion, not justified. As I said, I think that if it was a Babylonian you would not forget him. I did not propose anything radical in Sirius’ article or your article. I don’t see why you should not trust me. I gave you the facts about Aristarchus. You don’t want to include them. I applause the fact that ASHill re-entered the Greek origin explanation in the introduction. But, as I said, it was deleted by someone in the first place. Kassos (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Kassos, the article as it stands now says Greek word itself may have been imported from elsewhere - note the bolded 'may'. Now if this had been some highly controversial fact, like 'X' person may have been homosexual/illegitimate/a member of some racist organization etc. then, yes, speculation is not warranted. But this is a star. All Holberg means, when I did study Ancient Greek this was true of some words, is that (I suspect) some classical scholar has noted the unusual nature of the word and proposed it likely came from elsewhere more recently than the core of the vocabulary. The rest of the book is well-researched and presented as thoughtful and sober. I would like to find more information on where the idea came from. I feel the article is more interesting and of greater benefit with the one-liner than without. I will hunt around and see what I can dig up on the issue. Note that the article still states teh word is Greek prominently in the lead as to all intents and purposes it is. More later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am a sometime student of diachronic linguistics, and my impression is that Kassos knows more about this, and about Greek, than myself, and probably than Holberg too. This does happen quite often at Wikipedia, and it is a good thing, that people with expertise in one area note infelicities, or even errors, in scholars who write about topics outside their own areas. Casliber will remember a Frence professor of English literature, who published a passing comment that experts would not accept. I think Kassos should be taken seriously here.

On the other hand, I think Casliber should be taken seriously. Wikipedia policies are deliberately designed to allow good faith editors to freely supply content from reliable sources. We all know this does not guarantee truth. Even reliable sources make errors. However, the point is, Wikipedia needs to provide readers with verifiable content. The expertise of editors, even when they all agree, is not objectively verifiable for a reader. Wiki editors are anonymous, their identities unverified. The bottom line is that Wiki would prefer to be wrong but based on published sources, than right without any published backing.

There is also a simple semantic issue here. Kassos is quite correct, Holberg speculates. This is unsatisfying, especially to those of use who are used to etymological arguments, which present evidence for their guesses, so successfully in fact that a great deal of linguistic history has been written. However, again Casliber is right to note that Holberg is no irresponsible fringe theory etymologist, he qualifies his comments appropriately. If Holberg has done any wrong, it appears to me his error is in not citing his sources. But the semantic issue is that Holberg makes the qualified assertion that something is not known to exist. The semantics of scepticism is disprovable only by strong evidence for existence. In this case, by reliable sources that consider Sirius to be a native Greek coinage. Kassos proposes the natural association between "burning" and "bright", but we need someone else who says this, since I suspect this possibility did not elude Holberg.

In short, we do have a published source, it may be less reliable than Kassos, but a reader cannot check Kassos' views in a library, sadly he is not verifiable. Regarding Kassos' points:

1) Speculations: are the normal scientific method, it is only when they are asserted as certainties incommensurate with evidence that it is considered improper. Tishiya and Tishtrya are quite plausible antecedents for seirios, both languages are well known and are standard reference points in establishing Indo-European etymologies.

2) Self-testimony: "The Ancient Greeks themselves were uncertain as to the source of the name". Kassos asks, "Why would they be uncertain about the origin of the name if it is associated with heat?" Well, we need to read the Greek sources don't we, one thing is for sure, the Greeks new it meant burning, but did not consider this adequate to explain its derivation. That is very strong support for Holberg's case.

3) Dog Star: Kassos kindly provides a source that supports Holberg's observation that diachronic linguistics notes a change in usage. Sirius only seems to have entered the Greek language at a particular point in recorded history.

4) "Strict" Greek: would appear to mean words native to a speech community or derived from existing lexis, as opposed to lehnwörter or loanwords (like loanword in English). The borrowing or coinage of seirios appears to happen within recorded history.

5) If: is a "hypothetical particle". If we know something for certain, we don't use if we use since. Since English readers undertand this well, if looks like the right word to signal to readers that what follows is uncertain.

6) Ancient Migration: ancient migrations are very well documented. Late antiquity gives us the Italian state of Lombardy, from the Germanic tribes who conquered it. There are very many such examples. English is a name derived from another migration of Germanic peoples. Chinese and Meso American sources also document migrations. Holberg does not mention Indo European migration, which is infered rather than documented. Rather, he refers to Ancient Near East migrations which are now very well documented indeed, literally hundreds of thousands of cuneiform and heiroglyphic sources. One of which, incidently, is the Bible. Yes, Indo European migrations are largely reconstructed (and so too pre Greco-Roman mediterranean movements), however, the fertile crescent has artifact evidence going back almost 10,000 years to the end of the last ice-age, thanks to the peculiarities of its climate.

I'm doing some independent research to see if I can find more about the etymology of seirios. Kassos' proposal seems obviously plausible to me — "burning" for "bright". However, I am not an ancient Greek, and I've not read what they say about their own language in this area. So I'm open to some of the options Holberg offers, though I think he writes of Arabic too quickly, Seir is the name of a village in Lebanon my neighbour comes from. There are several phonemes in Semitic languages that could map to S; additionally, there are several gutterals that are often elided when borrowed or transliterated into other languages.

PS Wikimedia foundation are considering whether a baby Wikipedia in Classical Greek should continue receiving support. See links at my talk page. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Component titles

I raise this here as my attempt at correction was reverted. Concerning section titles, WP:MOSHEAD states:

"Avoid restating or directly referring to the topic or to wording on a higher level in the hierarchy".

I.e. One should avoid using "Sirius" in a section title. In particular, this article has sections named "Sirius A" and "Sirius B". Properly then, the section titles should be "A" and "B".—RJH (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good rule in general (don't name any sections "Observational history of Sirius" or "Sirius System"), but I think we should ignore it here: the subsections are about separate components of the "star" (a single star, as seen with the naked eye, but really a system), and those components are named "Sirius A" and "Sirius B", not "Component A" and "Component B". -Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case, then there should be an exception listed on the MoS. I'll bring it up over there and see what arises.—RJH (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
If you like, although I'm not sure it's necessary, as this is an unusual case. Also, the word used is "avoid", not "do not". We do get to exercise some editorial judgement—we're not entirely bound by the letter of the MoS. -Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I know. Still it's good to run such cases through the MoS in case they may be more general. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it is an interesting test case. Stars are good for this. I always avoided seealso sections but Sirius was the first FA where I felt one was useful. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Per a discussion on the MoS talk page, the WP:MOSHEAD criteria has been clarified. The names "Sirius A" and "Sirius B" are now covered by the new rationale: "...unless doing so is shorter or clearer". Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass of Proxima

RHall, the mass ypu quote is actually a secondary source, is not based on primary data. The mass based on current acknowledged references is 0.11 MΘ NOT 0.12 or 0.123Mʘ as ypu seemed to have referenced. The values you quote are from Baraffe et.al (1998), and not the reference stated in the wiki article. (Read the actual text) They are secondary, as they are obtained by the MLR (Mass-Luminosity Relationship) measurements and the theoretical mass-luminosity relation, with an assumed 5% error. I.e. Read Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 1998, A&A, 337, 403. Considering the gross errors, it would be best to say the mass was 0.11Mʘ or 0.12MΟ. The MLR accuracy, if you want to use this quote, the value should be 0.12M at best. Based on the primary source of mass via the orbital and distance values, 0.11±0.05Mʘ is much better. Frankly, if I was being difficult, 0.11±0.05MΟ is the about the current result, but the difference between 0.11 and 0.12 is insignificant to what we presently know about this star.

Note : Please be aware that not every value quotes by some source is definitive. The result is derived from the parameters that are defined by the paper presented. Whist a paper in 2008 might seem good, it does not mean that the measure is right. It only means the criteria of the assessment was standardised across the examination of the paper

(1) Please sign your posts; (2) Please post to the correct talk page. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. RHall, the mass ypu quote is actually a secondary source, is not based on primary data. The mass based on current acknowledged references is 0.11 MΘ NOT 0.12 or 0.123Mʘ as ypu seemed to have referenced. The values you quote are from Baraffe et.al (1998), and not the reference stated in the wiki article. (Read the actual text) They are secondary, as they are obtained by the MLR (Mass-Luminosity Relationship) measurements and the theoretical mass-luminosity relation, with an assumed 5% error. I.e. Read Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 1998, A&A, 337, 403. Considering the gross errors, it would be best to say the mass was 0.11Mʘ or 0.12MΟ. The MLR accuracy, if you want to use this quote, the value should be 0.12M at best. Based on the primary source of mass via the orbital and distance values, 0.11±0.05Mʘ is much better. Frankly, if I was being difficult, 0.11±0.05MΟ is the about the current result, but the difference between 0.11 and 0.12 is insignificant to what we presently know about this star.

Note : Please be aware that not every value quotes by some source is definitive. The result is derived from the parameters that are defined by the paper presented. Whist a paper in 2008 might seem good, it does not mean that the measure is right. It only means the criteria of the assessment was standardised across the examination of the paper.Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you okay?—RJH (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Karlheinz Stockhausen

The rumored statements concerning Karlheinz Stockhausen are not covered on the composer's article, so I have to wonder why are they even mentioned here? This doesn't have any significant cultural ramifications that I can see, so I believe it is basically trivia. I think that should be merged into the Karlheinz Stockhausen article and, at best, he can be linked under the Sirius "See also" section. Perhaps also there is an article somewhere about people who claim to be from other planets? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I happen to be working on this in connection with the article on the composer, which is why I came to flag the statement here. There is in fact a substantial composition by Stockhausen titled Sirius, on which I am preparing an article, and which was the precipitating factor for these "rumored statements". They have been distorted and exaggerated by journalists such as McEnery and Service (the two sources quoted here), so part of my task is to settle what Stockhausen actually said, as opposed to what he is claimed to have said.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Good luck with your search.—RJH (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ "sirius". Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. Retrieved 2008-04-06.
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Liddell was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "sirius". Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. Retrieved 2008-04-06.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sirius/Archive_1&oldid=1144739932"