This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
can someone explain how Orion moves across the sky? Does he stay in the south all night, all winter? Or does he move each day or as the season changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.183.14 (talk) 00:29, December 16, 2004
I was going to give a really basic explanation, but that doesn't seem necessary; instead, let's try this way: Each night, you get to see nearly half of the sky; so if you could see Orion rising at sunset, by sunrise it would be setting across the sky. As the year progresses, you happen to see it for just a few hour, or sometimes you just don't; it may be lying all the way behind the Sun. So if you look to the night sky everyday at the same time, you would see it slowly moving, in a year-long cycle.
Does the paragraph with directions for finding other stars (southeastward/northwestward) work at all times of the year from both northern and southern hemispheres? --Scott DavisTalk 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
It most certainly do. The relative position of the stars do not change with the seasons, neither by you moving in the surface of the Earth (moving to the northern or southern hemisphere). You may see a different part of the sky at different times of the year, but the parts themselves do not change. If you can't find a star, it may be below the horizon, or you're standing in a place with too much light-pollution to see it. Tanketai 16:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
when and by whom was the Orion Constellation named? Was it an actual person, or it its name simply taken from Greek Mythology?
extra Mythology
ok, did you know that when Orion sets, Scropio rises (Artemitis and Apollo put both of them in the sky). His ankle was pinched by the scropion, which is why the ankle sets last.Dogmanice 04:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong information in orion guide picture
The star names in the guide to orion are wrong.
The image clearly shows the stars of the constellation, yet indicates stars from other constellations as the names. For instance, procyon in the image is in fact betelgeuse. You can check the real position of the stars named in the picture on this page: [1]. I'm not good enough with drawing programs to correct the problem myself though.
The star names are lables for the arrows rather than the stars. Hence the colours. I improved the caption, maybe it helps. – Torsten Bronger 08:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Any bow references?
I seem to recall hearing that there is an asterism off of Orion's left shoulder depicting a bow, aimed more or less at Taurus the Bull. Visually, this description seems stunningly accurate and indeed almost obvious. But can anyone verify legends or references to this effect? Baccyak4H 18:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this asterism, a long curved line of faint stars, does look somewhat like a bow. However it is conventionally interpreted as the skin of a lion which he is holding up as a shield [or matador's cape?] against the charge of Taurus the Bull. Its interpretation as a bow is precluded by another asterism to Orion's right [i.e. left or east of him as we see him half-facing us in the Northern Hemisphere], which is conventionally taken to be his upraised arm and club - skilful hunter though he was, even he could not wield a bow & arrow and a club simultaneously!40.0.96.1 (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In Regards To Mayan Mythology
I read somewhere that the constellation Orion plays a big part in the Mayan's predictions about the end of the world in 2012. Would this be the appropriate place to mention that? If not, where do I say something about that? - Katami 01:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Mayan culture predits the end of the world/humanity in 2036, coinsiding with a potential meteor strike that has only recently been calculated. 2012 in mayan culture is the end of one of the cycles in the Mayan calander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.8 (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The illustration of an Armenian bas-relief is from User:Vonones; I have moved it from Orion, which deals only with the figure named Orion. It is unsourced; but so is the rest of the section. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Three Kings?
I have not been able to find a source of the three stars of Orion's belt being called the Three Kings, let alone the Three Magi. It is repeated in Arthur Drew's book "The Christ Myth", but he doesn't seem to sight a source, let alone a modern one.
Can anyone give a source and also say in what parts of the world this piece of nomenclature is used? Gilgamesh 42 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't find a single reference that isn't regurgitating the same mish-mash of distorted facts featured in Zeitgeist (Isis virgin birth etc.) Encyclopaedia Britannica doesn't mention it. Perhaps add that citation needed mark? Oh wait, Google indicates it may be called that in South Africa. http://www.psychohistorian.org/astronomy/3konings.html I've modified the text accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.100.104 (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
In Upper Germany it has been the Three Mowers; and it is often the Magi, the Three Kings, the Three Mayrs, or simply the Three Stars...
(Bold-faced by the auhtor.)--Bay Flam 05:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Visibility Dates
The article currently states in the opening paragraph that "Orion is visible in the evening from November to April." This is only for the Northern Hemisphere, correct? Is Orion visible in the Southern Hemisphere in all the other months? --pie4all88 05:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. That goes for both Northern and Southern Hemisphere. The reason you can't see it during the other months is because the Sun is in front of it, or very close to it, glaring it out. --Bark 20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This is why articles aren't supposed to have the perspective of just one hemisphere because it does create genuine confusion of this kind; see the MOS. There was originally hemisphere-neutral wording for Orion's visibility in the article, but someone wasn't happy that the reference cited was a book instead of the Internet, so they changed it to this. Unfortunately, they have evidently forgotten that people live south of the equator. -- B.D.Mills (T, C) 12:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
More on visibility - the following is patently false and I have tagged it:
From mid-northern latitudes, Orion is visible in the evening from October to early January and in the morning from late July to November.
Leaving aside the MOS violation (limited geographic scope), the factual error is of more immediate concern. You can go outside in the evening at this time of the year (February) almost anywhere in the world and see Orion as a prominent feature of the evening sky. (Want proof? Go outside in the evening any time this month and look up.) To state that it is only visible until "early January" is a blatant falsehood, and the only reason I am not able to correct it now is because I lack a good reference on hand that also allows me to fix the MOS violation. Maybe I should restore the original visibility notes, which was consistent with the visibility notes for the other 87 constellations. I know this because some time ago I checked the visibility of all 88 constellation articles, corrected a few and supplied several that were missing. -- B.D.Mills (T, C) 12:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence in question. The 'sources' given as citations did not actually say anything about the months when it is visible. And I checked outside and, yup, Orion's still there, even in February, and doesn't look like it's going anywhere soon! Arsia Mons (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protection?
It seems that this page gets vandalized heavily and persistently by anonymous users. Per Wikipedia's policy, I nominate that this page be semi-protected indefinitely (edits disabled for anonymous users and registered users less than four days old). Is this agreeable? --Bark (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a lot of activity on this article over the last couple of days. 72.161.166.232 (talk·contribs) seems to be the only editor to vandalize the article persistently and he stopped after he was blocked. However, going back through the article history, the last edit which was neither vandalism nor a revert of vandalism was on December 30 by Skeptic2 (talk·contribs) and before then December 18 by 195.137.94.41 (talk·contribs). This article might indeed benefit from some temoporary sem-protection. SWik78 (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I have filed a request for semi-protection on Bark's behalf after his message on my talk page. You don't need consensus on talk to request protection from IP vandalism. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if he was saying that a consensus was necessary for a request to be submitted or if he was asking for an informal consensus from the community to help him decide whether or not to file a request. It's true that there's no requirement for a consensus but I just thought I'd offer my opinion anyways. SWik78 (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I was just asking for an informal consensus. Having more than one person asking for this carries more weight. --Bark (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, having a look at that history, I think it's okay to semi-protect the article indefinitely. —αἰτίας•discussion• 16:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed and declined the semi-protection request. The level of vandalism doesn't really rise to the point at which we normally will semi-protect - and particularly not indefinitely. I see that there have been a couple of warnings and blocks issued, which is good - I'll watchlist this page and keep an eye on it as well, but I don't think semi-protection is necessary here. - Philippe | Talk 17:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You might be surprised. I've had this page watchlisted for half a year or so, and it's the most vandalized page I watch by far. I have no idea why, but that's been my observation. --Bark (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I did in fact review the edit history and came to the same conclusion as the reviewing admin. There is not enough vandalism to semi-protect because we can easily keep this under control. You should have seen the Pablo Picasso article if you think this is bad ;) EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Really? What did Picasso ever do to them? :-) Control is one thing, but if the vandalism is systemic and constant from anonymous users over a wide range of IPs, that seems to me to be a problem. Just so I have an idea of what you guys are talking about, what's the standard? I realize it's subjective, but I'm just curious what your opinion is concerning that. --Bark (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Compare the edit histories of Saturn and Pablo Picasso. You need something like twice the vandalism that this or the Saturn article gets. In case of extreme vandalism over a shorter period you can get semi-protection based on a shorter history of vandalism but then we are talking about something far worse than this or even the Picasso article. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
EconGuy is appropriately conveying my feelings as well. My general standard is that I have to see several acts of vandalism by several different editors, every day before I'll consider protecting the article. I know it's a pain in the rear end, but I take the "encyclopedia that everyone can edit" thing fairly literally (as do most admins right now, I think - at least, I don't get the feeling that I'm radically out of calibration at the page protection noticeboard). Even with multiple acts of vandalism by several editors, we generally work our way up - starting with small protections before going to longer ones. We're just trying to make the vandals get out of the habit of hitting this article. - Philippe | Talk 18:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Well, I have noticed a lot of vandalism recently on this article, but I also have for many other articles as well. We might have to wait if the requests keep getting denied. We need children to edit constructively, that's all. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I know it's not a great deal of comfort, but I've added this page to my watchlist, and I'll keep a fairly close eye on it during my free time for the next few weeks. Hopefully if an admin is visible on the page, the little snerts will choose to spend their time other ways. :-) - Philippe | Talk 18:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well guys, I appreciate the feedback and the watchful eyes. It's a shame. I can only recognize three constellations in the night sky, this is one of them, and this one gets targeted by the hooligans! What are the odds? LOL. --Bark (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion and have previously proposed something similar, without success. Last September, after the kids went back to school, I noticed that all the constellation articles were regularly being vandalized and the frequency has increased since then. I proposed that all edits from non-registered editors be subject to a 2-day quarantine period before they appeared, during which time they could be verified. This would retain the "anyone can edit" principle but would dissuade vandals. This proposal was not accepted. I decided that I have better things to do with my time than try to sweep water uphill so I gave up bothering. How much garbage and profanity gets into kids' essays as a result is anyone's guess. Skeptic2 (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Eight intermediate revisions in 56 minutes! I think we're contending against Picasso at that rate, LOL. --Bark (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Puzzling assertion in lede
The last para of the lede starts "The constellation is also known as an "Amber" in other Commonwealth countries such as the United Kingdom."
I've had an active interest in Astronomy for over 40 years (read it as a [UK] undergraduate, helped to run an Astronomy club, etc), but I've never heard of such a thing and, indeed, don't understand what 'a constellation being known as an amber' is supposed to mean. Has a meaningful sentence been vandalised? (Sorry, my Wiki-fu is not up to studying page histories.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It was added in this edit on December 5, 2006. I looked pretty hard, and I can't find any documentation supporting this, so I'm removing it for now.--Pharos (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That nice poem in Romanian
Can somebody put a translation, or at least a comment, of that nice poem in Romanian about Orion?
Most of the readers don't even know it is in Romanian.
This is something I picked up in astronomy class in the 1960's. If you look at the bottom half of Orion, and tilt the picture to where the belt stars are titled slightly to the right, you will see the outline of a Scottie dog.
I've uploaded a new photo of the Orion Constellation. While at high resolution, it admittedly doesn't look so good, at the size to replace the current photo of the constellation, it looks pretty decent. I would suggest replacing the current photo, which includes many background stars, with this new one, which does not discern the background; it only shows a black background, making the constellation stars more obvious in the night sky.
Reply here to state how you feel. Offer support or opposition, and after a reasonable amount of time and votes, we shall see what the consensus is.
Thanks. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Current image used in articleNote that the current photo, shown lower right, may be high resolution, but when viewing at that resolution, has obvious JPEG artifacts and has no circular stars. All stars are squares. So I don't see the quality issue being very debatable. Just throwing that in... ~ Wadester16 (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't vote for either of these two. The first shows rather fewer stars than can be seen with the naked eye on a clear, dark night, while the second shows far more than the naked eye can ever see and also overexposes details such as M42, Moreover, both photos omit some of the constellation's outlying regions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Glaring omission an indication anti-Arab bias?
This is in regard to the 5 main stars of Orion: Betelgeuse, Rigel, Alnitak, Mintaka and Alnilam. Nowhere is the origin of their Arabic names explained, which is a conspicuous and disturbing omission. After all, if these Arabic star names persist well into the 21st Century, then surely they have great significance to the discovery and historiography of Orion in human consciousness. The question is, why? Also, under 'Cultural Significance' many cultural groups, from Indian to Aboriginal are explained in detail, but again, no mention of the Arabic contribution. The only mention of the Arabic names are in the passage: 'In common with many other bright stars, the names Betelgeuse, Rigel, Saiph, Alnitak, Mintaka, Alnilam, Hatsya and Meissa originate from the Arabic language.' And that's it. Personally, I don't have the knowledge or research at my disposal to expand on this, but would urge others who do to amend this article and set the record straight. An omission like this is so obvious, and so WRONG, it casts doubt on Wikipedia's much-vaunted claims to objectivity and fairness. It is a worrying symptom of the systemic bias witnessed in many areas where acknowledgement of Arab contributions to science and astronomy are either skipped or marginalzed.
78.105.12.229 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the entries on the stars themselves there is discussion on the etymology and cultural significance of their names, in particular Betelgeuse. Skeptic2 (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Bibliography
Someone has added a huge list of books about "constellations generally and their celestial objects". This seems unnecessary for an article on one specific constellation. Should it be deleted? Arsia Mons (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Constellation Size
According to a link in the article "constellation," Orion is ranked 26th (out of 88) in terms of size. This, in my view, disqualifies it from being referred to as one of the largest constellations. Perhaps refer instead to the fact that the main stars of Orion form one of the most prominent asterisms ... or something along those lines.
68.147.230.247 (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Rob the unregistered user.
Yes it certainly does. I just removed "the largest, ", the intro has enough superlatives. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Claim of ownership
I've got a problem here - I have documented recognition from various local, national and international government agencies of my claim of ownership of the stars in the belt region. I basically took this around the world and presented it at each level to the appropriate agency whose responsibility covers such matters, all of which have signed/placed their seal on my documents (if this were 'unlawful', I wouldn't have Condollezza Rice's signature in ink on the front page, which is merely the tip of the iceberg).
It's been a 6 year project to confirm or disconfirm the theory that the current framework of Space Law does not forbid private citizens from property claims, as well as pinpoint the competent organizations involved in this gray area of law beyond national (or Earthly) jurisdiction. Every time I have tried to make mention of this in the article, I feel like it's deleted without even looking at the linked documents and tossed out as "silliness". It's easy and practical to file the concept of claiming space in the "nonsense" category at first glance, and yes, the element of foolishness is heavily interwoven into my original documents.
Take a step back and look at the bigger picture, and with the right kind of eyes, perhaps you'll see the implications for 1. Private citizens interacting directly with the realm of international treaty law, and 2. "Territorial jurisdiction beyond national borders" (Arctic, Deep Sea, Space). It's hard to categorically dismiss those two issues as "silly", and I feel like my project set a precedent here.
I am looking for suggestions on how to best implement this in the article. Work with me, here..Wes.faires (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Watch what you say on the talkpages of real editors. "Or is it that you're just a hater?" is completely unacceptable and I would be happy to support your being blocked if this is common behavior for you. Stay off my talkpage. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Your signatures aren't notraized for one. Besides, I'm afraid it takes more than a simple signature for a property claim. There has to be a record with a government agency that I can call up and ask to verify the information. 192.25.240.225 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
What? Yea they are, and there is a record of everything. Are you guys even reading the docs? User:Wes.faires
Sorry, I already claimed ownership of these stars in 2002. TOO LATE, SUCKER!!
Seriously, enough of this foolishness. Claiming you own something is not the same thing as owning it. If you think it is, I've got a bridge you might be interested in as well. The whole principle of property ownership is set down by laws and governments, which is why the space treaties mention governments and not individuals. Some countries don't have private (or even government) property ownership. If I were to go to Alnilam tomorrow and set up there, there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it unless you went there yourself and had bigger guns. KarlM (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like this is going to take a while. You just don't like it. But the fact is, the claim has been made.
Wes.faires (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry man, I went over there in 2001 to put my personal flag on the surface of Delta Orionis in my superluminal interstellar spacecraft (that I built in my garage from plans on the internet, it combines 237 different designs of perpetual motion machines to work!). If you have a good telescope you can even see my flag waving in the wind (I'm kidding, everybody knows there is no wind in space; unlike those dumbheads who faked the moon landing). Dravick (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
first, perpetual motion machines don't actually work (laws of thermodynamics), and second, there is wind in space: Solar wind (the flag was stiffened with wire or somthing like that) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UNIT A4B1 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be suffering from a delusion that any of us could care less. The purpose of the article is to describe the constellation Orion, not to indulge your histrionics. Please go away. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 19:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Third opinion: For what it's worth, I agree with the other editors here that the text being added by Wes.faires is unacceptable and is unworthy of inclusion. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 14:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Fourth Opinion: I'm sensing a bit of bias here
The camp seems to have split into two groups - "all editors" vs. "User:Wes.faires"
Since I fall into the latter category, I feel I should respond.
This having been my first real edit, I started by asking nicely for insight on including a single sentence referencing a series of factual events surrounding a controversial subject matter. Yes, I was '"Under the delusion"' that this would generate an open discussion, but feedback that ends in 'Go away' didn't really tell me what specifically was wrong with my entry, so months later, I changed the source material to documentation on my project with various world agencies.
The Response included "The person himself is a non-notable, nonentity..." So, nobody actually looked into my material, but someone did take the time to throw an insult disguised as standard-compliant lingo my way. You missed the point. If you hadn't been so quick to disqualify this as an attention ploy, you might have learned something about International Space Treaties and their effect on private off-planet enterprise for the near future.
Oh, and then you tried to ban me.
It now empirically documented that y'all are the bad guys in this situation. Anyone with a neutral point of view can see this by skimming the discussion page. Ganging up on me like that--Look at yourselves! You all should be ashamed.
Over the past few years, you've turned the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" into a heirarchical structure where the "sum of all human knowledge" is in the hands of an editorial ruling classglorifiedbots, apparently incapable of a simple discussion on the discussion page.
I'm over this for the forseeable future, however, if articles like the Nation of Celestial Space and Grand Duchy of Westarctica exist, then the WikiVerse hasn't seen the last of me. Next time I'll come fully prepared for the draconian, archaic principles that govern it. Keep that Nupedia spirit alive!
*Note: Deletion of my contribution to this discussion page and/or subsequent administrative action on this account will only further prove my point.
Have a read at WP:DICK. When "everyone else is against you", chances are you are the problem. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
vandalism?
um why does it say "nigger" in the box near the top of the page? UNIT A4B1 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
oh nevermind it got updated UNIT A4B1 (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
um, what means : jiiopjoijoijipoijipioj ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.6.209 (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The Three Marys
It should be noted that the belt is known as the three Marys, not only in Latin America, but also in Spain and in the majority of the Catholic countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.141.193 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should clarify why 'sword' is within quotations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.64.158 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
In reference to the XKCD graphic;
Seeing how my Western Culture is so sexually sanitized, I am wondering if there are any cultures that consider the sword to be an anatomical feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.245.172 (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Mistake in data: distance to stars
There's an error in the current version. Currently (Nov 1 2012), the article says:
Most of the stars in Orion are thought to be physically associated with each other; the notable exception is Betelgeuse. These stars all lie approximately 1500 light-years from Earth.[6]
This statement is contradicted by the table of 7 stars that appears later in the article. Leaving out Betelgeuse, only 1 of the 6 remaining stars (Alnilam) is anywhere near the stated distance of approximately 1500 light-years. I skimmed articles on specific stars/star systems, which also disagree with the above-quoted text. Notably, the Alnitak article (Zeta_Orionis) says:
Initially thought to be around 1500 light years distant, the Alnitak system's distance was determined to be roughly half that...
using a newer method.
I will leave the correcting to others who may have better sources or more expertise. Oaklandguy (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, need to tweak this bit. begun reworking this. Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the most ancient referral to Orion and Pleiades is in the Bible; [1] Janice208.64.220.209 (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Ancient reference to Orion in Job, book of the Bible
Perhaps the most ancient referral to Orion and Pleiades is in the Bible; [2] Janice208.64.220.209 (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Orion, Ophiuchus and Staal
I have never heard of a character named Ophiuchus in the Orion myth. Nor have any of the readily accessible sources; the only mythic significance I can find for Ophiuchus (and the only one listed for Ophiuchus here on Wikipedia) is a possible connection to Asclepius. But there it is in this article, attributed to The New Patterns in the Sky by Julius D. W. Staal. Does anyone have access to this book and can comment on its authoritativeness? -- Perey (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Revert of edits about ancient Egypt
I rewrote the paragraphs about ancient Egypt in the "Ancient Near East" section for several reasons. An anonymous editor at the IP address 166.216.226.95 reverted my changes, so I want to explain my reasons for the rewrite.
The text that I found here says that the pharaoh Unas is said in the Pyramid Texts to "became great by eating the flesh of his mortal enemies and then slaying and devouring the gods themselves… After devouring the gods and absorbing their spirits and powers, Unas journeys through the day and night sky to become the star Sahu, or Orion." The first part is true (though rather unclear, as this article doesn't say that Unas' spirit eats the gods in the metaphor-laden Egyptian afterlife, not as a living king). It's also true that the texts say Unas becomes Orion. But even though Orion is said to give Unas "Great-Power rank" in the hymn that describes Unas as eating the gods, that doesn't mean Unas ate the gods and then became Orion. If the two events don't even follow each other, the description of Unas eating the gods is a complete digression from an article about Orion.
Second, much of the text about Egypt is sourced to Egyptian Myth and Legend by Donald Mackenzie, published in 1907. That is simply too old to be trusted for analysis of Egyptian religious beliefs, which didn't begin to be properly understood until a couple of shifts in scholarly thinking in the late 1940s and early 1970s. The other main source for the Egypt text is The Oxford Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology (a collection of religion-related articles from the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt), which is recent and reliable. The page range given in the citation is the article on Osiris, which does say that Osiris was identified with Orion. But it does not say some of the things that it is claimed to support, like the aforementioned problematic sentence: "After devouring the gods and absorbing their spirits and powers, Unas journeys through the day and night sky to become the star Sahu, or Orion."
Furthermore, some of the major aspects of Egyptian beliefs about Orion (the god Sah) were missing from this article. So I decided to rewrite the problem paragraphs using a different reliable source, George Hart's Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. The paragraphs I wrote describe how Orion was portrayed in Egyptian art; his relationship with Sopdet, which may be the biggest reason for his religious importance; and his connections with the dead pharaoh and with Osiris and Isis. And they do it with fewer words than the text that was there before. It's not perfect, but I think it's a major improvement. I would like the anonymous editor to explain why he or she thinks the original text was superior to what replaced it. A. Parrot (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate ancient Egypt text
The detailed text about ancient Egyptian beliefs appears in the "Ancient Near East" section. There's a separate "Africa" section that consists of nothing but: "In ancient Egypt, the constellation of Orion was known to represent Osiris, who, after being killed by his evil brother Set, was revived by his wife Isis to live immortal among the stars." There are two problems with that text (it moves the focus to Osiris and his myth rather than Sah-who-was-linked-with-Osiris, and Osiris was usually said to live on in the Duat rather than the stars). But more importantly, Egyptian beliefs should appear in one section or the other. Egypt was part of Africa and of the ancient Near East, so it could legitimately be put in either section, but it should not be repeated like this. A. Parrot (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Bellatrix, left or right shoulder?
Regarding:
"Bellatrix serves as Orion's left shoulder."
Wouldn't it be more natural to use the perspective of the viewer and not Orion? That is, right shoulder instead of left shoulder? --Mortense (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Equally the use of East-West throughout astronomy articles is confusing for the layman if the maps themselves never show that East-West is reversed as to how we expect Macgroover (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Contagious magic
@A. Parrot: - should this really be in the article? Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't wrong, exactly, but it's pretty tangential. Orion appears in that passage of the Pyramid Texts (PT 273–274, the "Cannibal Hymn") but isn't central to it. So I deleted that part. To cover Orion's significance in Egypt more extensively, I used a different source and rewrote most of the Egypt-related text.
The Africa section consists of only a sentence, devoted to Egypt alone and going off on another tangent, this time the Osiris myth. I take no position on whether Egypt should be in the Ancient Near East section, the Africa section, or a section of its own, but obviously it should be covered in only one place. A. Parrot (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2014
This edit request to Orion (constellation) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change "By extending the line of the Belt southwestward, Sirius (α CMa) can be found; northeastward, Aldebaran (α Tau). A line westward across the two shoulders indicates the direction of Procyon (α CMi)." to "By extending the line of the Belt southeastward, Sirius (α CMa) can be found; northweastward, Aldebaran (α Tau). A line eastward across the two shoulders indicates the direction of Procyon (α CMi).
I corrected Osiris the sun-god to... The stars of Orion were associated with Osiris, the man-god of rebirth/reincarnation and the afterlife, by the ancient Egyptians. - Albert Einstein 98.249.252.238 (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Orion consists of 7 stars with 4 being the shoulders and feet + 3 stars of Orion's Belt
I added this most basic description that was missing... Orion consists of 7 stars with 4 being 'the shoulders and feet' while the three stars in the middle of the constellation form a unique asterism known as Orion's belt. - Albert Einstein 98.249.252.238 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The 7 stars of Orion are...
I added this introduction before the list of the 7 stars: The 7 stars of Orion are... - Albert Einstein 98.249.252.238 (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
An editor at the IP address 76.201.60.184 keeps restoring text about Orion's significance in Egypt that I replaced a few days ago: "The stars of Orion were associated with Osiris, the sun-god of rebirth and the afterlife, by the ancient Egyptians." The text I added to this page a few days ago says Orion was connected with Osiris, so there's no reason for the IP to keep adding back the text it replaced unless he or she really thinks Osiris is a sun god. That claim is based on the work of Donald Alexander Mackenzie, who is a seriously outdated source on Egyptian religion. The The Oxford Guide: Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology,, which is cited in the article and is a reliable source, does not say Osiris is a sun god and doesn't say much about Osiris' connection with Orion. Nor does any current RS say Osiris was essentially a sun god. He had solar connections because of his nightly union with Ra in the underworld, but that's not the same thing. Conceptions of God in Egypt by Erik Hornung says at one point "…how many gods and goddesses may be embodied in the form of a lion—or in the sun, in which one may adore almost any of the great deities, including even Osiris!" (p. 126). That clearly implies that Osiris had solar connections but they were far from central to his character. A. Parrot (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It's pretty clear that the IP didn't check the sources, and why the IP would think a deadlink to a school site, which in any case would fail WP:RS, should be replaced is a bit puzzling. The 4th source is just a personal website and thus fails WP:RS. The only good source, as you say, is Redford who doesn't say that. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. As I look into it deeper, there is slight support for the belief that Osiris was originally solar, in a hypothesis that Wolfhart Westendorf put forward in the 1970s. It leans heavily on a speculative etymology for Osiris' name that would connect him with the Eye of Ra, a solar goddess. As Westendorf himself admitted, this etymology would imply that Osiris was originally one of the Eye of Ra-related solar goddesses and changed sex sometime before his first appearance in texts. I know about this hypothesis only because J. Gwyn Griffiths—who also wrote the article on Osiris in the Oxford Essential Guide—spends pages 99 to 106 of The Origins of Osiris and His Cult (1980) taking it apart. I've never seen a more recent source mention it. Griffiths concluded that Osiris was originally a funerary god like Anubis and acquired wider importance through his link with the dead king. More recent sources either accept Griffiths' argument (e.g., [2], pp. 120–123) or say Osiris started as a fertility god (as in Wilkinson 2003, p. 118, or Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt, 2002, by Rosalie David, p. 157).
In any case, Osiris' central traits in recorded history concerned the underworld, kingship, the afterlife, and agricultural fertility. He did develop solar connections, but they weren't fundamental, as Wilkinson 2003 says on page 120:
"[Osiris] came to be regarded not only as the counterpart of Re in the netherworld, but in some cases as the sun god's own body—so that Osiris and Re came to be considered as representing the body and soul, respectively, of a single great god. The solar cycle was thus imagined as the ba of Re descending into the underworld to unite with Osiris as his own corpse. Nevertheless, Osiris and Re maintained independent characteristics, identities, and realms. The fusion of the two gods was mainly a product of New Kingdom theological expression in specific context and Egyptian theology never totally overcame the dichotomy implicit in the idea of Re as lord of the heavens and Osiris as lord of the underworld."
Mackenzie, in contrast, was not an Egyptologist and not as qualified as any of the people I've just mentioned. Moreover, Egyptological thinking about religion underwent a dramatic change from the late 1940s to the 1970s that threw out or greatly modified many of the old assumptions about Egyptian religion (described in The Gods of Egypt, 2001, by Claude Traunecker, pp. 10–11). Wikipedians should therefore use extreme caution when citing any discussion of Egyptian religion in sources from before World War II, even when produced by the most highly qualified Egyptologists of the era, which Mackenzie was not. The IP editor really doesn't have grounds to claim Mackenzie is a reliable source. A. Parrot (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
*sigh*, it doesn't seem that 76.201.60.184 cares at all. AcidSnow (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. He's got a singular devotion to pushing the idea that Hayk, Osiris, Orion, and Jesus are all somehow connected, and except for a small period of conversation with Doug, he either isn't interested or has given up. If he was any more WP:NOTHERE, he'd be on another site instead. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
A community ban would at least allow us to ignore 3rr with him. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been wondering if this is WP:Long-term abuse/Ararat arev, who edited from Los Angeles-area addresses and was interested in Orion and Hayk. I only know Ararat arev by reputation, but you could ask Doug if the behavior seems familiar. And Ararat arev is long since banned. A. Parrot (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Close enough for me, let's just go on ahead and say that it's him. Hell, even if someone where to present good evidence it wasn't him (like Ararat arev's obituary or something), I'd be willing to apply WP:IAR to facts just to get this over with. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Skimming armenianhighland.com—the website where, according to the LTA page, Ararat arev gets (or writes) his ideas—I did find stuff connecting Armenia and Orion with Egyptian solar religion as well as Osiris. And other stuff connecting Christianity with Mithras, whom 66.214.143.68 (obviously the same person as 76.201.60.184) brought up on the Hayk page. Looks probable to me. A. Parrot (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Per a request at WP:AN3 (permalink) I have put indefinite semiprotection on the article. It would make sense if this long-term IP who keeps reverting the article is in fact Ararat arev. It seems like a very determined IP has been trying to change the article the same way for three years or more. That would fit with the past behavior of Ararat arev. If anyone has an interest in updating the SPI records or the LTA record that would be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
AcidSnow I should have thought of this. The friendly contact with me on my talk page is typical of Ararat arev. Thanks Ed. Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Its done, if you guys need more detail I am free to add more. AcidSnow (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Protected this page for 3 days, also Ra. To busy right now on some other Wikipedia stuff to do much more. Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Whether 76.201.60.184 is Ararat arev or not, it is clearly a persistently disruptive editor who has used a number of IP addresses over a long period, so I have blocked the IP address. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Cas Liber, I've semi-protected that and Heliacal rising but it's been suggested on my talk page range blocks might be in order. I referred the editor to our guidance that says "ask on the Administrators' noticeboard or on IRC." Dougweller (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Orion (constellation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
Orion's arrow doesn't always point north. In fact, it never does. Now, two stars that always point north (loosely speaking) would be currently found in the Ursa Major constellation. However, because the earth spins on its axis marking out a cone shape in the sky every 26000 years, even Polaris is not always the north star.
Done by PlanetStar (talk · contribs) at 04:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC). Mz7 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
