Jump to content

Talk:Pleiades/Archive 1

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

Move

I moved the page back to Pleiades (star cluster), because they're just called the Pleiades, not the Pleiades Open Cluster. Have cleaned the article up quite a bit but will leave it to other users to decide if the cleanup tag should stay or go. Worldtraveller 19:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks good, fixed a few minor errors, deleted the cleanup tag :) --Ilikeverin 22:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

etymology

Uhm, doesn't "pleiades" mean "daughters of pleione", and "pleione" being the sea nymph who (presumably) protected those who sailed?

This seems to most obvious meaning to me too. All I can guess is that the name may have predated the myth, which would make this a folk etymology? I've added this speculation, but commented it out pending confirmation. Sure wish sources were cited! Lusanaherandraton 01:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The Greek poetess Sappho mentions the Pleiades, and the fragments that exist of the writing show it in ancient Greek characters.

An image appears at http://bp2.blogger.com/_Rs_uJzqkj0M/SJZLZRVh6kI/AAAAAAAAAIM/ZkijzHzxIzU/s400/Selanna.jpg . SyntheticET (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation

Pronunciations based on the OED, the glossary of Robert Fagles' translation of the Odyssey, and The Zimmerman's Dictionary of Classical Mythology (Harper & Row, 1964).

--kwami

variant names (A)sterope

In the underlying text, there is also the name Sterope. (You'll need to edit to see it.) In mythology this is a variant of Asterope, but they are associated with different stars here. There are several traditions of which star is which Pleiad, and I've seen different star guides which disagree. I don't know whether the modern astronomical community recognizes both names, or uses them to disambiguate more stars than they could otherwise. Maybe someone who knows could add a comment?

--kwami

SIMBAD, the astronomical name database, does not contain an entry for Sterope, but has Asterope as the name for 21 Tauri. I found a web page which says Sterope is 22 Tauri, but SIMBAD doesn't agree. I'd say SIMBAD is authoritative on these things, and so the name Sterope does not appear to be an official name for any of the Pleiades. Worldtraveller 13:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Bright Star Catalogue (Hoffleit 1991) lists "Asterope" and "Sterope I" as alternate names for 21 Tau and "Sterope II" as an alternate name for 22 Tau. I'm not sure why those didn't make it into SIMBAD, but I would consider that authoritative. -- Ketil Trout 10:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Erroneous dust

Can someone with the information please cite a source for the last sentence of the introduction? I haven't read anything that suggests the reflection nebulae are unassociated with the cluster, though admittedly I don't/can't read everything. :) —ZorkFox 04:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Source is Gibson, listed in refs and cited in the main section on the reflection nebulosity. Worldtraveller 08:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I just really wanted to say that "Nebulosity" is now my new favorite word. flowbiscuit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.234.157.129 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Plural of kelvins

Stop deleting the referenced, verifiable standard plural kelvins. Not only have I cited reputable references from the standards-keepers at BIPM and NIST, but it is also covered in the internal article at kelvin. Try these examples as well:

Need more? You've offered absolutely nothing to support any contrary standard, just bald unsupported nonsense in your edit summaries, Worldtraveller. Gene Nygaard 20:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Layout issues

Worldtraveller, whatever you are doing, you are messing up the format of the page. Every time you jump into this revert war, you push the last table into the Folklore section, where it certainly isn't supposed to be. Quite apart from that, it jumbles up everything in that section and looks perfectly dreadful. This is not good for this page. NaySay 06:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if it was me, but I'm not sure if it might not be some display issue with your screen resolution, NaySay, because on my screen here the table appears in its proper place in all recent revisions of the article. Worldtraveller 13:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Well, I edited the page so that it looks good on my screen. Would you take a look at it to be certain I haven't messed it up on yours? I've got my 17" monitor on 1024 x 768, in Windows ME, and I use Netscape. I would hate to think that I made things worse. I hope we can resolve he problem. Thanks. NaySay 16:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well it's probably a bit subjective, but I've edited the image position to try and make it look as good as possible on the two screens I have easily available at the moment, one 17" monitor at 1280x1024 and one 15" at 800x600, with firefox on both. It looks good to me right now - how about you? Worldtraveller 01:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Worldtraveller. It looks fine on mine as well. I think the problem's licked. NaySay 15:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Distance

The second paragraph of the introduction is very confusing. What's the big deal about the Pleiades in particular that makes our whole scale of distance depend on them? This should be explained. A simple "because they are so close" or "because they are the closest open cluster" whould help to clarify, but I don't want to change it because I'm not an expert and don't really know. The paragraph on the subject of distance further down the page explains it a little bit, but could do more. Thanks.--345Kai 12:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clear it up and I took most of the paragraph in the lead out since it was more or less repeated further down anyways.--Kalsermar 16:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Lead sections are a summary of the article content, so the information in them is always repeated further down. I've restored a lengthier second para of the intro and tried to clarify as requested. Worldtraveller 17:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Time to update this section?

There's been some recent news on this front, as reported in Sky & Telescope here: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/community/skyblog/newsblog/10188476.html Basically, the Hipparcos data was exhaustively reanalyzed (it took ten years of work), and while the recomputed Hipparcos positions are now believed to be much more accurate, they still conflict with the distances obtained by other methods. The reanalyzed distance from the Hipparcos data is 399+/-6 light-years, vs. 440+/-7 and 439 ± 10 by two other methods. This is all summarized in the S&T link above, with references to the 3 detailed studies. However, since I'm not really an astronomy type, and very inexperienced with the Wiki, I'm hoping someone else will boil this info down into the Wikipedia article. Macchess (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Distance" section of this article has bothered me for years. All this text here -- "The distance to the Pleiades can be used as an important first step to calibrate the cosmic distance ladder. As the cluster is so close to the Earth, its distance is relatively easy to measure and has been estimated by many methods. Accurate knowledge of the distance allows astronomers to plot a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram for the cluster, which, when compared to those plotted for clusters whose distance is not known, allows their distances to be estimated. Other methods can then extend the distance scale from open clusters to galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and a cosmic distance ladder can be constructed. Ultimately astronomers' understanding of the age and future evolution of the universe is influenced by their knowledge of the distance to the Pleiades." -- is included with absolutely no supporting citations. I believe it may be a relic from the early days of Wikipedia when sweeping statements often went unsourced.

Sadly, the text I quoted is incorrect in almost every way. First, "the cosmic distance ladder" does not rely on the distance to the Pleiades -- check out the current iteration of that Wiki page of that name. The Pleiades are not even mentioned. Second, the distance to the Pleiades has NEVER been precisely known, and even today it remains a matter of debate, as the rest of this Distance section informs us. Third, as the Cosmic Distance Ladder page (and a basic astronomy textbook) will tell you, distance measurements have historically depended on parallax measurements (for nearby objects) and on the luminosity of Cepheid variables and supernovae (for more remote objects), with more and more points of reference emerging as astronomical research progresses.

The quoted text is followed by an attempt at a disclaimer: "Yet some authors argue that the controversy over the distance to the Pleiades discussed below is a red herring, since the cosmic distance ladder can (presently) rely on a suite of other nearby clusters where consensus exists regarding . . . ." This sentence includes a supporting citation, and the information it provides seems very trustworthy.

I move that the 5 italicized sentences that I quoted be deleted, and that the next block of text be modified to accommodate that deletion. As I've argued, all the stuff about the Pleiades being important to the measurement of cosmic distances is simply wrong. Unsourced misinformation of this kind has no place in Wikipedia.

I'll see if anybody has a counter-argument. If not, I will delete the erroneous text within the next 30 days.Thuvan Dihn (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Native Americans header

I'd quote all the erroneous statements, but it's far too much to even bother... But what the f*** does all but the first paragraph have to do with native Americans? I'm a member of the Cherokee tribe myself and was slightly curious if some of the nonsense I sometimes hear from other Cherokees about the tribe regarding Pleiades is mentioned. Instead, I get treated to a treatise about Asian bulls*** within the Native Americans section... not that I have anything against Asia, it's just it has about as much place in this particular section as talks about oranges have to do in an article about Mars. - Lucy Aniwaya 5:33, September 24, 2006 (UTC)


I add that it's written in the "Book of the Hopi" (Penguin Books, 1963) (See Wiki Hopi Mythology [[2]] by respected anthropological historian Frank Waters) that although children and non-initiates are commonly told that the spirits of their Katchinas return annually to the San Francisco Peaks in Arizona, those of higher religious rank are taught that the Katchina dolls actually represent long-departed extraterrestrial beings who came to the Hopis' ancestors from (or from the direction of) the Pleiades in the far distant past and taught them much about farming and living in general. I can't cite the page, but I distinctly recall reading this. Frank Waters based his book on hours and hours of interviews with mainly three Hopi elders who broke a time-trusted tradition of secrecy in order to preserve Hopi ethnic history in grave danger of becoming completely forgotten. I for one, would be fascinated to hear if passed-down Cherokee Pleiades stories are similar to this only brief sentence or two which has stuck with me for many years since reading "Book of the Hopi." –Michael A. Storer May 5, 2010.

"Not the sign!" confusion

Can anyone explain why it is important to provide the distinction in the "Astrological predictions" section about the constellation v. the astrological sign? It seems odd to me that in an article about astronomy anyone would have difficulty understanding we were talking about a constellation, not the new-age predictive mystical force. Since it says "Not the sign!" pretty much every Saggitarius or Gemini is mentioned, it is kind of confusing and distracting, and unless it really is providing a useful distinction should maybe be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.172.32.236 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Deleted Astrological Cr*p

Deleted Astrological Cr*p —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.105.40 (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Six or Seven Sisters

I recently read an piece on the Pleiades (in a book called "Beyond the Blue Sky" or something like it) that hypothesizes why many cultures attach the number 7 to the cluster, although only 6 stars are readily visible -- and likewise find ways to explain why one is not visible. I do not think it is worthy enough for the article, but I shall summarize it here: The Pleides looks like a minature version of the Big Dipper which has seven bright stars, and therefore ideally should be a dipper in minature -- hence it should have seven stars. Some legends make overt references to the Dipper, many do not. A Babylonian(?) legend states they are the divorced wives of six of the stars of the Dipper -- except for the star Alcor, who was not divorced, and therefore still with her husband (represented by Mizar). — Eoghanacht talk 20:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are still here 15 years later .... According to Greek legend, one of the seven sisters got sick and died, so there are now six. That is in fact consistent with modern astronomy, which suggests that during Greek times there may have been seven stars visibble, but that one of them slowly faded, so that now they are six. I read this in the famous "Burnham's Celestial Handbook". 2001:8003:E41C:1C01:D085:6CCD:5320:E595 (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Ptolemy mapped 38 stars and Tycho Brahe 42 stars of the Pleiades cluster, by eye, according to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --Diamonddavej (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"What is the seventh sister is earth's sun. You are confused about the way of evolution inside the galaxy. Creation is simply deemed for you to exist or not to exist. To create is a coincidence. To be born of the same seed and exist is not." -Sigrun, with channeled thought through — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murriemir (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

disambig

Why is the page, Pleiades, a disambig page? I'm willing to bet that 90% of people who type that in are looking for the open cluster, not the random BS that's also listed on the disambig page. -69.47.186.226 21:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved. Pleiades now redirects here. Feezo (Talk) 18:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
This appears to have been undone, with no consensus that I can see. If no one objects, I will move it back. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Restored. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

removed trivia section

The note about the pleiades being Randall's favorite astronomical entity might have been marginally relevant in an article about Randall_Munroe, but it doesn't add anything to this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Stand-alone_trivia

I also removed it. I'm a fan of xkcd, and who isn't, but listing his preference in star clusters here is akin to going to pages about ice cream and listing his favorite flavor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.231 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Time of visibility

I just bumped into this, while reading this article: it states "The Pleiades are a prominent sight in winter in the Northern Hemisphere and in summer in the Southern Hemisphere". Now, the winter in Northern Hemisphere is at the same time as summer in Southern Hemisphere, so this would mean the star cluster is visible concurrently on both hemispheres. I'm assuming these mean Northern Hemisphere winter and summer, but I don't wish go and write my assumptions in the article. [unsigned comment: 15:20, 2007 August 9 80.221.4.16]

The Pleiades are visible in the northern and southern hemispheres on the same dates generally (although not necessarily "concurrently" because of day/night east/west issues). The Pleiades are closest to the sun in late May, so they are visible nowhere on Earth. Therefore, in late November they are at the zenith at midnight -- this is optimal visibility because there is less atmosphere. However, they are probably most prominent in northern mid-latitudes in mid-to-late December, because they are high enough in the early evening (when people are awake and out-and-about) to be bright, but not too high that people might miss them (most people do not walk around looking straight up, and the Pleiades get pretty high up north). In southern mid-latitudes late December/early January is also a good time because the Pleiades are lower in the sky, and by dark-o-clock (9:30 - 10pm, remember the late sunsets and daylight savings) they are near zenith. In the U.S., I have been enjoying them for the past 2+ months in the pre-dawn sky. — Eoghanacht talk 15:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (Happy Columbus Day!)


Image at beginning of the wiki page not from Hubble.

Hello ... I'm new to this wikipedia stuff, and haven't figured out how to make corrections, so perhaps someone with more experience could do it? There's a photo at the beginning of the page attributed to the Hubble Space Telescope. Actually, it was taken by the 48" Schmidt at Palomar. It appeared in a Hubble press release for illustrative purposes, the actual science was done with the Fine Guidance Sensors to obtain parallax measurements. The press release section about photo attribution is at http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/20/image/a/ . Complete image description, according to the release: " The color-composite image of the Pleiades star cluster was taken by the Palomar 48-inch Schmidt telescope. The image is from the second Palomar Observatory Sky Survey, and is part of the Digitized Sky Survey. The Pleiades photo was made from three separate images taken in red, green, and blue filters. The separate images were taken between Nov. 5, 1986 and Sept. 11, 1996." cheers, shireen. Nov 7, 2007

I've corrected the figure caption -- Scog (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Open Cluster vs Asterism

In the opening paragraph the Pleiades are referred to as an asterism. I thought asterisms were apparent groupings of otherwise unrelated stars that are not constellations (i.e. The Big Dipper). As an open cluster, the stars in the Pleiades are very much related. Should they be called an asterism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.61.0.50 (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

An asterism is a grouping of stars based on their visual proximity and patterning. This does not exclude a star cluster. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness Trivia

Citation SOOOO needed here.71.5.165.250 (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)The Discordian

Use in calendaring

In addition to Polynesians using the rising of the Pleiades for the beginning of the new year, are there other cultures that do so? I thought I remembered that Ramadan is calculated the same way. Are there others? Makana Chai (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mass transfer in binary systems not well understood?

I find this statement, "...the details of this supposed transfer from a deeper gravity well to a lesser are unexplained", dubious. Mass transfer from an evolved giant to a compact companion, due to gas overflowing the Roche lobe, seems like a fairly well-understood mechanism for transfer of mass regardless of which star is more massive. Perhaps I have not understood what the editor was trying to say here? 128.165.87.144 (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Terminal sigma

i think it should be

Δέδυκε μεν ἀ σελάννα
καὶ Πληΐαδες, μέσαι δὲ
νύκτες πάρα δ᾽ ἔρχετ᾽ ὤρα,
ἔγω δὲ μόνα κατεύδω. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.91.197 (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Planets and Moons" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. I moved the section tagged as dubious since November 2008 here: "Also present in the cluster have several white dwarfs. Given the young age of the cluster normal stars are not expected to have had time to evolve into white dwarfs, a process which normally takes several billion years. It is believed that, rather than being individual low- to intermediate-mass stars, the progenitors of the white dwarfs must have been high-mass stars in binary systems. Transfer of mass from the higher-mass star to its companion during its rapid evolution would result in a much quicker route to the formation of a white dwarf, although the details of this supposed transfer from a deeper gravity well to a lesser are unexplained." Once a source can be found, it should be readded to the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would recommend going through all of the citations and updating the access dates and fixing any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Names and pronunciation

I'd like to find out why the 'Names and pronunciation' section is not a violation of WP:NOTDIC. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a comparable list at the wiktionary Pleiades article.—RJH (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Cultural Significance"

Shouldn't this section be struck? It seems like the most reasonable way to approach this article is to keep this main page a strictly scientific discussion of the actual cluster and the history of its observation, and let everything else "connected" to it be covered under the folklore and literature page. Besides, there is only a single thing listed (a corporate brand), and even that redirects after one sentence. --Apjohns54 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The brand information is trivia. The other items added since barely even qualify as that. I will remove the section after the customary waiting period. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

star pattern

There needs to be an addition to this article about the asterism. It seems currently missing, but it is a common night sky visual grouping of six stars. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the meaning of the "tidal radius" of 43 ly ?

The article states: "The cluster core radius is about 8 light years and tidal radius is about 43 light years" and "tidal radius" redirects to Roche limit. That redirect in this context must surely be a mistake, but what then is the tidal radius ? Is it the Hill sphere radius ? --FvdP (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this remark. The cluster does not appear to have a core, so what does "core radius" mean? And "tidal radius" still redirects to "Roche Limit". Elsewhere it says there are 1000 stars in it, which seems like too many to fit in a spherical volume with an 8 l.y. radius. I came here to get an idea of the size of the cluster, e.g. the distance across the region containing the brightest seven stars. This article gives me no clue about it. I'm wondering about the average distance between stars in the cluster...again, nothing here about it. Also, in the intro, the distance is given in "parsecs", which is rarely used outside of professional astronomy; most lay people use light-years. One more complaint: describing the cluster as being "so close" is misleading, given that it's over 400 l-y away, which is ~100 times as far away as Alpha Centauri. PS: the intro mentions Hipparcus before the section that explains what Hipparcus is (an observational satellite). This is NOT a "good article"; it needs a lot of work. PPS: the 3D pic has no caption (what is it?)77Mike77 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"...Under ideal observing conditions, some hint of nebulosity may be seen around the cluster ..."

These sort of statements usually refer to observations with a monocular telescope, the most common kind. Assuming that, then the sentence is completely true, but it is not the full story. With very large binoculars (objective lenses > 100mm) the Merope nebula is easy to see. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Alcyone (star)

"[...] a young cluster, aged at less than 50 million years." --91.10.40.75 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No comment on the book of Job?

It(The Bible) is a human artifact, has been exhaustively corroborated for textual authenticity more than any other ancient writ, and it demonstrates some insight beyond what we understand could have been known at the time. Job 38:31-32:

"Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?"

Shouldn't scientific objectivity factor the book of Job, for the information it adds to the discussion, without censoring it out due to theophobia?

The implication of the text is that the bands ("belt") of Orion, the three stars, are drifting apart. The God of the book of Job is essentially saying to Job, "you're asking me questions? what do you know? I can force the stars in Orion's belt to drift apart, can you?" Further, that the stars of Pleiades are fixed together, asking in essence "I can hold Pleiades's stars from drifting apart, can you?"

Dismissing the notion of God, how would the ancient writer of Job have had the insight that the stars in Orion's belt are drifting apart, while the stars in Pleiades will remain in their relative positions indefinitely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.37.102 (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Animated stereo image needs "repair"

First, as you see it, the stereo image is static (which means that it is not distracting). However, if you download it conventionally, you get only one or possibly two frames out of a total of roughly 140 or so, and the file size is much too small. However, if you go to the image description and click on the thumbnail, you'll get a normal-sized animated version (it's fascinating!). Unfortunately, I don't know how to move the functional file into the page -- to edit the page, in that respect. I was thinking that some vandal might have disabled animation; hope not.

Regards, Nikevich 18:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If you check out the actual image page, at least now, it says that this is actually a technical limitation for thumbnails of animated gifs. So I've updated your note in the image caption to tell people to go to the actual image to see the animation. Rainspeaker (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about the stereograph - maybe it's a shoutout to Alexander, the owner - that if there was a version without the white borders, it would be much better to viewed cross-eyes. The white rectangles overlap in stereo viewing, but maybe we could do without them. Zopcsakferi (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

cloak & dagger

were's the cloak and dagger phrase in the article, why delete it?--Stefano Vincenzi (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

names of Pleiades in antique cultures

were's the names of Pleiades in antique cultures?

Reptilian's leader Loki is DEAD; don't mess with PLEiONE.

Crediting the Greeks?

Why are the Greeks being credited as being the oldest tribe possessing knowledge of astronomy and Pleiades instead of the Egypto-Mycenae culture, whose ancient tradition and culture the Dorian Greeks invaded? The Egypto-Mycenae, Ethiopian & Kushite groups were the ones who possessed extensive knowledge of astronomy long before they civilized these warrior Greeks, whom most had absolutely no interest and largely remained ignorant. You also leave out Africa whom were some of the most ancient indigenous culture whose folklore is replete with stories of their ancestor's having originated from the Pleiades. The Dogon, Bambara, Fulbe, Ghanaians, Togolese, Mende and on and on. I mean seriously, with all of the information available today, why does Wiki continue to present these histories from a narrow eurocentric, dis-jointed timeline perspective, when they were the last to know?74.229.102.208 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC) --Elvenmuse (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed weird claim

Most of this looks like original research of an unimportant coincidence. I removed most of it. -- Beland (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed text

The rising of the Pleiades on June 10 is mentioned in the Geoponica, which can be dated to 0:00:00 Universal Time June 10greg., 603 BC, viewed from the Kokino observatory, which was 800,000 days (without year zero) before the oldest biography of Nicolaus Copernicus was completed on October 7, 1588, by Bernardino Baldi.

  • http://www.ancientlibrary.com/geoponica/0028.html
  • Constantini Cæsaris selectorum præceptionum de agricultura libri viginti, Iano Cornerio medico physico interprete., cap. 1, p. 12, Venice 1538 ; Basel 1538, 1539, 1540 ; Lyon 1541. (in Latin)
  • fourmilab.ch Yoursky
  • On the revolutions, Foundations of natural history, Band 1, p. 335, Nicolaus Copernicus: Complete Works, Edward Rosen, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.
[Removed unuseful "ref" tags that confusingly put these links at the end of the talk page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)]

In India, Krittika nakshatra

I found this statement commented out, presumably because it needs to be verified. Moving it here so it's visible in the meantime. -- Beland (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

In India this cluster is called the Krittika nakshatra; believed to be the six wives of the star rishis of the Great Bear.

Pleiades conspiracy theories?

There is no mention of the Pleiades conspiracy theories (which is what brought me to the page). Not that I mean to lend credence to them, but I think it's an interesting piece of knowledge that should be explored on this page. Numerous other Wikipedia pages reference them (Nordic Aliens, if my memory serves me). The fairly widespread theory (as far as conspiracy theories go) is that humankind owes its origin to beings hailing from somewhere in the pleiades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuttycuttiercuttiest (talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's because those theories are ridiculous? The cluster is less than 150 million years old. which is not enough time for life to evolve out of inanimate chemicals. (I don't discount the possible really that some UFOs represent alien visitors, but it is impossible that they evolved so far ahead of us in a newborn star system such as the Pleiades.)77Mike77 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There are theories about pleaidians, royal families whom are native to earth that can travel to these stars. Indian sanskrit also notes of asgard and the nine worlds as globes. Asgard is a planet of the pleiades whom was under aquarius. There are rumors that asgard fell and a star within its system became cold. They say these are sacred stars. They say the stars have zodiacal bodies and the royal families of earth can infact travel to these oxygenated uninhabited globes.
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3E01:A560:89B6:E805:3586:F1 (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe the article should be scientific, not superstitious Tetra quark (don't be shy) 14:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The standard for inclusion of a thing is not if it is scientific or supestitious, but if it is notable or not. I have never heard of this theory before, but someone presents reliable sources demonstrating it's notability, I'm open for its inclusion. Let's not forget that many of the names stars and planets (and the Pleiades) are based on mythology which was anything BUT scientific. Marteau (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Location Map or Image

Nowhere in this article is there a visual representation of the Pleides' location among the other constellations. This would be a valuable addition to the article, and, indeed, should be required for all articles about constellations or celestial objects (at least those visible to the naked eye). rowley (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

New distance study reference using VLBI should be added in the "Distance" section

There have been recent measurements of the distance to the Pleiades cluster that would resolve the controversies generated by the Hipparcos measurements. For more information, read the Science report linked below, and/or the NRAO article linked after that.

Reference link: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6200/1029.abstract

NRAO link: https://public.nrao.edu/news/pressreleases/radio-telescopes-settle-controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.186 (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

MUL.MUL

Whoever put the translation for the Mesopotamian name for the Pleiades, MUL.MUL, claimed it is "star of stars." The doubling of a sign like that does not indicate a genitive in either Sumerian or Akkadian. The actual translation is simply "stars," or "the stars." This is the way that Hermann Hunger and David Pingree translate the Pleiades in their publication of MUL.APIN (Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 24, it appears on page 30), so I will trust them on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.171.127 (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Pleiades in Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime stories

Hi, i have just added a link in the see also section to The Seven Sisters as it is an Australian Aboriginal interpretation of them, i have also added it, and the Chinese White Tiger of The West to a see also section of Pleiades in folklore and literature. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pleiades. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Stellar nursery?

Aren't the Pleiades a 'stellar nursery'; a gas cloud where new stars are created? Or didn't it used to be one until 'recently' (on an astronomical timescale). I was surprised to not find any reference to the phrase "stellar nursery" in the article, but maybe I'm mistaken. Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The Pleiades is a young open cluster. I'm not aware of any ongoing star formation, so it wouldn't really be accurate to call it a stellar nursery. I have seen some sources using that term though, perhaps more poetically than scientifically. Lithopsian (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I did some more Google research. I read a reference that probably, 125 million years ago the Pleiades looked much the same way the Orion Nebula looks now. I don't know if that means it used to be a stellar nursery; I suspect that is the case, but I can't find much more explanation about it at this point. Greetings. RagingR2 (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Every star cluster used to be a stellar nursery. How else could the stars be born? While there is no article titled "Stellar nursery", there is a redirect to an article with a substantial section on stellar nurseries. That should serve as a definition for what is and isn't a stellar nursery. Lithopsian (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Pleiades Description Error

There is an apparent error in the first sentence of the Pleiades content. The star cluster is described as middle-aged, which is inconsistent with later statement that the cluster is dominated by stars 100 million years old. That age is young by star standards. Also, other reputable astronomy sources state Pleiades is young. Please make correction as needed.02:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Martiandust (talk)

The Pleiades (/ˈplaɪ.ədiːz, ˈpliːə-/), also known as the Seven Sisters and Messier 45, are an open star cluster containing middle-aged, hot B-type stars located in the constellation of Taurus. It is among the nearest star clusters to Earth and is the cluster most obvious to the naked eye in the night sky.

The cluster is dominated by hot blue and luminous stars that have formed within the last 100 million years.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"Arrarlkwe" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Arrarlkwe. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Arrarlkwe until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Parsecs or light years?

Why is the distance section in parsecs, but the rest in light years? I would guess that for every 100 people who know what a light year is, less than one knows what a parsec is.

Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.163.206 (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Name

Why shoukd one culture's name (NZ Maori) get referenced in the first sentence when many cultures have their own name? 2404:4408:6760:4800:8D62:88AE:8D72:9F7C (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Image is mirrored

The Negev desert image of the star cluster is mirrored ! --Bautsch (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Quite common for astronomical images to be inverted, but I've removed the image anyway. There are better images available. Lithopsian (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Gatekeeping

This is why people don't try to "be bold" anymore. From the edit history:

・"18:30, 10 March 2023‎ TowardsTheLight talk contribs‎ m 40,248 bytes −40‎ Undid revision 1143899414 by 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:BCAF:5E86:D00F:D0AE (talk): the inserted link was to a discussion of traditional names for the stars of the Big Dipper (the Plough), not to the Pleiades, the subject of this article undo"

・"23:05, 10 March 2023‎ 2604:2d80:de09:d400:1c0:793:75e5:9481 talk‎ 40,288 bytes +40‎ Undid revision 1143921452 by TowardsTheLight (talk) Yes, the big dipper is a different constellation to the Pleiades. That doesn't makes it irrelevant. The article "Sun" has a See Also for "Timeline of the far future" because in the far future the sun will die. I think this comparison is more relevant. That's one example of thousands undo Tag: Undo"

・"15:02, 12 March 2023‎ Lithopsian talk contribs‎ 40,248 bytes −40‎ just spam as mentioned - take it to talk if you want to push your case undo"

If people are learning about a cluster of stars and cross-cultural myths related to that cluster, then why wouldn't they want to know that this isn't a singular phenomenon? Moreover, Wikipedia editors often have their pet projects and don't see how much they are biasing articles. As cited and popular as Wikipedia is, and with facts and truth being regularly questioned, this is so highly dangerous. There seems to be a natural assumption that f you don't sign up for an account you must be a bad actor. I deleted my account over a decade ago because I just don't have the time to read through all of the policy articles and was tired of being made to feel bad about that. It also takes a lot of time to argue for things I don't really care about to people who do care but haven't questioned their assumptions.

By the by, I am the same user who originally made the edit. I only noticed it had been removed again because I couldn't remember the word "saptarishi" and came to this article because I remembered it was linked from here. I don't expect this comment to have any effect and don't plan to return to fight this fight. I just needed to get off my chest how biased this looks to those outside the Wikipedia editor inner circle. It's doesn't even affect the content of the article. Just gives people something related they can look into if they are interested in cross cultural myth & storytelling. (It was quite difficult not sprinkling the above message with expletives; your actions affect others, emotionally, not just intellectually.) 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:74D1:EC87:449D:F516 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Pointless rant, zero reasons to support your changes. Good luck with that. Lithopsian (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
You're doing it right now. What causes such inability to self reflect? As was stated, "your actions affect others, emotionally, not just intellectually." Yet you're dismissive of an emotional response? Have you considered the causal chain that led to it? Regardless, surely you've noticed the qualitative differences on Wikipedia in the last decade. Clear bias in articles, users sitting on pet projects, the distain in the community that used to be fun & welcoming. Look at the disrespectful tone of the most recent history section alone, "Removed nonsense," "just spam as mentioned" (no one had called it spam; provided justification was ignored; guilt was presumed). It just wild to me that someone can bring up a system-wide problem and you just brush it off. There are other human beings on the other side of the screen.
It'll be interesting to see the analysis of LLMs on this phenomenon. By next year they should be able to input the entire history of Wikipedia edit patterns and all will be revealed. In the meantime...
The previous post specifically says, "If people are learning about a cluster of stars and cross-cultural myths related to that cluster, then why wouldn't they want to know that this isn't a singular phenomenon?" You've chosen to ignore the question. You also ignored the justification in the original restoration, "Yes, the big dipper is a different constellation to the Pleiades. That doesn't makes it irrelevant. The article "Sun" has a See Also for "Timeline of the far future" because in the far future the sun will die. I think this comparison is more relevant."
@User:TowardsTheLight @Lithopsian You're previous reply suggested you didn't read past the first part (or are unable to comprehend that a person might want to express more than one thing in a single post?), so I have made the direct point bold for your benefit. 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:E18B:231B:7EBB:9E8C (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Mesopotamia

It is also at this time that the first occurrence of the name M 45 dates back, i.e. kà-ma-tù = mul.MUL.

Would Roland E. Laffitte (talk · contribs) kindly explain this sentence, and how the "45" fits in? One might otherwise naïvely suppose that "M 45" originated in the Messier catalog of 1774, in which the Pleiades were the 45th entry. —Tamfang (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

M45 = Messier 45. Even then the sentence is a little hard to decipher. Lithopsian (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I know that. My question was: how do you get "45" out of kà-ma-tù = mul.MUL ? (granting that both at least contain m) —Tamfang (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, that at least is foolish, so I've removed it. Lithopsian (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The Great Jay

I have always been fascinated by J what with it being the first letter of my first name, not relevant I know. Later in life reading theoretical mathematics my own idea and learning that it was a symbol used to represent the square root of -1. Again nto relevant information. I guess I have no real point except for I will look out for this day and remember it. JonathanRogerAsh (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I've sent you a welcome message on your talk page. The talk page for articles (such as this one) are just for the improvement of the article. Tayste (edits) 19:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pleiades/Archive_1&oldid=1250280653"