Talk:Saqqara Bird
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. | ||
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
It is requested that an image of photo or diagram be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. |
 |
An entry from Saqqara Bird appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 13 September 2006. |
 |
Contents |
[edit] Categories
I've gone through the entire history of edits to this article and I've noticed that people keep trying to add Saqqara Bird to the category "Ancient Egypt" only to have someone remove it again later. I've even made this same mistake myself! Well, it turns out that this category emphatically is not appropriate for Saqqara Bird because it is only meant to cover 3200 BCE – 332 BCE (up to the the conquest of Alexander the Great). The date given for Saqqara Bird is 200 BCE, so it does not fit within the appropriate time frame. If someone can find a category for Greek Egypt or Ptolemaic Egypt, that may be a better fit. Zhukora (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] B.C.E.?
B.C.E. or BCE was a new one to me. I find it means same as BC. Should that be Wiki's standard style and the one used here?--Tony in Devon 14:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's allowed in Wikipedia (since it's quite common in scholarly writing) -- see the Wikpedia style manual. AnonMoos 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I have searched but can't find - can you say where specifically in the manual and I (and anyone interested) can look at all the similar refs. Thanks.--Tony in Devon 11:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is it a bird? Is it a plane?
This theory about the thing being an aircraft reminds me of the Orkney Satanic Panic, where a child's primitive model aircraft was wilfully misinterpreted as a crucifix by social workers determined to find evidence of what they had decided to find. Then again, perhaps the Egyptians saw the planes flying over from Nasca.... The Real Walrus 14:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, they just had a segment of a show on History Channel in the USA called Ancient Discoveries, which focussed on this bird, and a group of scientists and engineers trying to determine if an airplane-sized version of it could have flown. They built a larger miniature, based precisely on the original, and put it in a wind tunnel... then put a computer-simulated version into a flight-sim, apparently one that simulated how the air would have played over it, and had a guy attempt to fly it like a glider... and it immediately spun out of control and spiraled towards the ground. They then looked at the original model, and noticed evidence something had originally been attached at the top of the tail of the bird, so they added a second, much shorter wing-segment across the back of the tail, and fed that design into the flight-sim system, and repeated the earlier attempt at flying the thing. This time, it "flew like a dream" and was very easy to pilot. I see from the article here that someone else in the 1980s tried adding a tailplane but determined that the bird's "glide performance was disappointing...." Makes you wonder if he had the tailplane shaped or mounted wrong... :-D
This episode, BTW, was originally broadcast on January 30th, 2007, at 9pm ET, and was repeated February 6th, 2007 at 8pm, just before their next episode. ---Nomad Of Norad 02:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: I see from the linked-to Martin Gregorie page that Martin had the tailplane attached a little bit farther back on the end of the tail section -- basically halfway off the end of it -- while the guys on Ancient Discoveries had it a little farther forward of that, so that the front of the tailplane came to the start of the raised-up-most part of the end of the tail section, and ended exactly with the back of that raised-up section. Evidently that must have made a difference. ---Nomad Of Norad 03:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The Ancient Discoveries page at history.com is here: http://www.history.com/minisites/ancientdiscoveries The episode with the Saqqara Bird, BTW, is "Cars and Planes." They devote about 10 minutes of the episode to the bird, at the end of the episode. (I am watching it yet again as I type this.) The man running the study of the bird is Simon Sanderson, a celebrated glider pilot and aereonautics engineer. Then there is programmer Ben Lawrence, at Liverpool University, programming and running the flightsim system. It should be possible to track down more information based on those names. ---Nomad Of Norad 06:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] unnecessary dumb think stressed on main page link to this article
Stressing on the September 13, 2006 main page of notation from this article -- about the interpretation that the ancient Egyptians had aeroplanes because of the artifact -- makes Wikipedia look quite foolish... if one reads the article and digs in the links to this article, the most respected scientific interpretations of this falcon artifact, perhaps a boomerang, are http://www.catchpenny.org/Mercado.html and http://www.catchpenny.org/birdtest.html. The artifact is worthy of note without the sensationalistic hook.
The artifact has a beak, holes for feathers, eyes, and was painted to resemble a falcon with clear images and carving of feathers on the wings. The technology of a boomerang is not unusual among Paleolithic cultures, much less Neolithic and historical epochs. The falcon is the icon of one of the most important gods in Egyptian mythology.
Let’s be the best we can be… ---- kb – 2006.9.13
[edit] Pic needed
This article really needs some kind of illustration... AnonMoos 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History channel
Removed random bullet point about the history channel program; I think that the tailplane has been adequetely inserted elsewhere and I don't think the history channel blurb adds anything to the article, given it was nothing novel and was out of place. IF someone does want it in the article, please insert it inline into the appropriate paragraph rather than tacking it on the end. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Article Overhaul
Significantly altered and re-wrote entire article for clarity, consistency, style, and objectivity. Also fixed citations for more consistent use throughout, and deleted citations that were repeated or not actually citations of a source. Re-organized article to use hierarchical organization scheme, and changed the list of sources that were not actually used to cite the article to a "Further Reading" section. Likewise added "pseudoarchaeology" and "experimental archaeology" to the "See Also" section, and fixed a few internal links. Tried to clear up the very confusingly written references to the two different Messihas, hopefully I was successful. I've also added the "more cites needed" bar. Hopefully somebody can remember where they got these facts from! Kudos, y'all. Zhukora (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Have submitted overhauled article for a rating reassessment, hopefully we'll get a B this time. :) Zhukora (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, looking back at some of the much earlier edits, it appears that the article used to describe the artifact as resembling a bird in the positive, i.e.: it had a beak, eyes, holes for feathers, it DID have distinct painted/carved markings of feathers on the wings, etc. It appears this sentence has subsequently been changed to the negative, i.e.: beak, ONE eye, NO holes for feathers, NO painted/carved markings of feathers on the wings. Any idea which of these is correct? There is no citation for either description. I will go back and edit if need be. Zhukora (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've reverted that sentence back to its prior, "positive" version because that was the definitive description for the majority of the life of the article, and no rationale or source was cited in support of the change. PLEASE cite a definitive source if you wish to change it back again, otherwise I will revert once more. Zhukora (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
