Talk:Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
BorgQueen, your edits came in while I was upgrading my contribution. Sorry about any confusion.
I have clarified the relationship to astology
--GwydionM 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Richard Hinckley Allen's Star Names, Their Lore and Meaning (Dover Publications, 1963) was a useful corrective to certain earlier efforts that went back to Bible maniacs such as Seis (DD, LLD!! – 1884) and Bullinger (DD!! – 1888), who were both in turn indebted to Frances Rolleston (1875), and who were all determined to discover in the Arabic names for the stars references to the Hebrew and/or Greek Bible and the alleged message of Christ.
Unfortunately the whole thing came a dreadful cropper when Rolleston confidently interpreted the names 'Sualocin' and 'Rotanev' (Alpha and Beta Delphini) in the 1814 Palermo catalogue as meaning 'swift (as the flow of water') and 'swiftly running (as water in the trough)' – both being references (of course!) to Jesus's alleged claim in John's revelation 'Behold, I am coming quickly'.
Alas, what she didn't know was that the then director of the Palermo observatory, Nicolo Cacciatore, had in fact named both stars after himself -- simply by reversing the Latin version of his name, Nicolaus Venator!!!
Oh dear! --PL 16:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
PS Mind you, that did't stop E Raymond Capt from bringing out his The Glory of the Stars in around 1977 (Artisan Sales/Topstone Books), regurgitating all the old 'biblical' theories! --PL 16:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tone/Content
This article presently reads like a book review (and a glowing one, at that), not a neutral discussion of the subject, and is thus also in violation of WP:SOAP. It also fails to assert notability in any fashion, or provide any sources beyond the book itself, leading me to suspect that it's mostly original research. Using this book as a reference on other pages is one thing, but there is no indication in this article that the book itself deserves a page. I hope people can build this up into something worthwhile; despite what my edit history shows, I'd rather see articles kept than deleted, and I'm personally very interested in this book. Lucky number 49 19:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
