Talk:Australian Aboriginal astronomy

Astrology?

This page is currently categorized under Category:Astrology by tradition. However, this page does not mention anything astrological (by which I mean believing celestial events correlates with earthly affairs outside of natural phenomena). I am removing the category unless someone knowledgeable on this subject has an objection. Samuel Grant 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tricky, but astrology is probably closer than astronomy in fact. The boundary was blurred in the West for many years. Just an opinion, it needs more references and perhaps some careful definitions. I see no cause to remove the category, unless there is some determinant I fail to appreciate. It is as 'astrological' as anthing I am aware of. But I would suggest that you wait and see if the main contributor has a view. Thanks for trying to improve this article. Fred ☻ 17:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article mentions how the natives utilize celestial events for timing certain things, knowing when cycles are beginning, and so on, but in my opinion this is not astrology. Astrology entails the belief that celestial events, alignments, angles, etc., correlate with earthly affairs in ways that are not obviously causal, e.g., it being dark because the Sun has set. Using the constellations to know when to gather eggs, for instance, is a far cry from a Western astrologer consulting an individual's nativity to see when s/he will get married. It really isn't a tradition of astrology in this sense as it isn't as organized and conceptual, although if the astrological tendencies are there it may be relevant for Category:Astrology, and perhaps even an article rename. Samuel Grant 18:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I both agree and disagree, but can we debate on my talk page or by other means, our opinions have no place here and a resolution to our discussion might be a long way off. I am happy to discuss this at length, but I don't like talk pages full of discussion about peoples views, as interesting and erudite as they may be. I am not changing your edit, but it is an interesting topic. I think I would enjoy talking about this if you want to take up my offer. However, I do not have the resources nearby, ones that would to help decide on the outcome here. Perhaps the primary contributor might help with that. It might also be simpler than I imagine, I hope you can help improve the page. The name is problematic, I agree with that. Fred ☻ 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why "Constellation"?

Is The Great Emu a constellation or not? Why cite it as a "constellation"? Seems derisive. Kortoso (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is an example of a collection of astronomical objects that form a familiar shape. It is commonly called a "constellation" to emphasise that the shape can be made from something other than stars. Dhamacher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Question About “Canoe in Orion”

Is it two brothers or three? It seems incongruous that two brothers would be represented by three stars, yet “two brothers” is stated twice while “three brothers” is written only once. Rod Lockwood (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The story features three brothers, who are represented by the three stars of Orion's belt. In the story, one of the brothers does something wrong. The story mentions he (one brother) and his two brothers being swept into the sky. Dhamacher (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Aboriginal astronomy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091112040428/http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/symposia/astronomy09.html to http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/symposia/astronomy09.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y 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. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

References

hi, this article presently has 4 references listed that are just the surname of the author and the published year, they do not correlate with anything in the further reading section or anywhere else (i've had a look through the article history but to no avail), if any editor knows what publications they are, that would be great. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Aboriginal astronomy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829230833/http://www.questacon.edu.au/html/the_emu.html to http://www.questacon.edu.au/html/the_emu.html

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

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Pleiades section contains largely unsourced speculation

The Pleiades sections contains unscholarly speculation about the Pleiades providing some link to original prehistoric culture and only cites one source for it, namely [[1]] This appears to be a blog of some kind and I was unable for find any serious academic credentials of the author following a quick google search, so I think it's fair to remove this information.

Additionally, the tone of the section comes across as inappropriate, saying things like 'we should not...' which fall outside of the neutrality and style requirements of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.68.84.62 (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and the content does not relate to the Pleiades specifically anyway. I will remove it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)