Talk:Saqqara Bird

message: 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)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  B.C.E.? 

message: The figure appears to be a composite of a bird and fish tail. Perhaps the intent was to express the concept that water and air are fluids. Alternatively the tail may be a bracket that fits in a slot to mount the figure on a pole or wall for example.Rockie1624 (talk)
 
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)
thread_title:  Is it a bird? Is it a plane? 

message: This article really needs some kind of illustration... AnonMoos 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic needed

message: 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)
thread_title: History channel

message: 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)
replies: text: Have submitted overhauled article for a rating reassessment, hopefully we'll get a B this          time. :) Zhukora (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Well, they are negative now (Sep 2008).  The whole article is short on citations and long on weasel words.  I read a lot about this artifact a while back, and I personally subscribe to the notion that it was a toy that was intended to fly (whether a model of a bird or a glider, I don't know).  Does anybody have RS for the statements in this article?LowKey (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Overhaul

message: Dougweller just reinstated my deletion of "See also" entries for Pseudoarchaeology and Out-of-place artifact, saying "they are correct and useful to readers". I don't think it's very important, but
* For "Pseudoarchaeology" I think the word "useful" asks precisely the right question. In what way is the cross-reference useful? The article gives a reasonable account of the bird. What more do I gain by looking at "Pseudoarchaeology"?
* For "Out-of-place artifact" the same question arises, but furthermore, it isn't even "correct" either. The bird is a harmless model, completely at ease in the time and place in which it was discovered. It's not "out of place" at all; there's nothing intrinsically improbable about it. The speculations which have arisen don't make the bird itself "out of place". It's not in the same category as for example, stones carved with runes found in America, where the object itself is problematic. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I take your point, and see you've removed it from the articles matching the categories. It is still in Ancient astronauts. I always have a hard time with 'out of place' - the problem is that fringe writers use the phrase to include many things that are clearlyh not out of place. I do have a problem with it being in the experimental archaeology category without also being in the pseudoarchaeology category as that could be seen as taken it seriously as a possible early airplane of some sort. dougweller (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" entries 

message: Doug Weller talk 16:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source