Talk:Coma Berenices

Coma Berenices has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 11, 2017. (Reviewed version).

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Constellations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Constellations task force. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 11 December 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Not by Jim Kaler, it ain't!

http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/diadem.html

Quote: "The orbital tilt, however, a mere tenth of a degree against the line of sight, is enough to keep the stars from eclipsing each other."

I had a look at Burnham's and it says that too. I'll reword that and cite Burnham's as a source. JYolkowski 16:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article says galactic north is at "at right ascension 12h 51m 25s and declination +27° 07′ 48″ (epoch J2000.0)", while the article "Galactic coordinate system" states it is at "12h 51m 26.282s +27° 07′ 42.01″ (J2000)". Shouldn't these agree exactly?

Also, it would be nice if the pole could be marked on one of the images for those (like me) who aren't up to speed on locating things astronomical. CoyneT ^talk 20:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really hard to control since a google gives a lot of "Kissing" hits. I don't believe the star names are OK, with the one exception of Diadem. Said: Rursus ☻ 19:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Kissos" indeed means 'ivy' in Greek; "kissinos" is a possessive form meaning "of ivy"; it derives from Ptolemy, who used the term for one or more of the stars of the constellation --Branko (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote 1 says:

1. ^ Gaius Julius Hyginus, Astronomica, 2.24
As given, Hyginus' version contains some serious logic flaws:
 • Votaries make sacrifices when requesting the deity's aid, not when receiving it.
 • Berenice would be sensible enough to know that after a long, hard campaign, Ptolemy would not be overjoyed to discover that his
   wife was bald.
 • No reason is given for Berenice returning to the temple the next day.
 • Overnight is hardly long enough for the priests to have misplaced a royal donation.
The problems are resolved if it is understood that Berenice sacrificed her hair upon her husbands departure, praying for his safe return,
by which time her hair would have regrown. An unscheduled royal visit to the temple to give thanks would have been appropriate, resulting 
in the discovery of the misplacement in the long interim.

I am sorry to say that, but both the criticism of Hyginus' narration and the "solution" to the "problem" are rather silly. Here:

1) Hyginus' version agrees with the story told by Catullus in his poem "Coma Berenices", which in turn is a very close translation of a poem by Callimachus of Cyrene, a poet contemporary with: Berenike, her husband Ptolemy III Euergetes, and the astronomer Conon of Samos, who actually defined and named the constellation. So, first of all, our sources for the story tell us exactly the same stuff as Hyginus does.

2) "serious logical flaws" in the story is pure bullshit:

a) "votaries make sacrifices when requesting the deity's aid"... etc. Not true: votaries make sacrifices having the deity's aid received. You only make a vote when requesting the aid, and the sacrifice is made (in other words: the vote gets fulfilled) when the deity has given the aid. Therefore Lutatius Catulus has voted (= promised) to build the temple of Fortuna Huiusce Diei before his battle in 101 BCE, and built the temple in resolution of the vote having won the battle. This of course dismisses the silly "explanation" below.

b) "bald" comment is particularly ignorant here: the "coma" she voted to sacrifice was not the entire hair of her head, but just the long and beautiful braid she had plaited. Despite that, how the author of the footnote can say anything on what Ptolemy III Euergetes enjoyed and what he did not?!

c) no "reason for Berenice returning to the temple next day" needs to be given, because neither Hyginus nor anyone says anything that Berenice returned to the temple the next day. He simply states that the lock has disappeared, not that Berenice discovered that herself.

d) Hyginus does not say anything on "priests misplacing a royal donation", he simply says that the lock has disappeared (see above) not giving any explanation. In reality, the lock migh have been indeed misplaced or even stolen, but it is beyond my comprehension how an overnight might be "hardly long enough" for that. How long you expect a thing being stolen, a month? 83.28.199.96 (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The temple was for Venus Arsinoe Zephyritis. I read somewhere that it was in Cyrene, but I don't know if that's actually the same temple. Cyrene is about 500 miles from Alexandria. How long would Berenice have remained in Cyrene, who would have reported the theft, and how long would it have taken the news to reach Alexandria? 99.9.112.31 (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)NotWillDecker[reply]

I've received an OTRS request saying in essence that Coma Berebuces is not near Antares, a southern star RA: 16h29m24s; δ −26°25'55 in the Scorpio constellation, but that the intended star mentioned in the lede paragraph is probably Arcturus RA: 14h15m39.7s; δ +19°10'56". Though this seems logical, I don't want to make the correction myself without someone checking. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Arcturus it is that's meant. I've changed it accordingly. Skeptic2 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]