This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Ophiuchus was copied or moved into Ophiuchus (astrology) with this edit on 20:08, 4 November 2009. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Discussions on this page often lead to
previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the
archives before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The expression “a year and a day” in fairy tales is probably a remnant where the calendar was reckoned in thirteen 28 day months with a single day left over. The Roman god Janus with his two heads looking in opposite directions may be the god positioned on the extra day. He is looking to the year past and the year ahead. The thirteenth sign may be part of the Mystery cults and removed from the eyes of the profane. It was undoubtedly an Earth Goddess sign (her sign was the serpent, after all) and suppressed by the change to a patralineal society.
There was a concerted effort by most religious sects to dethrone the moon as the object of keeping time and replace it with the sun. The astrological priesthood needed to remover her constellation in order to provide a solar year of 4 equal parts. The Masonic rituals still refer to the squaring of the circle in astrological terms using the signs of the zodiac.
In the Bible, Eve was “cast out” of the Garden of Eden and may be a reference to the suppression of Ophiucus and the earth goddess religious sects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.228.36.236 ( talk) 21:45, 2004 July 6 (UTC)
"If we were to observe Earth's Sun from Tau Ceti, it would appear as a 2.54 magnitude star in Ophiuchus."
Not true. The Sun would be in Bootes and of magnitude 1.43 (according to Starry Night Pro).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eroica ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
The section giving the "reasons" Ophiuchus was dropped from the Zodiac needs to be discussed further. The History of Astrology article also should be expanded because it is more general and not specific. This article and that article are not too informative. I'm curious as to when Ophiuchus was dropped from the official Zodiac listing and for what reasons. We know Libra was carved out of the claws of Scorpius and the stars of Libra even bear the word "claw" in them (Zugen-). The reasons I've seen by searching online were:
1. European superstition over the number 13. This would explain why in Christianized Europe, astrology would only have 12 signs.
2. effort to switch away from a 13 month lunar calendar and onto a 12 month solar calendar as a result of secular revisions in the calendar or due to religious clashes between solar-based and lunar-based religions.
It would make sense that the Greeks had 12 constellations (Ophiuchus but no Virgos), but what of the Romans? The celestial bodies would certainly pass through Ophiuchus still.
Another question is what is the history of the constellation's name. The 12 other constellations have Latin names, yet Ophiuchus has its Greek name used. What was the history of its name usage? The Greeks called it Ophiuchus, the Romans Serpentarius, but what about the European peoples who came after them? Did they switch the name back if they were the ones to drop it from the astrological zodiac or did it revert back for some other reason?
The real way to answer this question is to look at every ancient society: Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and the various Mesopotamian peoples and see how many constellations they had and what those constellations were. It would also be curious to see when the Elements (Fire, Water, Earth, Air) and Temperaments (Cardinal, Fixed, Mutable) were associated with the signs to see how they have changed with the removal of this sign if they even existed before Ophiuchus was removed. I've seen accounts saying the Romans created Libra, but the Babylonians also viewed the stars in that span of the ecliptic as a pair of scales. It would be good to sort out what the Zodiac meant to the various ancient cultures, what characteristics they defined the Zodiac through (element, etc) and how many constellations they considered to be in the Zodiac.
--
139.67.202.120 06:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I tend to see some assoiation between Ophiuchus and "Laocoon!" See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laoco%C3%B6n, for more. Could this similarity led to some confusion in the past? Except for the "children" it seems to fit. 96.19.147.40 ( talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
Incredibly unlikely that this sign has anything to do with the "Earth Goddess" symbology, because the concept of a universal Earth Goddess which ancient paganism followed is a 20th century invention based on the inaccurate and contrived literature of Margaret Murray in her 1921 book "The Witch-Cult in Western Europe".
While goddess of fertlity and agriculture certaintly were worshiped, these goddess are ancenstral to the present day concept of the "Earth Goddess" invented by Gardner (a good aquaintance of Mrs. Murray) when he constructed Wicca. There was no one singular goddess anymore than there was one singular god. Historically speaking, what was largely suppressed during the Inquisition (or "Burning Times", if you will) was Christian mysticism such as Goetian (demon summoning and commanding using grimories such as the Key of Solomon-- it is interesting to note many Catholic exorcists engaged in the practice at the time) practices and Christian-Kabbalah hybrids. The vast majority of ancient pagan gods were transformed into Saints and incorporated into orthodox Christianity (Catholicism) long before the Inquisition was ever dreamed up. Very little paganism was actually practiced in Europe at the time-- the religious populations were pretty much split between Christian orthodoxy, Judaism/Kabbalah and Islam; although Christian orthodoxy held greater sway of influence than any of the other religions did. Much of the actual religious persecution was against these latter religions by the Christian orthodoxy. The accusations filed against the Knights Templar is a prime example: they were accused of worshiping Mohammed(Baphomet was an extremely common french misspelling of Mohammed) in the official records. The concept that Templars were paganists is a modern day invention.
And any serious scholar of occultic/religious history knows all of these things.
I can only speculate on why Ophiuchus was left out the same way I can only speculate on why the current Zodiac consists of Twelve Constellations but not any others. However, I can say with a great deal of certainty it had nothing to do with the persecution of a non-existant "Earth Goddess cult". -- 65.102.7.2 02:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Even the Italian Benandanti, often used as an example of an "Earth Goddess cult", were in reality a Christian sub-sect for goodness sake! They were tried for heresy not witchcraft. Very different crimes (heresy is deviation from Christian orthodoxy, and witchcraft was anything that had nothing to do with Christianity) -- 65.102.7.2 02:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a revision of the above statement that ''Baphomet was an extremely common french misspelling of Mohammed" as this is not a view that is now taken seriously in academic circles and in any event, were the Templars Islamic in some form or other, there is no Muslim sect or group that has ever worshipped Muhammad or would countenance doing so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Segovius ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 2006 August 20 (UTC)
It looks from the image on teh wikibox that Alpha Ophiucus is in the area of hte sky assigned to Hercules. Why is that? Nik42 06:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently sidereal astrology is sufficiently popular in Japan that they have their own symbol for Ophiuchus, which is included in Emoji. (The symbol can be seen at this emoji->unicode proposal - it is e-037 and is proposed to be U+26CE.) Is this worth adding to the article? Does its existence in emoji make it sufficiently notable/verifiable for inclusion? DenisMoskowitz ( talk) 21:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
One can see more versions on Commons: Ophiuchus symbols.-- Auric talk 16:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday I splitoff Ophiuchus (astrology) from this article: I think the mythological stuff takes too much place in quite a few articles, and that astronomical facts is the main point, while mythology, history and visualizations only serves as a memoization aid in order to add a "human decoration" to the spicey spacey rock hard astronomy facts. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 09:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Would be nice to have a pc of the famous Rho Ophiuchus nebula [1]. Fig ( talk) 22:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
"until recently"? When, exactly, did the Greek superceed? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is this star shown as being part of the constellation of Oph. in the info box? 203.206.23.120 ( talk) 02:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The mythology section was just removed from the astrology article on the premise it's about "modern astrology, not the history" etc. I've asked the deleting editor the why and the wherefore of that, but it's also curious to me why it's not here. Are astronomers so "anti-superstition" they don't even deign to include the mythological origin of the signs; are the other zodiacal constellations and other constellations also bereft of any reference to their mythological origins, or the figures they represent?? Skookum1 ( talk) 19:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
This section should be moved to
Ophiuchus (astrology), an article that was split of here in 2009, and was just voted a Keep in an AfD nomination.
As for the constellation Ophiuchus there is no confusion or controversy at all that it is part of the astronomical zodiac, as per IAU defintion of 1930. This is also being reflected in Ophiuchus being listed as such in
Zodiac#Table_of_dates.
Any controversy among astrologers about using Ophiuchus in the astrological zodiac clearly belongs in
Ophiuchus (astrology).
There is no need to reopen the debates that led to the splitting up of this article in 2009.
MakeSense64 (
talk) 08:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
No there isn't an astology sign and that's the point. I have corrected the hatline because there is only a false rumour that Ophiuchus comprises an astrological sign. That confusion regularly circulates and brings readers to this page in search of clarification. There is only the constellation Ophiuchus, which gets mistakenly presumed to be a sign. This is a point of reference, notability and interest for the constellation it involves. It is a discreet comment but factually correct, highly relevant and sourced. Zac Δ talk 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The section "Confused association with zodiac signs" is unprovable in its present form because there is no association of astrologers that has world-wide recognition comparable to the recognition that the International Astronomical Union receives from astronomers and international standards-setting organizations. Therefore, there is no forum in which to decide the issue. If such a section is to exist, it should only briefly summarize the confusion that exists, especially in media that serves the general public (as opposed to astronomy- or astrology-media). Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Because of the partial overlap of the constellation Ophiuchus and the Sun's path upon which zodiacal longitude is based, Ophiuchus is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the '13th sign of the zodiac'. This is an innapropriate reference since the zodiac is a division of the ecliptic into twelve equal parts, initially originated for calendrical purposes. This makes the notion of a '13th sign' a mathematical impossibility. It is only correct to refer to Ophiuchus as one of the constellations which cross the zodiac; which does not constitute a zodiacal sign, of which all historical records acknowledge only twelve. (ref)
The notion [of Ophiuchus being a sign] received further international media attention in January 2011, when it was reported that astronomer Parke Kunkle, a board-member of the Minnesota Planetarium Society, had suggested that Ophiuchus was the zodiac's '13th sign'. He later issued a statement to say he had not reported that the zodiac ought to include 13 signs instead of 12, but was only mentioning that there were 13 constellations; reported in Mad Astronomy: Why did your zodiac sign change? 13 January 2011.
Let me address some of your questions, not in order.
"And yes these divisions were used for actual measurments - not "very rough ones" but precise ones." I don't care if they were used by astronomers for measurements, I care if they are used by astronomers.
"Also can you explain why you think this article is written only for readers interested in astronomy generally rather than readers interested in the relevant details of this constellation specifically". Because there is an explicit cross-reference to a different article about the astrology aspects of this constellation, any mention of astrology should be in the nature of an explanatory cross-reference. Also, this article should stick to astronomical measurements and nomenclature; any other measurements or nomenclature should be labeled as such in the immediate vicinity of the measurement or term. I will adopt that approach in these comments.
"When you say 'If the confusion about Ophiuchus is worth including at all' ... can you explain to me why it would not be (so I understand your objection?" The current version is unacceptable, as explained elsewhere. I can't form an opinion about whether a new version should be included until I can read the new version.
As for the specific contents of the passage as it now exists, I question the source. Prove that the magazine is a reliable source and the author of the particular article is qualified to comment on, and give a fair overview of, all astrologers who use anything like the 12, 13, or 14 signs of the zodiac. Also, within the citation, what does "tropical zodiac" mean? What other kinds of zodiac are there, and how prevalent are they? How do you know the original reason the ecliptic was divided into 12 equal parts was for calendrical purposes? The source does not say anything about calendars.
"zodiac is a division of the ecliptic into twelve equal parts" is an incorrect definition in an astronomy article. A correct astronomical definition may be found in the American Heritage Dictionary 3rd ed. (1992): "1.a. Astronomy. A band of the celestial sphere extending about 8° to either side of the ecliptic that represents the path of the principal planets, the moon, and the sun." The same source supports the idea that at least in English, the predominant meaning of zodiac in the astrological sense is "b. In astrology, this band is divided into 12 equal parts called signs, each 30° wide, bearing the name of a constellation for which it was originally named but which it no longe coincides owing to the precession of the equinoxes."
As far as I know, "zodiacal longitude" is not defined in a modern astronomical sense. It is not in the aforementioned American Heritage Dictionary, neither under "zodiacal longitude" nor under "longitude". Nor can it be found under those terms in the Glossary of the Astronomical Almanac Online even though that publication distinguishes among three kinds of longitude.
"...which all historical records acknowledge only twelve." Really? Who checked all historical records? Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
: Your response with my replies more sharply indented (So you can see more clearly who said what):
(outside opinion, I spotted this at the COI noticeboard) Ophiuchus (astrology) is a WP:SPINOUT from this article, but the section should be much smaller, and it needs to put more weight in astronomic terms. Detailed debunking belongs to the astrology article. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 09:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Does this sentence have meaning: "Because of the overlap of Ophiuchus and the zodiacal longitude, Ophiuchus is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the 13th sign of the zodiac"? If so, what do "zodiacal longitude" and "sign of the zodiac" mean? Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a spinout article that covers the details of the problems with Ophiuchus as a zodiac constellation. All we need here is a brief sentence pointing to it.
Jc3s5h pointed out some problems with: "Because of the overlap of Ophiuchus and the zodiacal longitude, Ophiuchus is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the 13th sign of the zodiac"
Changing it like this removes the problems: "Because Ophiuchus is one of 13 constellations which cross the ecliptic, there is a controversy around using Ophiuchus in astrology as the '13th sign of the zodiac'".
This is a neutral worded statement that doesn't take sides in the argument whether its use in astrology is mistaken or not. People can find further details and arguments on that matter in
Ophiuchus (astrology), the spinout article that was created for that purpose.
By just putting that there is a controversy we may avoid that editors keep coming back here to add in their side of the argument on that question, just like happened in January. But this is an astronomy article, so it is not the place for that kind of discussion.
MakeSense64 (
talk) 06:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Brezsny and other astrologers say they have long known that the pairings of constellations and astrological signs don’t match, but that Western astrologers don’t deal with stars — as some other branches of astrology do — but rather the planets and solar system. [Emphasis added]]
Concerning JHunterJ's latest revision, astronomy articles should use precise wording. Sometimes this makes it impossible to say anything at all about a topic in one short sentence, due to the need to define terms or avoid poorly defined terms. I suggest that "astrological sign" is poorly defined. In Western astrology, the sign as a unit of measure designating a sector of the ecliptic and the sign as an angular space that is significant in making astrological predictions are one and the same. In non-Western astronomy, which might be conducted in non-English language, the measure of the location of the sun is different from the angular space that is considered significant in making predictions. I really don't know how the concepts would translate, but it certainly seems to confuse newspaper reporters. Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi JhunterJ, thanks for coming to the page and responding to my request for further comment. Just so you understand, I’m not inclined to clash heads with anyone over this and my concern is only that it felt like a very productive step was being taken when editors were raising their views here, and bouncing productively off each other’s criticisms and suggestions to arrive at an explanation that, as far as I can see, was pretty good. It was accurate, it was relatively brief, and yet it gave a reliable and informative account of the confusion that periodically arises, why it arises, and what the well established facts of the matter actually are. This is the sort of content that I believe puts an end to attempts to regurgitate ongoing problems, because it deals with the matter clearly and factually. In addition, the reader is left able to understand, rather than just being told something that isn’t self-explanatory, which leaves the point of confusion lingering.
Sorry to sound critical – I certainly realise you were not the only one doing this – but you seem to have dismissed the process that was being taken to gain consensus when you made such a dramatic cut to content that had been thoughtfully processed, deleting three-quarters of the paragraph whilst making only a one-line statement here after the event.
On reflection, I don’t see any reason to include a link to the Ophiuchus (astrology) page at this point. I think that begs for future trouble and leaves the impression that this is an essentially astrological matter, capable of being decided by the whim of any modern astrologer who wants to redefine the astronomical basis of what the zodiac actually is. I consider this to be a simple and straight-forward clarification of information that pertains to the status of this constellation. And since this constellation-sign status confusion is significant in this way only to this one constellation, it is surely appropriate that on this page it is given as much coverage and background information as necessary to clarify it fully, and so firmly establish what the mainstream view is, as opposed to fringe theories that are based on confusions and misunderstandings.
For that reason I considered the content was perfect in length and details as it was before your edit. It very efficiently covered all the salient points whilst retaining the intelligent tone of the page, and leaving the reader informed enough to understand the point, or able to choose to read more about the zodiac on the zodiac page if they wish.
I would like to propose that we go back to that earlier version, which four editors had stated approval of, and return to the process of asking if anyone considers it inaccurate in any way, so that we ensure that the content is as reliable and informative as it can be, for readers who come here specifically to gain a better understanding of this point. Are you OK with that? Below is how the passage read, with the addition of one or two obviously sensible alterations that you and Jc3s5h subsequently made. If there is anything that you don't feel is reliable or rleevant here, could you please explain? Thanks, Zac Δ talk 23:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Ophiuchus is one of thirteen constellations that cross the ecliptic. [1] It has therefore been called the '13th sign of the zodiac'. However, this confuses sign with constellation. The signs of the zodiac are a twelve-fold division of the ecliptic, so that each sign spans 30° of celestial longitude, approximately the distance the Sun travels in a month, and (in the Western tradition) are aligned with the seasons so that the March equinox falls on the boundary between Aries and Pisces. Constellations, on the other hand, are unequal in size and are based on the positions of the stars. The constellations of the zodiac have only a loose association with the signs of the zodiac, and do not in general coincide with them. In Western astrology the constellation of Aquarius, for example, largely corresponds to the sign of Pisces. Similarly, the constellation of Ophiuchus occupies most of the sign of Sagittarius.
(outdent) This part of your proposed edit is not about Ophiuchus, so not needed here:
The signs of the zodiac are a twelve-fold division of the ecliptic, so that each sign spans 30° of celestial longitude, approximately the distance the Sun travels in a month, and (in the Western tradition) are aligned with the seasons so that the March equinox falls on the boundary between Aries and Pisces. Constellations, on the other hand, are unequal in size and are based on the positions of the stars. The constellations of the zodiac have only a loose association with the signs of the zodiac, and do not in general coincide with them.
The distinction between signs and constellations is explained perfectly well here:
Zodiacal_constellation#Zodiacal_constellations
There is no need to repeat the same definitions over and over in every article where it applies, that would defeat the purpose of an encyclopeadia.
Those who don't know what a zodiacal constellation is will click on the hyperlink, which is already given at the end of the previous section. That's what hyperlinks are for.
MakeSense64 (
talk) 14:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Ophiuchus is one of thirteen constellations that cross the ecliptic. [2] It is thus used by some modern astrologers as a '13th sign of the zodiac'. However, it is not included in conventional (Western tradition) astrology, under which the signs of the zodiac are a twelve-fold division of the ecliptic, such that each sign spans 30° of celestial longitude (approximately the distance the Sun travels in a month), and aligned with the seasons so that the March equinox falls on the boundary between Aries and Pisces. Under the traditional system, constellations have only a loose association with their respective signs, and do not in general coincide with them. Interpretations which include Ophiuchus favour a more strict adherence to the positions of the constellations each sign represents.
This should sufficiently avoid taking a side in the issue, while still representing enough relevant information to provide proper clarification. I believe it has an added benefit of being more concise than the current text, which, quite frankly, meanders for the sake of upholding a single viewpoint. Kefke Wren ( talk) 16:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
References
Thought I should share this to proove that it is indeed a zodiac. http://ophiuchus.tribe.net/thread/1697fb3a-34e6-4a24-ba14-1eda9f1a5042 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.32.49 ( talk) 06:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Zodiacal status aside, should we not list its symbol (a U with a tilde in it) as we do with other celestial bodies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.165.65 ( talk) 20:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ophiuchus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "objects":
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Do any of you see a connection with this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laoco%C3%B6n_and_His_Sons
Seems reasonable to me! Regards, 96.19.147.40 ( talk) 01:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
I have noticed the following style aspects of this article:
I hope to clean up the style at some point in the not to distant future. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
the naked-eye star ζ Ophiuchi
This should be edited to also be link to the WP article on this high-speed star and its "bow wave "
Zeta Ophiuchi
99.251.239.140 ( talk) 12:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The sentences in this section are incredibly weak. I've read it twice and it's wordy to the point of being unintelligible. I could rewrite that section but it would look like this: Ophiuchus and the zodiac See: Ophiuchus (astrology). Much prettier. -rudyard ( talk) 04:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to edit the article myself for fear of upsetting editors, but I just realized in reading the article for this constellation that a significant insight is missing. The trajectory of the Voyager 1 space craft is such that it appears from the perspective of the earth to be converging on Rasalhague in this constellation, Ophiuchus. It of course isn't really headed there. Over next few billions of years it's trajectory will be complex.
But for now, for us on earth, I think it's interesting and important that star gazers know that our first interstellar object can be found approximately here. The Voyager 1 Wikipedia article has a "timeline" graphic that shows its rough position over the last years of its mission: Voyager 1 With distance increasing, its apparent motion in the heavens will slow to a near stand still, at least as gauged from our short life times.
If this inspires someone qualified, then please add the reference. I think it makes this constellation even more interesting than the astronomical goodies who already call it home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.228.123 ( talk) 17:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Taurus Poniatowski, Serpentarius, Scutum Sobiesky, and Serpens.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 31, 2020. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2020-01-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
This illustration is plate 12 of Urania's Mirror, a set of 32 astronomical star chart cards illustrated by Sidney Hall and first published in 1824, featuring artistic depictions of Ophiuchus, as well as Taurus Poniatovii, Scutum (here referred to as "Scutum Sobiesky") and Serpens.Illustration credit: Sidney Hall; restored by Adam Cuerden
What kind of birthday do they have and why are they so rare? 45.47.127.87 ( talk) 20:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Ophiuchus was copied or moved into Ophiuchus (astrology) with this edit on 20:08, 4 November 2009. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Discussions on this page often lead to
previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the
archives before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The expression “a year and a day” in fairy tales is probably a remnant where the calendar was reckoned in thirteen 28 day months with a single day left over. The Roman god Janus with his two heads looking in opposite directions may be the god positioned on the extra day. He is looking to the year past and the year ahead. The thirteenth sign may be part of the Mystery cults and removed from the eyes of the profane. It was undoubtedly an Earth Goddess sign (her sign was the serpent, after all) and suppressed by the change to a patralineal society.
There was a concerted effort by most religious sects to dethrone the moon as the object of keeping time and replace it with the sun. The astrological priesthood needed to remover her constellation in order to provide a solar year of 4 equal parts. The Masonic rituals still refer to the squaring of the circle in astrological terms using the signs of the zodiac.
In the Bible, Eve was “cast out” of the Garden of Eden and may be a reference to the suppression of Ophiucus and the earth goddess religious sects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.228.36.236 ( talk) 21:45, 2004 July 6 (UTC)
"If we were to observe Earth's Sun from Tau Ceti, it would appear as a 2.54 magnitude star in Ophiuchus."
Not true. The Sun would be in Bootes and of magnitude 1.43 (according to Starry Night Pro).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eroica ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
The section giving the "reasons" Ophiuchus was dropped from the Zodiac needs to be discussed further. The History of Astrology article also should be expanded because it is more general and not specific. This article and that article are not too informative. I'm curious as to when Ophiuchus was dropped from the official Zodiac listing and for what reasons. We know Libra was carved out of the claws of Scorpius and the stars of Libra even bear the word "claw" in them (Zugen-). The reasons I've seen by searching online were:
1. European superstition over the number 13. This would explain why in Christianized Europe, astrology would only have 12 signs.
2. effort to switch away from a 13 month lunar calendar and onto a 12 month solar calendar as a result of secular revisions in the calendar or due to religious clashes between solar-based and lunar-based religions.
It would make sense that the Greeks had 12 constellations (Ophiuchus but no Virgos), but what of the Romans? The celestial bodies would certainly pass through Ophiuchus still.
Another question is what is the history of the constellation's name. The 12 other constellations have Latin names, yet Ophiuchus has its Greek name used. What was the history of its name usage? The Greeks called it Ophiuchus, the Romans Serpentarius, but what about the European peoples who came after them? Did they switch the name back if they were the ones to drop it from the astrological zodiac or did it revert back for some other reason?
The real way to answer this question is to look at every ancient society: Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and the various Mesopotamian peoples and see how many constellations they had and what those constellations were. It would also be curious to see when the Elements (Fire, Water, Earth, Air) and Temperaments (Cardinal, Fixed, Mutable) were associated with the signs to see how they have changed with the removal of this sign if they even existed before Ophiuchus was removed. I've seen accounts saying the Romans created Libra, but the Babylonians also viewed the stars in that span of the ecliptic as a pair of scales. It would be good to sort out what the Zodiac meant to the various ancient cultures, what characteristics they defined the Zodiac through (element, etc) and how many constellations they considered to be in the Zodiac.
--
139.67.202.120 06:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I tend to see some assoiation between Ophiuchus and "Laocoon!" See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laoco%C3%B6n, for more. Could this similarity led to some confusion in the past? Except for the "children" it seems to fit. 96.19.147.40 ( talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
Incredibly unlikely that this sign has anything to do with the "Earth Goddess" symbology, because the concept of a universal Earth Goddess which ancient paganism followed is a 20th century invention based on the inaccurate and contrived literature of Margaret Murray in her 1921 book "The Witch-Cult in Western Europe".
While goddess of fertlity and agriculture certaintly were worshiped, these goddess are ancenstral to the present day concept of the "Earth Goddess" invented by Gardner (a good aquaintance of Mrs. Murray) when he constructed Wicca. There was no one singular goddess anymore than there was one singular god. Historically speaking, what was largely suppressed during the Inquisition (or "Burning Times", if you will) was Christian mysticism such as Goetian (demon summoning and commanding using grimories such as the Key of Solomon-- it is interesting to note many Catholic exorcists engaged in the practice at the time) practices and Christian-Kabbalah hybrids. The vast majority of ancient pagan gods were transformed into Saints and incorporated into orthodox Christianity (Catholicism) long before the Inquisition was ever dreamed up. Very little paganism was actually practiced in Europe at the time-- the religious populations were pretty much split between Christian orthodoxy, Judaism/Kabbalah and Islam; although Christian orthodoxy held greater sway of influence than any of the other religions did. Much of the actual religious persecution was against these latter religions by the Christian orthodoxy. The accusations filed against the Knights Templar is a prime example: they were accused of worshiping Mohammed(Baphomet was an extremely common french misspelling of Mohammed) in the official records. The concept that Templars were paganists is a modern day invention.
And any serious scholar of occultic/religious history knows all of these things.
I can only speculate on why Ophiuchus was left out the same way I can only speculate on why the current Zodiac consists of Twelve Constellations but not any others. However, I can say with a great deal of certainty it had nothing to do with the persecution of a non-existant "Earth Goddess cult". -- 65.102.7.2 02:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Even the Italian Benandanti, often used as an example of an "Earth Goddess cult", were in reality a Christian sub-sect for goodness sake! They were tried for heresy not witchcraft. Very different crimes (heresy is deviation from Christian orthodoxy, and witchcraft was anything that had nothing to do with Christianity) -- 65.102.7.2 02:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a revision of the above statement that ''Baphomet was an extremely common french misspelling of Mohammed" as this is not a view that is now taken seriously in academic circles and in any event, were the Templars Islamic in some form or other, there is no Muslim sect or group that has ever worshipped Muhammad or would countenance doing so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Segovius ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 2006 August 20 (UTC)
It looks from the image on teh wikibox that Alpha Ophiucus is in the area of hte sky assigned to Hercules. Why is that? Nik42 06:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently sidereal astrology is sufficiently popular in Japan that they have their own symbol for Ophiuchus, which is included in Emoji. (The symbol can be seen at this emoji->unicode proposal - it is e-037 and is proposed to be U+26CE.) Is this worth adding to the article? Does its existence in emoji make it sufficiently notable/verifiable for inclusion? DenisMoskowitz ( talk) 21:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
One can see more versions on Commons: Ophiuchus symbols.-- Auric talk 16:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday I splitoff Ophiuchus (astrology) from this article: I think the mythological stuff takes too much place in quite a few articles, and that astronomical facts is the main point, while mythology, history and visualizations only serves as a memoization aid in order to add a "human decoration" to the spicey spacey rock hard astronomy facts. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 09:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Would be nice to have a pc of the famous Rho Ophiuchus nebula [1]. Fig ( talk) 22:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
"until recently"? When, exactly, did the Greek superceed? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is this star shown as being part of the constellation of Oph. in the info box? 203.206.23.120 ( talk) 02:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The mythology section was just removed from the astrology article on the premise it's about "modern astrology, not the history" etc. I've asked the deleting editor the why and the wherefore of that, but it's also curious to me why it's not here. Are astronomers so "anti-superstition" they don't even deign to include the mythological origin of the signs; are the other zodiacal constellations and other constellations also bereft of any reference to their mythological origins, or the figures they represent?? Skookum1 ( talk) 19:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
This section should be moved to
Ophiuchus (astrology), an article that was split of here in 2009, and was just voted a Keep in an AfD nomination.
As for the constellation Ophiuchus there is no confusion or controversy at all that it is part of the astronomical zodiac, as per IAU defintion of 1930. This is also being reflected in Ophiuchus being listed as such in
Zodiac#Table_of_dates.
Any controversy among astrologers about using Ophiuchus in the astrological zodiac clearly belongs in
Ophiuchus (astrology).
There is no need to reopen the debates that led to the splitting up of this article in 2009.
MakeSense64 (
talk) 08:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
No there isn't an astology sign and that's the point. I have corrected the hatline because there is only a false rumour that Ophiuchus comprises an astrological sign. That confusion regularly circulates and brings readers to this page in search of clarification. There is only the constellation Ophiuchus, which gets mistakenly presumed to be a sign. This is a point of reference, notability and interest for the constellation it involves. It is a discreet comment but factually correct, highly relevant and sourced. Zac Δ talk 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The section "Confused association with zodiac signs" is unprovable in its present form because there is no association of astrologers that has world-wide recognition comparable to the recognition that the International Astronomical Union receives from astronomers and international standards-setting organizations. Therefore, there is no forum in which to decide the issue. If such a section is to exist, it should only briefly summarize the confusion that exists, especially in media that serves the general public (as opposed to astronomy- or astrology-media). Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Because of the partial overlap of the constellation Ophiuchus and the Sun's path upon which zodiacal longitude is based, Ophiuchus is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the '13th sign of the zodiac'. This is an innapropriate reference since the zodiac is a division of the ecliptic into twelve equal parts, initially originated for calendrical purposes. This makes the notion of a '13th sign' a mathematical impossibility. It is only correct to refer to Ophiuchus as one of the constellations which cross the zodiac; which does not constitute a zodiacal sign, of which all historical records acknowledge only twelve. (ref)
The notion [of Ophiuchus being a sign] received further international media attention in January 2011, when it was reported that astronomer Parke Kunkle, a board-member of the Minnesota Planetarium Society, had suggested that Ophiuchus was the zodiac's '13th sign'. He later issued a statement to say he had not reported that the zodiac ought to include 13 signs instead of 12, but was only mentioning that there were 13 constellations; reported in Mad Astronomy: Why did your zodiac sign change? 13 January 2011.
Let me address some of your questions, not in order.
"And yes these divisions were used for actual measurments - not "very rough ones" but precise ones." I don't care if they were used by astronomers for measurements, I care if they are used by astronomers.
"Also can you explain why you think this article is written only for readers interested in astronomy generally rather than readers interested in the relevant details of this constellation specifically". Because there is an explicit cross-reference to a different article about the astrology aspects of this constellation, any mention of astrology should be in the nature of an explanatory cross-reference. Also, this article should stick to astronomical measurements and nomenclature; any other measurements or nomenclature should be labeled as such in the immediate vicinity of the measurement or term. I will adopt that approach in these comments.
"When you say 'If the confusion about Ophiuchus is worth including at all' ... can you explain to me why it would not be (so I understand your objection?" The current version is unacceptable, as explained elsewhere. I can't form an opinion about whether a new version should be included until I can read the new version.
As for the specific contents of the passage as it now exists, I question the source. Prove that the magazine is a reliable source and the author of the particular article is qualified to comment on, and give a fair overview of, all astrologers who use anything like the 12, 13, or 14 signs of the zodiac. Also, within the citation, what does "tropical zodiac" mean? What other kinds of zodiac are there, and how prevalent are they? How do you know the original reason the ecliptic was divided into 12 equal parts was for calendrical purposes? The source does not say anything about calendars.
"zodiac is a division of the ecliptic into twelve equal parts" is an incorrect definition in an astronomy article. A correct astronomical definition may be found in the American Heritage Dictionary 3rd ed. (1992): "1.a. Astronomy. A band of the celestial sphere extending about 8° to either side of the ecliptic that represents the path of the principal planets, the moon, and the sun." The same source supports the idea that at least in English, the predominant meaning of zodiac in the astrological sense is "b. In astrology, this band is divided into 12 equal parts called signs, each 30° wide, bearing the name of a constellation for which it was originally named but which it no longe coincides owing to the precession of the equinoxes."
As far as I know, "zodiacal longitude" is not defined in a modern astronomical sense. It is not in the aforementioned American Heritage Dictionary, neither under "zodiacal longitude" nor under "longitude". Nor can it be found under those terms in the Glossary of the Astronomical Almanac Online even though that publication distinguishes among three kinds of longitude.
"...which all historical records acknowledge only twelve." Really? Who checked all historical records? Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
: Your response with my replies more sharply indented (So you can see more clearly who said what):
(outside opinion, I spotted this at the COI noticeboard) Ophiuchus (astrology) is a WP:SPINOUT from this article, but the section should be much smaller, and it needs to put more weight in astronomic terms. Detailed debunking belongs to the astrology article. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 09:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Does this sentence have meaning: "Because of the overlap of Ophiuchus and the zodiacal longitude, Ophiuchus is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the 13th sign of the zodiac"? If so, what do "zodiacal longitude" and "sign of the zodiac" mean? Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a spinout article that covers the details of the problems with Ophiuchus as a zodiac constellation. All we need here is a brief sentence pointing to it.
Jc3s5h pointed out some problems with: "Because of the overlap of Ophiuchus and the zodiacal longitude, Ophiuchus is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the 13th sign of the zodiac"
Changing it like this removes the problems: "Because Ophiuchus is one of 13 constellations which cross the ecliptic, there is a controversy around using Ophiuchus in astrology as the '13th sign of the zodiac'".
This is a neutral worded statement that doesn't take sides in the argument whether its use in astrology is mistaken or not. People can find further details and arguments on that matter in
Ophiuchus (astrology), the spinout article that was created for that purpose.
By just putting that there is a controversy we may avoid that editors keep coming back here to add in their side of the argument on that question, just like happened in January. But this is an astronomy article, so it is not the place for that kind of discussion.
MakeSense64 (
talk) 06:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Brezsny and other astrologers say they have long known that the pairings of constellations and astrological signs don’t match, but that Western astrologers don’t deal with stars — as some other branches of astrology do — but rather the planets and solar system. [Emphasis added]]
Concerning JHunterJ's latest revision, astronomy articles should use precise wording. Sometimes this makes it impossible to say anything at all about a topic in one short sentence, due to the need to define terms or avoid poorly defined terms. I suggest that "astrological sign" is poorly defined. In Western astrology, the sign as a unit of measure designating a sector of the ecliptic and the sign as an angular space that is significant in making astrological predictions are one and the same. In non-Western astronomy, which might be conducted in non-English language, the measure of the location of the sun is different from the angular space that is considered significant in making predictions. I really don't know how the concepts would translate, but it certainly seems to confuse newspaper reporters. Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi JhunterJ, thanks for coming to the page and responding to my request for further comment. Just so you understand, I’m not inclined to clash heads with anyone over this and my concern is only that it felt like a very productive step was being taken when editors were raising their views here, and bouncing productively off each other’s criticisms and suggestions to arrive at an explanation that, as far as I can see, was pretty good. It was accurate, it was relatively brief, and yet it gave a reliable and informative account of the confusion that periodically arises, why it arises, and what the well established facts of the matter actually are. This is the sort of content that I believe puts an end to attempts to regurgitate ongoing problems, because it deals with the matter clearly and factually. In addition, the reader is left able to understand, rather than just being told something that isn’t self-explanatory, which leaves the point of confusion lingering.
Sorry to sound critical – I certainly realise you were not the only one doing this – but you seem to have dismissed the process that was being taken to gain consensus when you made such a dramatic cut to content that had been thoughtfully processed, deleting three-quarters of the paragraph whilst making only a one-line statement here after the event.
On reflection, I don’t see any reason to include a link to the Ophiuchus (astrology) page at this point. I think that begs for future trouble and leaves the impression that this is an essentially astrological matter, capable of being decided by the whim of any modern astrologer who wants to redefine the astronomical basis of what the zodiac actually is. I consider this to be a simple and straight-forward clarification of information that pertains to the status of this constellation. And since this constellation-sign status confusion is significant in this way only to this one constellation, it is surely appropriate that on this page it is given as much coverage and background information as necessary to clarify it fully, and so firmly establish what the mainstream view is, as opposed to fringe theories that are based on confusions and misunderstandings.
For that reason I considered the content was perfect in length and details as it was before your edit. It very efficiently covered all the salient points whilst retaining the intelligent tone of the page, and leaving the reader informed enough to understand the point, or able to choose to read more about the zodiac on the zodiac page if they wish.
I would like to propose that we go back to that earlier version, which four editors had stated approval of, and return to the process of asking if anyone considers it inaccurate in any way, so that we ensure that the content is as reliable and informative as it can be, for readers who come here specifically to gain a better understanding of this point. Are you OK with that? Below is how the passage read, with the addition of one or two obviously sensible alterations that you and Jc3s5h subsequently made. If there is anything that you don't feel is reliable or rleevant here, could you please explain? Thanks, Zac Δ talk 23:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Ophiuchus is one of thirteen constellations that cross the ecliptic. [1] It has therefore been called the '13th sign of the zodiac'. However, this confuses sign with constellation. The signs of the zodiac are a twelve-fold division of the ecliptic, so that each sign spans 30° of celestial longitude, approximately the distance the Sun travels in a month, and (in the Western tradition) are aligned with the seasons so that the March equinox falls on the boundary between Aries and Pisces. Constellations, on the other hand, are unequal in size and are based on the positions of the stars. The constellations of the zodiac have only a loose association with the signs of the zodiac, and do not in general coincide with them. In Western astrology the constellation of Aquarius, for example, largely corresponds to the sign of Pisces. Similarly, the constellation of Ophiuchus occupies most of the sign of Sagittarius.
(outdent) This part of your proposed edit is not about Ophiuchus, so not needed here:
The signs of the zodiac are a twelve-fold division of the ecliptic, so that each sign spans 30° of celestial longitude, approximately the distance the Sun travels in a month, and (in the Western tradition) are aligned with the seasons so that the March equinox falls on the boundary between Aries and Pisces. Constellations, on the other hand, are unequal in size and are based on the positions of the stars. The constellations of the zodiac have only a loose association with the signs of the zodiac, and do not in general coincide with them.
The distinction between signs and constellations is explained perfectly well here:
Zodiacal_constellation#Zodiacal_constellations
There is no need to repeat the same definitions over and over in every article where it applies, that would defeat the purpose of an encyclopeadia.
Those who don't know what a zodiacal constellation is will click on the hyperlink, which is already given at the end of the previous section. That's what hyperlinks are for.
MakeSense64 (
talk) 14:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Ophiuchus is one of thirteen constellations that cross the ecliptic. [2] It is thus used by some modern astrologers as a '13th sign of the zodiac'. However, it is not included in conventional (Western tradition) astrology, under which the signs of the zodiac are a twelve-fold division of the ecliptic, such that each sign spans 30° of celestial longitude (approximately the distance the Sun travels in a month), and aligned with the seasons so that the March equinox falls on the boundary between Aries and Pisces. Under the traditional system, constellations have only a loose association with their respective signs, and do not in general coincide with them. Interpretations which include Ophiuchus favour a more strict adherence to the positions of the constellations each sign represents.
This should sufficiently avoid taking a side in the issue, while still representing enough relevant information to provide proper clarification. I believe it has an added benefit of being more concise than the current text, which, quite frankly, meanders for the sake of upholding a single viewpoint. Kefke Wren ( talk) 16:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
References
Thought I should share this to proove that it is indeed a zodiac. http://ophiuchus.tribe.net/thread/1697fb3a-34e6-4a24-ba14-1eda9f1a5042 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.32.49 ( talk) 06:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Zodiacal status aside, should we not list its symbol (a U with a tilde in it) as we do with other celestial bodies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.165.65 ( talk) 20:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ophiuchus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "objects":
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Do any of you see a connection with this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laoco%C3%B6n_and_His_Sons
Seems reasonable to me! Regards, 96.19.147.40 ( talk) 01:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
I have noticed the following style aspects of this article:
I hope to clean up the style at some point in the not to distant future. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
the naked-eye star ζ Ophiuchi
This should be edited to also be link to the WP article on this high-speed star and its "bow wave "
Zeta Ophiuchi
99.251.239.140 ( talk) 12:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The sentences in this section are incredibly weak. I've read it twice and it's wordy to the point of being unintelligible. I could rewrite that section but it would look like this: Ophiuchus and the zodiac See: Ophiuchus (astrology). Much prettier. -rudyard ( talk) 04:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to edit the article myself for fear of upsetting editors, but I just realized in reading the article for this constellation that a significant insight is missing. The trajectory of the Voyager 1 space craft is such that it appears from the perspective of the earth to be converging on Rasalhague in this constellation, Ophiuchus. It of course isn't really headed there. Over next few billions of years it's trajectory will be complex.
But for now, for us on earth, I think it's interesting and important that star gazers know that our first interstellar object can be found approximately here. The Voyager 1 Wikipedia article has a "timeline" graphic that shows its rough position over the last years of its mission: Voyager 1 With distance increasing, its apparent motion in the heavens will slow to a near stand still, at least as gauged from our short life times.
If this inspires someone qualified, then please add the reference. I think it makes this constellation even more interesting than the astronomical goodies who already call it home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.228.123 ( talk) 17:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Taurus Poniatowski, Serpentarius, Scutum Sobiesky, and Serpens.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 31, 2020. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2020-01-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
This illustration is plate 12 of Urania's Mirror, a set of 32 astronomical star chart cards illustrated by Sidney Hall and first published in 1824, featuring artistic depictions of Ophiuchus, as well as Taurus Poniatovii, Scutum (here referred to as "Scutum Sobiesky") and Serpens.Illustration credit: Sidney Hall; restored by Adam Cuerden
What kind of birthday do they have and why are they so rare? 45.47.127.87 ( talk) 20:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)