![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The list of sidereal zodiac dates has serious problems: there are gaps between the signs in the dates. Surely that is not correct; see the sidereal zodiac article. (is that one correct?)-- 66.243.235.236 ( talk) 01:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
What exactly are the merits of this mosaic? Artistically, this is worse than a 6-year-old could draw. Is it the most ancient picture of Zodiac Circle? I doubt it. I am upset just by looking at this art mockery. 85.65.137.175 ( talk) 09:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The "13 zodiac signs" thing isn't vandalism. I started a discussion here a couple of hours ago. Whether it will become widely accepted remains to be seen (I don't know how that would even be decided) but the changes shouldn't be reverted as vandalism. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 00:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Are the IAU dates from 1977? This ref [2] is more recent; it's off by one day for all but one of the dates.
The zodiac has little to do with the stars, just as the months of our calendar have little to do with the moon. The houses are simply named after the constellations; it's divided evenly into 12 because the day and night are divided evenly into 12 hours. 8 pm isn't a shorter hour than 10 pm just because the corresponding constellation as defined by the IAU (or even by common sense) is narrower than the one for 10 pm. Saying you're an Ophiuchus rather than a Scorpio may be fun, but it makes no more sense than the IRS demanding your taxes by the full moon (= middle of the month). Circus horoscopes aren't going to change just because every few years some planetarium pokes holes in astrology as part of a public outreach program. — kwami ( talk) 08:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
As always, the question is not "is it stupid", it is "is it notable". Of course it is stupid. But is it notable? This article is about a 26 century old tradition. The Ophicuus thing is what, 20 years old? Unless excellent references are shown that establish notability, I assume WP:UNDUE. -- dab (𒁳) 12:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not create a "the Opichus controversy" paragraph? If it's kept as a sidenote of something that happened, rather than pretending it never occurred, I'm sure the so-called vandalism will diminish. 159.90.10.250 ( talk) 14:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
We do address it, and even have an article on it. — kwami ( talk) 17:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
What "controversy"? Nobody disputes that the ecliptic passes across the IAU boundaries of Ophiuchus. It just doesn't have anything to do with this article's topic. If you suggest that a bunch of online newspaper headlines of the "past two days" has any relevance of a topic of Babylonian antiquity, Hellenistic astrology and Renaissance magic, you obviously have no clue about lazy journalism. -- dab (𒁳) 18:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, we need writers to start discussing this nonsense on the Minnesota Planetarium Society article. This craziness needs to be nipped in the bud, by propagating clear information, the way only Wikipedia can. -- Zanimum ( talk) 14:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I can not find any references to this astrological sign in any of the texts on astrology I have read. I consider this sign to be a hoax, there are only 12 signs in the zodiac. Nekochan1973 ( talk) 19:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
it's not a hoax, it's just a silly recentism. "zomg the zodiac has been mentioned in the news, quick we must head over to Wikipedia and butcher the zodiac article". For crying out loud, we have discussed Ophiuchus at length, in 2006. It's even still on this page. To Jstuck21677, if your main source of knowledge on the topic is google news perhaps you could consider using Wikipedia to learn something. You know, by reading it instead of disfiguring it with stupid edits. Also, more than a year ago, the Ophiuchus (astrology) artice has been created. If you must you can include your "reliable sources" there. -- dab (𒁳) 19:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Can people also condescend to use the talkpage instead of edit-warring? I will consider reverts that aren't explained in a coherent statement here on talk as subject to rollback. Read WP:BRD. You want to make a change to a long-standing, stable article? Do it. If you are reverted, don't do it again but seek consensus first. -- dab (𒁳) 10:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I just found a 1974 astrological publication, Stephen Schmidt's Astrology 14 Horoscope, which proposed 14 signs of the zodiac, adding Ophiuchus and Cetus. But Schmidt's book was not widely read, and apparently is now forgotten even by astrologers, let alone journalists. The reason we are talking about this is, I presume, the introduction of the Unicode 6.0 standard in October 2010. Mr. Kunkle must have scanned the new characters, and noted the "Ophiuchus symbol" introduced at U+26CE. At least I cannot imagine there is no connection between the introduction of this symbol, and the online hysteria about a 13th sign of the zodiac erupting two months later. Why did the Unicode Consortium introduce an Ophiuchus symbol? Because Ophiuchus as an astrological sign has been popular in Japan, the home of everything that is weird and different, for more than ten years. Why has it become popular in Japan? God knows, but it started with Walter Berg's book The 13 Signs of the Zodiac becoming a bestseller in Japan in 1996.
What really disheartens me the most is that NBC, where this thing apparently originated, reports the precession of the equinoxes as "news", and confronts "members of the US public" with this revelation, who react to this "discovery" with surprise. Who knew, indeed.
This is something that has been known to all astronomers, and all astrologers, for 2,100 years. It has been known to anyone with half an education for at least 100 years. If there is anything to learn here, it is the complete lack of education of the general population in North America, and the failure to at least google and glance at Wikipedia where these things can be read up for free on the part of the popular media. And sadly enough it isn't just a case of "Americans are dumb", I think they are just least embarrassed to show that they are. Of course it wasn't below German media to repeat the headline. I a depressed now. -- dab (𒁳) 11:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
see here.
This article is in good shape so why not continue the consensus from here to the Zodiac sign article? Alatari ( talk) 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, a lot of my friends have recently been talking about changes in the zodiac system. Something about our planet does circulate around the sun in a different way than we had thought for years and that will change some of the dates in the zodiac system and also I've heard rumors that a "snake" have been added. Just wanna be sure if those rumors are true? - Jalokin95 ( talk) 13:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
See right above your comment - "Opiuchus, again?". That's what I came here to read about, and the short answer is no, they are not true 80.7.86.234 ( talk) 18:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think a few people editing this page are far too close to the subject matter and aren't giving the general public what it wants. Most people don't pay a great deal of attention to the zodiac, so when we see a flurry of news reports about a 13th sign, we want to know about it. And we want to check it out on Wikipedia. Greeting those people with a general zodiac page that doesn't address the question, then dismissing those people on the talk page ... I'm sorry, but that's not what Wikipedia is all about. Can someone please sum up the "13th sign" question? Bdure ( talk) 21:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Since the side-real and tropical signs are the same it would be easy for any common user to come in here and try and find some information on this '13th sign media event' in the Zodiac sign page only to be greeted with the tropical only dates and no Ophicus(sp) explanation/denial/rebuttal. To deflect edit warring I would suggest the chart and some of the explanation from the Zodiac article be migrated into the sign page. The arguments that lead to the excellent layout of the Zodiac page would seem to apply here also. Alatari ( talk) 17:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Newbie here :-) with finger on Oph pulse for going on 25 years; familiar with issues, history, etc.; makes this suggestion: for clarity, the "symbol" assigned to Ophiuchus on the Zodiac page should be removed. Here are the reasons: (1) Symbol use gives the impression that Oph is a zodiac "sign". (2) As far as I am aware, no symbol has officially been decided upon by those who are working with the Oph energy in the context of Astrology. (I am curious, just for my own information, who came up with this symbol and what it represents to him/her/them.) Thank you. Donnajpro ( talk) 00:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Seven mentions of Ophiuchus seems excessive for a constellation that was never part of the Zodiac. If inclusion is based on the artificial IAU boundaries crossing the ecliptic, this literal interpretation should also mention the constellations of Orion and Cetus since their boundaries fall well within the 9° band either side of the ecliptic. And why are we promoting Walter Berg's 13 sign book (here and elsewhere on WP)? Far from being a pioneer as suggested, the small paperback was rushed out to take advantage on the first Press 'sensational' discovery of the misnomered "13 signs" in 1995. It all started as a publicity stunt by astronomer, Jacqueline Mitton to promote a BBC TV astronomy series. She was as surprised as anyone at how credible journalists fell for this 'news' just as they did in the USA in January 2011. An explanation is necessary here but putting it into tables with dates is misleading and duplicating the information into two sections: zodiacal constellations and modern astronomy is totally unnecessary.
In 1983, Stern magazine published the 'scoop of the decade' - the Hitler Diaries. People need to know it was a hoax, but it should not predominate pages on the life of Hitler. Robert Currey talk 23:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Note: I edited heading to avoid conflict with previous Ophiuchus heading. Robert Currey talk 08:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
We know it is of Mesopotamian origin, so present in the Persian empire as in the Hellenistic kingdoms and consequently in India with local variations. In fact the Chinese constellation system is very different. But to say that the zodiac is unilaterally influenced by the Hindu zodiac has no historical evidence. The Yavanesvara which appeared in western India suggests a different thesis.
Other reasonable hypothesis but unfortunately without historical evidences: a) Indo-European migration, to see Vedic and Mitanni pantheon (same Gods names). b) The Semitic (Chaldean) origin that it is more probable as the classic authors say us. We have only these clues. We know that Accadian and Babilonian religion is linked with Sumerian astronomical/agricultural religion. The planets and stars were observered on the ziggurat temples. Example the continuity between Inanna/Isthar/Aphrodite (identify with the planet) Sin for moon etc etc. Why not for zodiac ?. Finally we know that Sumerians traded with Indus valley. But we cannot write these in enciclopedia.....
For the moment we can to affirm only that zodiac is brought by the Greeks/Yavanas in India. In future if we will have other evidence .... -- 84.222.74.83 ( talk) 11:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The phenomenon of precession of the equinoxes is known to the Greeks, who use it in astronomy but not in astrology that continued to use the ancestral tropical system. We know the work of Hipparchus of Nicaea. Today in same manner in the astrology we use the ancient system and not the Hipparchus system. Ophiuchus is present in astronomical zodiac (sideral) but not in astrological zodiac (the last obviously is older than Hipparchus and it is traditional. The Sideral(Hipparchus) system appared in India astrology in the XIX century by Sri Yukteswar Giri. Attention not obviously in astronomy that already used the sidereal system to see the islamic Uluğ Beg only for an example. The paragraph that must be changed, confuses astronomy with astrology indeed both use the zodiac. -- Andriolo ( talk) 15:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
For the reasons listed above, and the confusion between astrology and astronomy about sidereal coordinates of the Hindu zodiac paragraph. And for the lack of references I propose the deletion of the paragraph.--
Andriolo (
talk) 18:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC). I'ven't deleted it but I changed a little the paragraph to improve a bit.
In western side there are substantially two zodiacs: the astronomical (sideral without precession) with 13 constellations (attested from late Roman Empire period, but probably born in “scientific” schools in Alexandria) and the astrological (Chaldean traditional with precession ). Attention the caldeans known the phoenomenon to see
Kidinnu (gr: Kidenas) that influenced Hipparchus which did the calculations. Also for the medieval
Albategnius the chaldeans known the phoenomenon before greek conquest. This division does not exist in the Indian world. However the sideral system in Hindu astrology is relatively recent. --
Andriolo (
talk)
22:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The lede of this article is poorly constructed and incorrect in its details. It reads:
The zodiac is not the "ring of constellations" - it is the mathematic division of the ecliptic, specifically designed to offer a distinct frame of reference from that of the irregularly spaced constellations. This lede makes it sound like there is an astronomical zodiac AND an astrological zodiac, which is not the case. The last line of the lede is correct - the zodiac is and always has been used for astronomical measurement and the astrological meanings extend from this, but do not generate a separate form of division. There is a lot of confusion here between the ecliptic and the zodiac - the paths of the Moon and planets do not lie within the ecliptic, they lie within the zodiac - (the belt of celestial space that extends 8-9° either side of the ecliptic in order to contain the apparent paths of the observable planets). Also, it is not just astrologers that have used the signs of the zodiac to divide the ecliptic into twelve equal parts - this was the standard astronomical frame of planetary movement until recently, and the one that was traditionally used to record the positions of stars as well as planets.
I notice that the current lede is unreferenced, goes back to the initial version of the page, and doesn't adhere to what is said in the main body of the article. Does anyone want to defend the lede as it stands or should I suggest a rewrite that clarifies these issues? Zac Δ talk 20:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
There appear to be about four measurements that involve the Zodiac in a broad sense.
Here is the example I promised. There is a distant radio source in another galaxy, which the International Earth Rotation Service designates as "0109+224". It's located in the constellation Pisces. Because it is so far away, it isn't expected to have any observable change in direction, compared to the average of all the distant stars. So it has been designated one of the radio sources that make up the International Celestial Reference Frame. Here is a table of its right ascensions at the epoch J2000. (Right ascension (RA) is similar to celestial longitude, except it is measured along the celestial equator, instead of the ecliptic. Unfortunately MICA does not compute celestial longitude for J2000, but RA will serve our purpose.)
Date | Time (UT1) | Right Ascension (hours) |
---|---|---|
1800 Jan 01 | 00:00:00.0 | 1.2016180 |
1900 Jan 02 | 00:00:00.0 | 1.2016180 |
2000 Jan 03 | 00:00:00.0 | 1.2016180 |
We know the radio source isn't moving, and all the coordinates are the same, so this shows us that the J2000 coordinate system always gives the same coordinates to fixed stars.
On the other hand, we can calculate the ecliptic longitude of the same radio source for the equinox and ecliptic of date:
Date | Time (UT1) | Celestial longitude (°) |
---|---|---|
1800 Jan 01 | 00:00:00.0 | 22.56816 |
1900 Jan 02 | 00:00:00.0 | 23.96863 |
2000 Jan 03 | 00:00:00.0 | 25.35372 |
We see that the celestial longitude is changing due to precession. This is because we are calculating based on where the moving equinox is in 1800, 1900, and 2000. Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Zac, about your statement "From what you describe, 1 is the bog-standard tropical zodiac and so is 3." To me, an area of sky is a different concept from an angular coordinate. So for 1, I could say that right now the ecliptic longitude, using the ecliptic and equinox of date, for the star Vega is 285.49454°, even though its celestial latitude, + 61.73448°, means that it is far outside the zodiac. For 3, the patches of sky that define different signs can be either tropical or sidereal, whichever is stated or implied in the text. Probably the astrological description "tropical" or "sidereal" is more appropriate than "of date" or "J2000" because if an astronomer were to say an object is in Aries (without further qualification) he would mean it is in the constellation Aries; I have never heard of astronomers using zodiac signs as areas of sky that an object could be located in. Jc3s5h ( talk) 23:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
(Just had an edit conflict so will post what I was going to post and then look at your new post above):
Zac wrote "Maybe I’m misunderstanding you completely but I think you’re confused in what you’re saying about the direction of the equinox being fixed relative to distant stars. The vernal equinox is determined by the point at which the ecliptic intersects the equator, and that’s the major principle of the tropical zodiac – that the equinox is the point of commencement which shifts in relation to the constellations. The sidereal zodiac is not fixed to the equinox of about 500 BC, it’s fixed to the stars."
In the J2000 system, the origin of longitude is where the vernal equinox was in 2000, and it never moves with respect to the distant stars. If observe a supernova tonight with a celestial longitude of 50° relative to tonight's equinox, I could transform it to the J2000 system using a web page provided by NASA, and find the J2000 longitude is 49.83810°. Or, I could use the same page to transform it to something close to what the Babylonians used when they set up the system and which was inherited by the Hindus and is the basis of their sidereal zodiac. Supposing they set up their system in -500 (or 501 BC) that would be J-500, and the latitude would be 15.10586°. So J2000 and J-500 are conceptually the same thing, it's just the magnitude of the transformation that is different. Jc3s5h ( talk) 01:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is the example you asked for
Star | Year | Celestial long. ° | Celestial lat. ° |
---|---|---|---|
Markab | 2000 | 353.5 | 19.4 |
Markab | 1500 | 346.5 | 19.4 |
Markab | -500 | 318.9 | 19.4 |
Hamal | 2000 | 37.7 | 10.0 |
Hamal | 1500 | 30.7 | 9.9 |
Hamal | -500 | 3.0 | 9.8 |
Both stars are relatively bright (about 3rd magnitude) and not very distant, so they have some proper motion (they appear to move relative to the distant background stars). I did a rough calculation and found they would move by as much as 0.15° from -500 to 2000, so I rounded all the degree measurements to the nearest 0.1°.
Markab is in Pegasus and is fairly close to today's origin of celestial longitude. Hamal is in Aries, and is close to the origin of longitude as it was in -500. Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Star | Year | Celestial long. ° | Celestial lat. ° |
---|---|---|---|
Markab | 2000 | [353.5] 23°♓30' *Pisces (353°29'37" ab.long.) | [19.4] 19°n24'21" |
Markab | 1500 | [346.5] 16°♓32' (346°32'06") | [19.4] 19°n25'03" |
Markab | -500 | [318.9] 18°♒52' *Aquarius (318°51'56") | [19.4] 19°n29'20" |
Hamal | 2000 | [37.7] 7°♉40' *Taurus (37°40'14") | [10.0] 9°n57'57" |
Hamal | 1500 | [30.7] 0°♉41' (30°41'03") | [9.9] 9°n57'00" |
Hamal | -500 | [3.0] 2°♈54' *Aries (2°51'31") | [9.8] 9°n54'38" |
Jc3s5h, in light of this, are you happy to accept that there are not four different zodiac systems as suggested at the top of this discussion section, but that points 1, 2 and 3 are all details that relate to the tropical zodiac? It would be good to clear up these issues before I propose edits on the content. The relevant points of clarification I suggest are:
Would you (and other editors) agree – or is there anything I’ve missed? I also hope to add useful information on the roots and historical development of the zodiac system. Zac Δ talk 15:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately the astronomical community has preempted many of the words we might want to use; we've already discussed "system". You stumbled upon another preempted word: "frame". For example, there is the International Celestial Reference System, which describes in detail the concepts and goals of the system, and the International Celestial Reference Frame, which is the practical realization of the system. The practical realization consists of a list of 212 extragalactic radio sources and their positions. Perhaps we could say there are two four approaches for coordinate systems related to Earth (with astrological names in italics when they differ from equivalent astronomical terms):
Approach | Date & Time† | Plane where long. or dec. measured |
---|---|---|
"Of date" | date & time observation | equator |
Tropical/"of date" | date & time observation | ecliptic |
Sidereal | about 500 BC | ecliptic |
Epoch | a recognized epoch | equator |
Epoch | a recognized epoch | ecliptic |
† On the date given the equator and ecliptic had a certain orientation, and the intersection of those planes was a line that established the equinoxes. The position of the object is given relative to those planes and the March equinox as they were oriented at the date listed in the date column. The object who's position is being given is not necessarily transformed to were it was at the time of the epoch. Jc3s5h ( talk) 21:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably the J2000.0 system does not need to be mentioned in the article. Probably the "of date" ecliptic system should be included because it is really just another name for the tropical zodiac longitude measurement, with (except in quite old texts) different notation. The reason I would like people to clearly understand J2000 is so the mention of the "of date" ecliptic system will be written in a way to exclude the J2000.0 system. So I'm not advocating inclusion, I'm advocating carefully written exclusion.
About the statement "It doesn't commence its zero point from that date (1st Jan); it uses the 'of date' vernal equinox of that year", no, that's not true. It always use the vernal equinox of 2000. I believe this passage from page 13 of P. K. Seidelmann (ed.), Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, (Sausalito: University Science Books, 1992) supports that.
In principle it is possible to obtain a standard celestial coordinate frame that is fixed in space by using the frame that is appropriate to an arbitrarily chosen instant of time, which is known as the standard epoch. The positions of the equator and equinox for such a standard epoch cannot be observed directly, but must be specified by adopting a catalog of the positions and motions of a set of stars or other celestial objects that act as reference points in the sky. The standard epoch is now J2000.0, although the epoch B1950.0 has been used for much of this century.
Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
In ancient times, Cetus could been part of the constellation Pisces and Ophiuchus served for the 8th astrological month we now associate with the constellation Scorpio, or possibly Libra was either a subgroup of stars with the constellation Virgo. The ancient astrologers in India, Persia and Babylonia once had an "Arachnida" constellation for a zodiac but was phased out along with the concept of Orion and Perseus when the sun's orbit traveled farther south on the eliptic and the North Astronomical pole moved a few degrees away from the constellation of Draco. We would later have reimagined Scorpio, Aquarius and Gemini from the former "Phoenix", "Eagle" and "Hawk" constellations to the current designs of an Scorpion, the Water Carrier and the Twins. 71.102.3.122 ( talk) 06:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
If there is one astrology/astronomy article that is a priority to take to good article and featured article, it is probably this one. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The following paragraph in the page makes some claims without any citations:
The Babylonian star catalogues entered Greek astronomy in the 4th century BC, via Eudoxus of Cnidus and others. Babylonia or Chaldea in the Hellenistic world came to be so identified with astrology that "Chaldean wisdom" became among Greeks and Romans the synonym of divination through the planets and stars. Hellenistic astrology originated from Babylonian and Egyptian astrology [CITATION NEEDED HERE]. Horoscopic astrology first appeared in Ptolemaic Egypt [CITATION NEEDED HERE]. The Dendera zodiac, a relief dating to ca. 50 BC, is the first known depiction of the classical zodiac of twelve signs.[CITATION NEEDED HERE]
The Hellenestic astrology from what i know IS NOT originated from the Egyptian and has differences compared to the Babylonian 91.138.238.198 ( talk) 16:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article mention the other zodiacs (Chinese, for example) or at least have a link to them, because people could come here looking for zodiacs in general. Thylacinus cynocephalus ( talk) 03:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention a few things on my edit of the Table of Dates section, specifically the table itself, on this page.
First off, if anybody can, please confirm the dates of the reference I used with an additional source, especially the sidereal dates, that is, any source besides horoscope.com, that site seems questionable and unprofessional to me. But it seems you search for sidereal zodiac on the internet and it's hard to find anything but the mix-up about Ophiuchus being the "13th sign".
Also I believe some of the labels seemed somewhat crowded with information available elsewhere (for instance, "IAU constellation boundaries (2011)" is redundant when you have another label "Constellation" right above it). I thought it would look a bit cleaner without that redundant or unnecessary information (Jyotisha may be necessary, but the link is available elsewhere on the page under a more recognizable name).
Isangaft220 ( talk) 15:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1. Is there any official reference to such dates?
2. The reference to "IAU boundaries (2011)":
Astronomical Almanac Online!(subscribers) U.S. Naval Observatory 2008 is not available as of this time.
--Regards,
125.33.240.149 (
talk)
21:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Taking question 2 first, I seriously doubt the U.S. Naval Observatory will be providing dates when the Sun leaves and enters various constellations, because this is not a matter of much interest to astronomers. Maybe some expert with the Wayback Machine actually supported the claimed date at the time the citation was written.
There is no exact set of dates that can be used. The reasons, in order of significance, are
So to be accurate and useful to a world-wide audience, it would be necessary to give the dates in some form of Universal Time and to recompute the dates each year.
The astronomy community is quite well organized, and it is easy to find sources that closely agree with each other and are more-or-less official. So far as I know, the astrology community is not well organized and nothing even approaches being quasi-official. Jc3s5h ( talk) 22:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Template_talk:Zodiac_date
This section is a
soft redirect.
![]() |
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their
user talk page. |
About the template " Template:Zodiac date IAU":
1. 25.5 + 38.2 + 29.3 + 21.1 + 36.9 + 44.5 + 21.1 + 8.4 + 18.4 + 33.6 + 27.4 + 23.9 + 37.7 = 366.0
Why isn't it 365.2425?
2. What's the meaning of constant value 365.25636?
Why isn't it 365.2425 + 365.2425 / 25772 ≈ 365.256672?
3. Are the following results of the template calls all correct?
2005: 18 April – 14 May
2006: 18 April – 14 May
2007: 19 April – 14 May
2008: 18 April – 13 May
2009: 18 April – 14 May
2010: 19 April – 14 May
2011: 19 April – 14 May
2012: 18 April – 14 May
--Regards, 124.64.219.129 ( talk) 11:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that this discussion should take place at
Template talk:Zodiac date.
Also, there is User:Jc3s5h, who (a) tagged the talkpage of the subtemplate {{ Zodiac date IAU}} for references and then (b) came to my talkpage threatening deletion of the template if I didn't "cite my sources". WTH? If the template isn't accurate enough for you, either stop using it or improve it. Don't delete a template doing astronomical calculations because it doesn't have 100% accuracy. Also, don't use {{ unreferenced}} on talkpages. I will be happy to see the template removed from use in article space pending discussion or improvement, and I am happy to discuss what it does at Template talk:Zodiac date, but not in the Jc3s5h spirit of deletionist ultimatums.
I estimated that the accuracy of the template was going to be about 3 hours. This isn't, strictly speaking, good enough, because it means it will get the date wrong about 3/24 or about one time in eight. So yeah, there is definitely a point in not using it pending improvement. This doesn't mean it should be deleted. -- dab (𒁳) 10:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: I have removed the {{
help me}}
template. This is a content issue and not something we helpers can help with (we only deal with problems on editing Wikipedia). Anyway, the discussion is already underway, the {{
help me}}
template is not necessary. Cheers. --
OBSIDIAN†
SOUL
10:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't edit often. Looking for input from those that do edit often. I feel that my edit was valid, and it was quickly removed.
I added this fact, along with a link to an mp3 of the song being sung to show how easy it is to learn. (My daughters and my nephews have all learned it very easily, and can now stand outside singing this song and recognize the signs of the zodiac that are above the horizon). It was removed, with the remover listing it as "spam", and saying that it doesn't work with that tune.
I had read this mnemonic in the book Space (by Michener)long ago, and looked it up online quite a bit, and still found it difficult to learn. I found only one reference to it oringially being sung as a sort of nursery rhyme for babies and small children, and then sang it to this, with slight modification to the words that are listed here on Wikipedia. (Who's to say that the version listed here is the only version).
Although the person who removed this apparently doesn't like it, I do feel that the fact that this can be sung--and I think was originally sung--does indeed add to the understanding of mnemonics in relation to the zodiac, and greatly increases the odds of someone actually learning the zodiac based on any of the mnemonics listed on this wikipedia page.
I don't edit often, so I'll leave it to the regular editors to consider. But I think it defeats the purpose of wikipedia if my input can be so easily discarded, although it did add to the usefulness of this section of the page.
Here is an mp3 sung version of the mnemonic:
http://tinyvox.com/voxes/f8/37/f837bcc37c0dee485664d547f142bf42.mp3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfranco584 ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I did read the references, but not quite sure you understand the differences between astrology and astronomy. Newton may have introduced us to the galaxies and such, but astrology never changes. Astronomy implies that everything is moving. Technically it is, but there are some things that never change. A relative point is always relative to one object, and since there are no known fixed objects, we have to assume that everything is relative. Is there a fixed point? No one knows. I'm sure there might be some people who think they know, but they will always be guessing. Stuffed tiger ( talk) 15:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The list of sidereal zodiac dates has serious problems: there are gaps between the signs in the dates. Surely that is not correct; see the sidereal zodiac article. (is that one correct?)-- 66.243.235.236 ( talk) 01:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
What exactly are the merits of this mosaic? Artistically, this is worse than a 6-year-old could draw. Is it the most ancient picture of Zodiac Circle? I doubt it. I am upset just by looking at this art mockery. 85.65.137.175 ( talk) 09:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The "13 zodiac signs" thing isn't vandalism. I started a discussion here a couple of hours ago. Whether it will become widely accepted remains to be seen (I don't know how that would even be decided) but the changes shouldn't be reverted as vandalism. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 00:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Are the IAU dates from 1977? This ref [2] is more recent; it's off by one day for all but one of the dates.
The zodiac has little to do with the stars, just as the months of our calendar have little to do with the moon. The houses are simply named after the constellations; it's divided evenly into 12 because the day and night are divided evenly into 12 hours. 8 pm isn't a shorter hour than 10 pm just because the corresponding constellation as defined by the IAU (or even by common sense) is narrower than the one for 10 pm. Saying you're an Ophiuchus rather than a Scorpio may be fun, but it makes no more sense than the IRS demanding your taxes by the full moon (= middle of the month). Circus horoscopes aren't going to change just because every few years some planetarium pokes holes in astrology as part of a public outreach program. — kwami ( talk) 08:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
As always, the question is not "is it stupid", it is "is it notable". Of course it is stupid. But is it notable? This article is about a 26 century old tradition. The Ophicuus thing is what, 20 years old? Unless excellent references are shown that establish notability, I assume WP:UNDUE. -- dab (𒁳) 12:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not create a "the Opichus controversy" paragraph? If it's kept as a sidenote of something that happened, rather than pretending it never occurred, I'm sure the so-called vandalism will diminish. 159.90.10.250 ( talk) 14:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
We do address it, and even have an article on it. — kwami ( talk) 17:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
What "controversy"? Nobody disputes that the ecliptic passes across the IAU boundaries of Ophiuchus. It just doesn't have anything to do with this article's topic. If you suggest that a bunch of online newspaper headlines of the "past two days" has any relevance of a topic of Babylonian antiquity, Hellenistic astrology and Renaissance magic, you obviously have no clue about lazy journalism. -- dab (𒁳) 18:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, we need writers to start discussing this nonsense on the Minnesota Planetarium Society article. This craziness needs to be nipped in the bud, by propagating clear information, the way only Wikipedia can. -- Zanimum ( talk) 14:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I can not find any references to this astrological sign in any of the texts on astrology I have read. I consider this sign to be a hoax, there are only 12 signs in the zodiac. Nekochan1973 ( talk) 19:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
it's not a hoax, it's just a silly recentism. "zomg the zodiac has been mentioned in the news, quick we must head over to Wikipedia and butcher the zodiac article". For crying out loud, we have discussed Ophiuchus at length, in 2006. It's even still on this page. To Jstuck21677, if your main source of knowledge on the topic is google news perhaps you could consider using Wikipedia to learn something. You know, by reading it instead of disfiguring it with stupid edits. Also, more than a year ago, the Ophiuchus (astrology) artice has been created. If you must you can include your "reliable sources" there. -- dab (𒁳) 19:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Can people also condescend to use the talkpage instead of edit-warring? I will consider reverts that aren't explained in a coherent statement here on talk as subject to rollback. Read WP:BRD. You want to make a change to a long-standing, stable article? Do it. If you are reverted, don't do it again but seek consensus first. -- dab (𒁳) 10:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I just found a 1974 astrological publication, Stephen Schmidt's Astrology 14 Horoscope, which proposed 14 signs of the zodiac, adding Ophiuchus and Cetus. But Schmidt's book was not widely read, and apparently is now forgotten even by astrologers, let alone journalists. The reason we are talking about this is, I presume, the introduction of the Unicode 6.0 standard in October 2010. Mr. Kunkle must have scanned the new characters, and noted the "Ophiuchus symbol" introduced at U+26CE. At least I cannot imagine there is no connection between the introduction of this symbol, and the online hysteria about a 13th sign of the zodiac erupting two months later. Why did the Unicode Consortium introduce an Ophiuchus symbol? Because Ophiuchus as an astrological sign has been popular in Japan, the home of everything that is weird and different, for more than ten years. Why has it become popular in Japan? God knows, but it started with Walter Berg's book The 13 Signs of the Zodiac becoming a bestseller in Japan in 1996.
What really disheartens me the most is that NBC, where this thing apparently originated, reports the precession of the equinoxes as "news", and confronts "members of the US public" with this revelation, who react to this "discovery" with surprise. Who knew, indeed.
This is something that has been known to all astronomers, and all astrologers, for 2,100 years. It has been known to anyone with half an education for at least 100 years. If there is anything to learn here, it is the complete lack of education of the general population in North America, and the failure to at least google and glance at Wikipedia where these things can be read up for free on the part of the popular media. And sadly enough it isn't just a case of "Americans are dumb", I think they are just least embarrassed to show that they are. Of course it wasn't below German media to repeat the headline. I a depressed now. -- dab (𒁳) 11:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
see here.
This article is in good shape so why not continue the consensus from here to the Zodiac sign article? Alatari ( talk) 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, a lot of my friends have recently been talking about changes in the zodiac system. Something about our planet does circulate around the sun in a different way than we had thought for years and that will change some of the dates in the zodiac system and also I've heard rumors that a "snake" have been added. Just wanna be sure if those rumors are true? - Jalokin95 ( talk) 13:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
See right above your comment - "Opiuchus, again?". That's what I came here to read about, and the short answer is no, they are not true 80.7.86.234 ( talk) 18:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think a few people editing this page are far too close to the subject matter and aren't giving the general public what it wants. Most people don't pay a great deal of attention to the zodiac, so when we see a flurry of news reports about a 13th sign, we want to know about it. And we want to check it out on Wikipedia. Greeting those people with a general zodiac page that doesn't address the question, then dismissing those people on the talk page ... I'm sorry, but that's not what Wikipedia is all about. Can someone please sum up the "13th sign" question? Bdure ( talk) 21:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Since the side-real and tropical signs are the same it would be easy for any common user to come in here and try and find some information on this '13th sign media event' in the Zodiac sign page only to be greeted with the tropical only dates and no Ophicus(sp) explanation/denial/rebuttal. To deflect edit warring I would suggest the chart and some of the explanation from the Zodiac article be migrated into the sign page. The arguments that lead to the excellent layout of the Zodiac page would seem to apply here also. Alatari ( talk) 17:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Newbie here :-) with finger on Oph pulse for going on 25 years; familiar with issues, history, etc.; makes this suggestion: for clarity, the "symbol" assigned to Ophiuchus on the Zodiac page should be removed. Here are the reasons: (1) Symbol use gives the impression that Oph is a zodiac "sign". (2) As far as I am aware, no symbol has officially been decided upon by those who are working with the Oph energy in the context of Astrology. (I am curious, just for my own information, who came up with this symbol and what it represents to him/her/them.) Thank you. Donnajpro ( talk) 00:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Seven mentions of Ophiuchus seems excessive for a constellation that was never part of the Zodiac. If inclusion is based on the artificial IAU boundaries crossing the ecliptic, this literal interpretation should also mention the constellations of Orion and Cetus since their boundaries fall well within the 9° band either side of the ecliptic. And why are we promoting Walter Berg's 13 sign book (here and elsewhere on WP)? Far from being a pioneer as suggested, the small paperback was rushed out to take advantage on the first Press 'sensational' discovery of the misnomered "13 signs" in 1995. It all started as a publicity stunt by astronomer, Jacqueline Mitton to promote a BBC TV astronomy series. She was as surprised as anyone at how credible journalists fell for this 'news' just as they did in the USA in January 2011. An explanation is necessary here but putting it into tables with dates is misleading and duplicating the information into two sections: zodiacal constellations and modern astronomy is totally unnecessary.
In 1983, Stern magazine published the 'scoop of the decade' - the Hitler Diaries. People need to know it was a hoax, but it should not predominate pages on the life of Hitler. Robert Currey talk 23:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Note: I edited heading to avoid conflict with previous Ophiuchus heading. Robert Currey talk 08:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
We know it is of Mesopotamian origin, so present in the Persian empire as in the Hellenistic kingdoms and consequently in India with local variations. In fact the Chinese constellation system is very different. But to say that the zodiac is unilaterally influenced by the Hindu zodiac has no historical evidence. The Yavanesvara which appeared in western India suggests a different thesis.
Other reasonable hypothesis but unfortunately without historical evidences: a) Indo-European migration, to see Vedic and Mitanni pantheon (same Gods names). b) The Semitic (Chaldean) origin that it is more probable as the classic authors say us. We have only these clues. We know that Accadian and Babilonian religion is linked with Sumerian astronomical/agricultural religion. The planets and stars were observered on the ziggurat temples. Example the continuity between Inanna/Isthar/Aphrodite (identify with the planet) Sin for moon etc etc. Why not for zodiac ?. Finally we know that Sumerians traded with Indus valley. But we cannot write these in enciclopedia.....
For the moment we can to affirm only that zodiac is brought by the Greeks/Yavanas in India. In future if we will have other evidence .... -- 84.222.74.83 ( talk) 11:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The phenomenon of precession of the equinoxes is known to the Greeks, who use it in astronomy but not in astrology that continued to use the ancestral tropical system. We know the work of Hipparchus of Nicaea. Today in same manner in the astrology we use the ancient system and not the Hipparchus system. Ophiuchus is present in astronomical zodiac (sideral) but not in astrological zodiac (the last obviously is older than Hipparchus and it is traditional. The Sideral(Hipparchus) system appared in India astrology in the XIX century by Sri Yukteswar Giri. Attention not obviously in astronomy that already used the sidereal system to see the islamic Uluğ Beg only for an example. The paragraph that must be changed, confuses astronomy with astrology indeed both use the zodiac. -- Andriolo ( talk) 15:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
For the reasons listed above, and the confusion between astrology and astronomy about sidereal coordinates of the Hindu zodiac paragraph. And for the lack of references I propose the deletion of the paragraph.--
Andriolo (
talk) 18:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC). I'ven't deleted it but I changed a little the paragraph to improve a bit.
In western side there are substantially two zodiacs: the astronomical (sideral without precession) with 13 constellations (attested from late Roman Empire period, but probably born in “scientific” schools in Alexandria) and the astrological (Chaldean traditional with precession ). Attention the caldeans known the phoenomenon to see
Kidinnu (gr: Kidenas) that influenced Hipparchus which did the calculations. Also for the medieval
Albategnius the chaldeans known the phoenomenon before greek conquest. This division does not exist in the Indian world. However the sideral system in Hindu astrology is relatively recent. --
Andriolo (
talk)
22:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The lede of this article is poorly constructed and incorrect in its details. It reads:
The zodiac is not the "ring of constellations" - it is the mathematic division of the ecliptic, specifically designed to offer a distinct frame of reference from that of the irregularly spaced constellations. This lede makes it sound like there is an astronomical zodiac AND an astrological zodiac, which is not the case. The last line of the lede is correct - the zodiac is and always has been used for astronomical measurement and the astrological meanings extend from this, but do not generate a separate form of division. There is a lot of confusion here between the ecliptic and the zodiac - the paths of the Moon and planets do not lie within the ecliptic, they lie within the zodiac - (the belt of celestial space that extends 8-9° either side of the ecliptic in order to contain the apparent paths of the observable planets). Also, it is not just astrologers that have used the signs of the zodiac to divide the ecliptic into twelve equal parts - this was the standard astronomical frame of planetary movement until recently, and the one that was traditionally used to record the positions of stars as well as planets.
I notice that the current lede is unreferenced, goes back to the initial version of the page, and doesn't adhere to what is said in the main body of the article. Does anyone want to defend the lede as it stands or should I suggest a rewrite that clarifies these issues? Zac Δ talk 20:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
There appear to be about four measurements that involve the Zodiac in a broad sense.
Here is the example I promised. There is a distant radio source in another galaxy, which the International Earth Rotation Service designates as "0109+224". It's located in the constellation Pisces. Because it is so far away, it isn't expected to have any observable change in direction, compared to the average of all the distant stars. So it has been designated one of the radio sources that make up the International Celestial Reference Frame. Here is a table of its right ascensions at the epoch J2000. (Right ascension (RA) is similar to celestial longitude, except it is measured along the celestial equator, instead of the ecliptic. Unfortunately MICA does not compute celestial longitude for J2000, but RA will serve our purpose.)
Date | Time (UT1) | Right Ascension (hours) |
---|---|---|
1800 Jan 01 | 00:00:00.0 | 1.2016180 |
1900 Jan 02 | 00:00:00.0 | 1.2016180 |
2000 Jan 03 | 00:00:00.0 | 1.2016180 |
We know the radio source isn't moving, and all the coordinates are the same, so this shows us that the J2000 coordinate system always gives the same coordinates to fixed stars.
On the other hand, we can calculate the ecliptic longitude of the same radio source for the equinox and ecliptic of date:
Date | Time (UT1) | Celestial longitude (°) |
---|---|---|
1800 Jan 01 | 00:00:00.0 | 22.56816 |
1900 Jan 02 | 00:00:00.0 | 23.96863 |
2000 Jan 03 | 00:00:00.0 | 25.35372 |
We see that the celestial longitude is changing due to precession. This is because we are calculating based on where the moving equinox is in 1800, 1900, and 2000. Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Zac, about your statement "From what you describe, 1 is the bog-standard tropical zodiac and so is 3." To me, an area of sky is a different concept from an angular coordinate. So for 1, I could say that right now the ecliptic longitude, using the ecliptic and equinox of date, for the star Vega is 285.49454°, even though its celestial latitude, + 61.73448°, means that it is far outside the zodiac. For 3, the patches of sky that define different signs can be either tropical or sidereal, whichever is stated or implied in the text. Probably the astrological description "tropical" or "sidereal" is more appropriate than "of date" or "J2000" because if an astronomer were to say an object is in Aries (without further qualification) he would mean it is in the constellation Aries; I have never heard of astronomers using zodiac signs as areas of sky that an object could be located in. Jc3s5h ( talk) 23:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
(Just had an edit conflict so will post what I was going to post and then look at your new post above):
Zac wrote "Maybe I’m misunderstanding you completely but I think you’re confused in what you’re saying about the direction of the equinox being fixed relative to distant stars. The vernal equinox is determined by the point at which the ecliptic intersects the equator, and that’s the major principle of the tropical zodiac – that the equinox is the point of commencement which shifts in relation to the constellations. The sidereal zodiac is not fixed to the equinox of about 500 BC, it’s fixed to the stars."
In the J2000 system, the origin of longitude is where the vernal equinox was in 2000, and it never moves with respect to the distant stars. If observe a supernova tonight with a celestial longitude of 50° relative to tonight's equinox, I could transform it to the J2000 system using a web page provided by NASA, and find the J2000 longitude is 49.83810°. Or, I could use the same page to transform it to something close to what the Babylonians used when they set up the system and which was inherited by the Hindus and is the basis of their sidereal zodiac. Supposing they set up their system in -500 (or 501 BC) that would be J-500, and the latitude would be 15.10586°. So J2000 and J-500 are conceptually the same thing, it's just the magnitude of the transformation that is different. Jc3s5h ( talk) 01:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is the example you asked for
Star | Year | Celestial long. ° | Celestial lat. ° |
---|---|---|---|
Markab | 2000 | 353.5 | 19.4 |
Markab | 1500 | 346.5 | 19.4 |
Markab | -500 | 318.9 | 19.4 |
Hamal | 2000 | 37.7 | 10.0 |
Hamal | 1500 | 30.7 | 9.9 |
Hamal | -500 | 3.0 | 9.8 |
Both stars are relatively bright (about 3rd magnitude) and not very distant, so they have some proper motion (they appear to move relative to the distant background stars). I did a rough calculation and found they would move by as much as 0.15° from -500 to 2000, so I rounded all the degree measurements to the nearest 0.1°.
Markab is in Pegasus and is fairly close to today's origin of celestial longitude. Hamal is in Aries, and is close to the origin of longitude as it was in -500. Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Star | Year | Celestial long. ° | Celestial lat. ° |
---|---|---|---|
Markab | 2000 | [353.5] 23°♓30' *Pisces (353°29'37" ab.long.) | [19.4] 19°n24'21" |
Markab | 1500 | [346.5] 16°♓32' (346°32'06") | [19.4] 19°n25'03" |
Markab | -500 | [318.9] 18°♒52' *Aquarius (318°51'56") | [19.4] 19°n29'20" |
Hamal | 2000 | [37.7] 7°♉40' *Taurus (37°40'14") | [10.0] 9°n57'57" |
Hamal | 1500 | [30.7] 0°♉41' (30°41'03") | [9.9] 9°n57'00" |
Hamal | -500 | [3.0] 2°♈54' *Aries (2°51'31") | [9.8] 9°n54'38" |
Jc3s5h, in light of this, are you happy to accept that there are not four different zodiac systems as suggested at the top of this discussion section, but that points 1, 2 and 3 are all details that relate to the tropical zodiac? It would be good to clear up these issues before I propose edits on the content. The relevant points of clarification I suggest are:
Would you (and other editors) agree – or is there anything I’ve missed? I also hope to add useful information on the roots and historical development of the zodiac system. Zac Δ talk 15:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately the astronomical community has preempted many of the words we might want to use; we've already discussed "system". You stumbled upon another preempted word: "frame". For example, there is the International Celestial Reference System, which describes in detail the concepts and goals of the system, and the International Celestial Reference Frame, which is the practical realization of the system. The practical realization consists of a list of 212 extragalactic radio sources and their positions. Perhaps we could say there are two four approaches for coordinate systems related to Earth (with astrological names in italics when they differ from equivalent astronomical terms):
Approach | Date & Time† | Plane where long. or dec. measured |
---|---|---|
"Of date" | date & time observation | equator |
Tropical/"of date" | date & time observation | ecliptic |
Sidereal | about 500 BC | ecliptic |
Epoch | a recognized epoch | equator |
Epoch | a recognized epoch | ecliptic |
† On the date given the equator and ecliptic had a certain orientation, and the intersection of those planes was a line that established the equinoxes. The position of the object is given relative to those planes and the March equinox as they were oriented at the date listed in the date column. The object who's position is being given is not necessarily transformed to were it was at the time of the epoch. Jc3s5h ( talk) 21:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably the J2000.0 system does not need to be mentioned in the article. Probably the "of date" ecliptic system should be included because it is really just another name for the tropical zodiac longitude measurement, with (except in quite old texts) different notation. The reason I would like people to clearly understand J2000 is so the mention of the "of date" ecliptic system will be written in a way to exclude the J2000.0 system. So I'm not advocating inclusion, I'm advocating carefully written exclusion.
About the statement "It doesn't commence its zero point from that date (1st Jan); it uses the 'of date' vernal equinox of that year", no, that's not true. It always use the vernal equinox of 2000. I believe this passage from page 13 of P. K. Seidelmann (ed.), Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, (Sausalito: University Science Books, 1992) supports that.
In principle it is possible to obtain a standard celestial coordinate frame that is fixed in space by using the frame that is appropriate to an arbitrarily chosen instant of time, which is known as the standard epoch. The positions of the equator and equinox for such a standard epoch cannot be observed directly, but must be specified by adopting a catalog of the positions and motions of a set of stars or other celestial objects that act as reference points in the sky. The standard epoch is now J2000.0, although the epoch B1950.0 has been used for much of this century.
Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
In ancient times, Cetus could been part of the constellation Pisces and Ophiuchus served for the 8th astrological month we now associate with the constellation Scorpio, or possibly Libra was either a subgroup of stars with the constellation Virgo. The ancient astrologers in India, Persia and Babylonia once had an "Arachnida" constellation for a zodiac but was phased out along with the concept of Orion and Perseus when the sun's orbit traveled farther south on the eliptic and the North Astronomical pole moved a few degrees away from the constellation of Draco. We would later have reimagined Scorpio, Aquarius and Gemini from the former "Phoenix", "Eagle" and "Hawk" constellations to the current designs of an Scorpion, the Water Carrier and the Twins. 71.102.3.122 ( talk) 06:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
If there is one astrology/astronomy article that is a priority to take to good article and featured article, it is probably this one. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The following paragraph in the page makes some claims without any citations:
The Babylonian star catalogues entered Greek astronomy in the 4th century BC, via Eudoxus of Cnidus and others. Babylonia or Chaldea in the Hellenistic world came to be so identified with astrology that "Chaldean wisdom" became among Greeks and Romans the synonym of divination through the planets and stars. Hellenistic astrology originated from Babylonian and Egyptian astrology [CITATION NEEDED HERE]. Horoscopic astrology first appeared in Ptolemaic Egypt [CITATION NEEDED HERE]. The Dendera zodiac, a relief dating to ca. 50 BC, is the first known depiction of the classical zodiac of twelve signs.[CITATION NEEDED HERE]
The Hellenestic astrology from what i know IS NOT originated from the Egyptian and has differences compared to the Babylonian 91.138.238.198 ( talk) 16:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article mention the other zodiacs (Chinese, for example) or at least have a link to them, because people could come here looking for zodiacs in general. Thylacinus cynocephalus ( talk) 03:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention a few things on my edit of the Table of Dates section, specifically the table itself, on this page.
First off, if anybody can, please confirm the dates of the reference I used with an additional source, especially the sidereal dates, that is, any source besides horoscope.com, that site seems questionable and unprofessional to me. But it seems you search for sidereal zodiac on the internet and it's hard to find anything but the mix-up about Ophiuchus being the "13th sign".
Also I believe some of the labels seemed somewhat crowded with information available elsewhere (for instance, "IAU constellation boundaries (2011)" is redundant when you have another label "Constellation" right above it). I thought it would look a bit cleaner without that redundant or unnecessary information (Jyotisha may be necessary, but the link is available elsewhere on the page under a more recognizable name).
Isangaft220 ( talk) 15:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1. Is there any official reference to such dates?
2. The reference to "IAU boundaries (2011)":
Astronomical Almanac Online!(subscribers) U.S. Naval Observatory 2008 is not available as of this time.
--Regards,
125.33.240.149 (
talk)
21:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Taking question 2 first, I seriously doubt the U.S. Naval Observatory will be providing dates when the Sun leaves and enters various constellations, because this is not a matter of much interest to astronomers. Maybe some expert with the Wayback Machine actually supported the claimed date at the time the citation was written.
There is no exact set of dates that can be used. The reasons, in order of significance, are
So to be accurate and useful to a world-wide audience, it would be necessary to give the dates in some form of Universal Time and to recompute the dates each year.
The astronomy community is quite well organized, and it is easy to find sources that closely agree with each other and are more-or-less official. So far as I know, the astrology community is not well organized and nothing even approaches being quasi-official. Jc3s5h ( talk) 22:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Template_talk:Zodiac_date
This section is a
soft redirect.
![]() |
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their
user talk page. |
About the template " Template:Zodiac date IAU":
1. 25.5 + 38.2 + 29.3 + 21.1 + 36.9 + 44.5 + 21.1 + 8.4 + 18.4 + 33.6 + 27.4 + 23.9 + 37.7 = 366.0
Why isn't it 365.2425?
2. What's the meaning of constant value 365.25636?
Why isn't it 365.2425 + 365.2425 / 25772 ≈ 365.256672?
3. Are the following results of the template calls all correct?
2005: 18 April – 14 May
2006: 18 April – 14 May
2007: 19 April – 14 May
2008: 18 April – 13 May
2009: 18 April – 14 May
2010: 19 April – 14 May
2011: 19 April – 14 May
2012: 18 April – 14 May
--Regards, 124.64.219.129 ( talk) 11:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that this discussion should take place at
Template talk:Zodiac date.
Also, there is User:Jc3s5h, who (a) tagged the talkpage of the subtemplate {{ Zodiac date IAU}} for references and then (b) came to my talkpage threatening deletion of the template if I didn't "cite my sources". WTH? If the template isn't accurate enough for you, either stop using it or improve it. Don't delete a template doing astronomical calculations because it doesn't have 100% accuracy. Also, don't use {{ unreferenced}} on talkpages. I will be happy to see the template removed from use in article space pending discussion or improvement, and I am happy to discuss what it does at Template talk:Zodiac date, but not in the Jc3s5h spirit of deletionist ultimatums.
I estimated that the accuracy of the template was going to be about 3 hours. This isn't, strictly speaking, good enough, because it means it will get the date wrong about 3/24 or about one time in eight. So yeah, there is definitely a point in not using it pending improvement. This doesn't mean it should be deleted. -- dab (𒁳) 10:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: I have removed the {{
help me}}
template. This is a content issue and not something we helpers can help with (we only deal with problems on editing Wikipedia). Anyway, the discussion is already underway, the {{
help me}}
template is not necessary. Cheers. --
OBSIDIAN†
SOUL
10:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't edit often. Looking for input from those that do edit often. I feel that my edit was valid, and it was quickly removed.
I added this fact, along with a link to an mp3 of the song being sung to show how easy it is to learn. (My daughters and my nephews have all learned it very easily, and can now stand outside singing this song and recognize the signs of the zodiac that are above the horizon). It was removed, with the remover listing it as "spam", and saying that it doesn't work with that tune.
I had read this mnemonic in the book Space (by Michener)long ago, and looked it up online quite a bit, and still found it difficult to learn. I found only one reference to it oringially being sung as a sort of nursery rhyme for babies and small children, and then sang it to this, with slight modification to the words that are listed here on Wikipedia. (Who's to say that the version listed here is the only version).
Although the person who removed this apparently doesn't like it, I do feel that the fact that this can be sung--and I think was originally sung--does indeed add to the understanding of mnemonics in relation to the zodiac, and greatly increases the odds of someone actually learning the zodiac based on any of the mnemonics listed on this wikipedia page.
I don't edit often, so I'll leave it to the regular editors to consider. But I think it defeats the purpose of wikipedia if my input can be so easily discarded, although it did add to the usefulness of this section of the page.
Here is an mp3 sung version of the mnemonic:
http://tinyvox.com/voxes/f8/37/f837bcc37c0dee485664d547f142bf42.mp3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfranco584 ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I did read the references, but not quite sure you understand the differences between astrology and astronomy. Newton may have introduced us to the galaxies and such, but astrology never changes. Astronomy implies that everything is moving. Technically it is, but there are some things that never change. A relative point is always relative to one object, and since there are no known fixed objects, we have to assume that everything is relative. Is there a fixed point? No one knows. I'm sure there might be some people who think they know, but they will always be guessing. Stuffed tiger ( talk) 15:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)