Talk:Zodiac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Cleanup 2 Latest changes 3 Proposed Outline 4 Separation 4.1 changes so far 5 More on Sidereal Tropical divergence 6 General 6.1 Historical origin 7 Historical origin example 8 NPOV 9 Angels of the zodiac 10 Planets of the Zodiac 11 cleanup 12 Ophiuchus 13 Sidereal v Tropical; Coordinate System v. Astrological Significance 14 We are not trying to establish the truth of tropical over sidereal 15 mnemonic and what needs citing 16 Sidereal versus Tropical; Sign versus Constellation, Astronomy versus Astrology 17 Moving indo-European from lead section 18 Hindu zodiac as the origin for the Greek zodiac 19 recent changes 20 READ 21 Source for Zodiac is 'circle of little animals'

[edit] Cleanup

Dab if it's you who made the anonymous changes (I forget to login all the time), then please provide some substantive points of disagreement here. Don't just change the article or revert. You mention below that you want more adherence to Ptolemy. However, I'm the one that added The Almagest to the list of references and I drew my work here primarily from that (and the other references I added). Please simply state your objections to my revisions and I'm sure we can come to an agreement on the content. I welcome and value your input. And I hope you do the same for me. --Cplot 18:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has responded regarding the cleanup badge added anonymously, I took the liberty of removing it. --Cplot 06:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It was not me, but I do agree that this article needs a lot of cleanup, it is too wordy and repeating itself again and again. Also I find the term tropical longitude and sidereal longitude quite unlucky. Both are only used in connection with time: tropical year and sidereal year. At least in astronomy, but maybe astrologers have a different opinion about it. Are these names mentioned somewhere in literature or do you have invented them yourself? Anyway I would suggest the following setup:

Define tropical longitude as measured from the vernal equinox, therefore shifting among the stars, used by the ancients and named after the 12 zodiacal signs, equal to ecliptic longitude.

Define sidereal longitude as measured from the fixed stars, like the Indian tradition. Explain that there is no natural zeropoint, and as such different authors will come with different choices. Those choices can be explained and compared (and cited).

Alternatively (even better I think as you can do away with those longitude names) you can leave this zodiac article with traditional western zodiac (vernal equinox based), and move the other (fixed stars based) into the sidereal astrology article. --Tauʻolunga 09:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You understood the terms precisely. I think this speaks well for the coherence of the article (at least with the sample size of 1 :-). I'd welcome the addition of some clarification on the use of those terms, though I had thought it was self evident from the overall discussion in the article.

As for the removal of the sidereal verses tropical coordinate system, I would be opposed to that. The sources for that are cited inline and referenced below. And since the zodiac coordinate system is one of the few known sidereal systems ever used, I think it's important to keep it in there. It certainly doesn't belong in an article on astrology since it's a discussion of astronomical concepts (as the split between astronomy and astrology is understood today).

[edit] Latest changes

I did a reversion and thought I should explain it here. I've been working hard at making the rest of the article consistent with my new research on the celestial coordinate system. Andrew Homer, the deletions you were making were undermining that work. I think we should take up the issues here on the discussion page before simply deleting mine or anyone else's work. In making my edits I've meticulously tried to preserve everyone else's work: only deleting as a last resort when I couldn't make it fit with the rest of the article. I would appreciate the same treatment for my work. I feel your edits were made without first digesting the significant changes elsewhere in the article. --Cplot 07:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I reworked the images of the equinox moving through the zodiac over time. I added images from 1500 BC to 2500 AD using StarryNight and the definition of the sidereal zodiac in the Parker (2004) reference. I think this helps visualize the difference between the two systems, though it could probably use some more explanation. --Cplot 21:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "sidereal zodiac" is an oximoron. There are Zodiac Signs which are clearly defined. Then there are fanciful Star Constellations with ambiguous boundaries with the "constellations" arbitrarily added or subtracted in different sky maps by different astronomers throughout the centuries. Let's shadow box, shall we? StarryNight seems to serve the helpful function of pulling some types away from social functions. Andrew Homer 05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Outline

Here's an outline I propose for reworking the page. I hope to reuse as much of the text already there. Though I do feel the structure need improving and I want to incorporate the discussions we've had on this page. --Cplot 13:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Chinese Zodiac (as it now stands mainly to refer to Chinese Astrology article)
2. Celestial Coordinate System
   1. Sidereal Constellations
   2. Tropical Zodiac
3. Zodiac astrology and mythology (the page is particularly weak in this information)
   1. Constellations (mythology, pictures, stick-figures)
   2. Tropical v. Sidereal in horoscopes
   3. Planetary and moon positions
   4. Mnemonic for the zodiac
4. Historical origin
5. See also
6. Notes
7. External links

--Cplot 13:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I know of very few western Astrologers who waste their time with arbitrary star constellations & "Sidereal Astrology." The obsession here on Wikipedia appears to be a transparent scheme to set-up a straw-man arguement to promote a bogus paradigm to subsequently debunk legitimate Astrology and Astrologers after the gullible fall for the sidereal hoax. Keep this sidereal silliness in Hindu Astrology where it belongs. Andrew Homer 22:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separation

While the "Zodiac" disambiguation page is clear that there are two main definitions of "zodiac", i.e. in "astonomy" and "astrology", there is only one article attempting to satify the differing demands of both. The current Zodiac article contradicts itself, especially as it cosees this border: the article and one chart indicate 12 divisions (astrology) [Template:WesternZodiac] when another chart (referring to both astrology and astonomy) [Template:Zodiac] lists 13, and could possibly list more constellations that cross the ecliptic.

Why not simply separate the "zodiac" article into two cross-referencing articles" "Zodiac (astronomy)", which should include the celestial referencing guides, and "Zodiac (astrology), which should include the various divination systems? Likewise, sort the very useful charts between the two subjects, then let them resolve confusions by becoming truly different.

This separation is beyond my wiki skill currently, and a lot of discussion is occurring on this subject, so I'd rather get opinions than simply peeve someone. Dab, Andrew, what do you think?

Gary Shannon 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] changes so far

I completed the rough reorganization I proposed above. I ended up placing the Chinese Zodiac under "Other zodiac astrologies" subheading under "Zodiac in astrology". So now the outline look thus:

1. Celestial Coordinate System
   1. Sidereal verses tropical
   2. Advantages and disadvantages (I see this section as a place to highlight the remarkable achievement of this coordinate system even when compared to modern day coordinate systems; anyone wanting to jump in on this, freel free)
2. Zodiac astrology and mythology (the page is particularly weak in this information)
   1. Hindu astrology
   2. Other zodiac astrologies
3. Historical origin
4. Mnemonic for the zodiac
5. See also
6. Notes
7. External links

I've incorporated information from the old sections into this new structure, where appropriate. Any thought, suggestions, or contributions are welcome. --Cplot 03:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on Sidereal Tropical divergence

OK, I did some looking into this. The article cited on the Definition of the Babylonian Zodiac describes the early definition of the signs as selecting two bright stars Aldebaran and Antares to serve as zodiac pole in the midpoints (15°) of the signs Taurus and Scorpius respectively. According to NASA's coordinate converter those stars are at 69.789186° and 249.762298° Ecliptic Longitude in the (J2000) coordinates. Since we're speaking roughly let's just use 70° and 250° for simplicity. That means Aries would begin at 25° Ecliptic Longitude. The star HIP7243 (24.613318° Ecliptic Longitude) crosses the vernal equinox around 194AD. That means for Ptolemy the tropical and sidereal zodiac (as defined in this perfectly reasonable and often cited fashion) were almost identical over the course of his observations (125AD to 150AD). The assumption that Ptolemy preferred a tropical zodiac is based on the presumption that when Ptolemy says "the first point in Aries" he must not mean the first point in the sidereal sign Aries but instead the vernal equinox. To me that needs some citation from Ptolemy explaining that he's going to define this term to mean something it hasn't ever meant before him. Why wouldn't he just write the vernal equinox if that's what he meant; he uses the term vernal equinox liberally throughout the Almagest.

Another suggestion, perhaps we should add a note to the table indicating the tropical coordinates are equal to sidereal coordinates for the year circa 194AD. We also might want to add a column indicating the rough sidereal sign boundaries in J2000 ecliptic coordinates. Aries 25°, Taurus 55°, Gemini 85°, Cancer 115°, Leo 145°, Virgo 175°, Libra 205°, Scorpius 235°, Sagitarius 265°, Capricorus 295°, Aquarius 325° and Pisces 355°. BTW this also means that the 2000 divergence is 25° or about 25 days on the calendar and not the 39.5 days mentioned in the article. A shift of tropical of 39° does not maintain a ccorrespondence with the constellations.like the boundaries listed above. --Cplot 07:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrology is astrology. Astronomy is astronomy. Proving that you've taken astronomy classes doesn't mean you're qualified to make comments in an Astrology article. Go over to the Astronomy article & windbag there. Andrew Homer 22:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General

"actually it crosses a thirteenth, Ophiuchus, but this is traditionally excluded from the list." I see absolutely no need to include Ophiuchus in the list of zodiacal signs, since it's only another arbitrary selection of stars. True as the astronomical fact may be, astrology and its traditions do not depend on constellations. For the purpose of astrology the ecliptic is divided into 12 equal sectors of 30º each whose positions need not correspond exactly with those of the astronomical constelations.

This is an article about Zodiac Signs, not arbitrary constellations. Andrew Homer 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction - it is an article about the Zodiac, not Zodiac signs. And, there is at least one definition of "Zodiac" that encompasses Ophiuchus. Granted it's not the most widely-used definition, but it's still valid, and it should still be included in any comprehensive article about the Zodiac. Chrisobyrne 14:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The term "zodiac" ONLY pertains to zodiac SIGNS. There is NO definition of the term "zodiac" which pertains to star constellations. Andrew Homer 10:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Be that as it may, I still object to the removal of Ophiuchus from the table. The rightmost column lists what actual current-day constellations the sun passes through, and removing Ophiuchus from the table either leaves an unexplained gap in the dates or it leaves an outright lie if the dates are adjusted to fill the gap. The text already clearly states that Ophiuchus isn't used in astrological divination, and besides that this article isn't titled "Astrology," it's titled "Zodiac." Bryan Derksen

Constellations are for astronomers. Zodiac signs are for astrologers. Period. Andrew Homer 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a complete statement to clarify the fact that the signs of the zodiac are not the same as the constelations. I will look later to reconcile what is in Bryan's first paragraph with this without altering his inclusion of Ophiuchus. I also plan to remove some of the more blatantly gratuitous bias in this article. As Bryan has said, this article is about the zodiac rather than about astrology. This means that this is not the place to either support or criticize the practice of astrology. ---user:Eclecticology

I am unsure of whether there is disagreement regarding this or whether it is straightforward; the signs are the little symbols and the attached meaning, you are saying the constellations do not necesarrily correspond to these, right? Did they traditionally or how - we need to be quite clear on this as it is a quite natural assumption that constallations and signs with the same names are coupled directly. Is there any controversy in this? Lundse 10:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If you ever bother to study the topic you're criticizing, you'd find that thouroughout history and different cultures, different stars would be arbitrarily bunched to supposedly make some picture. These "constellations" have always been modified, added, or deleted. The definition for the 12 ZODIAC SIGNS has always remained the same. Take an astronomy of astrology class, as I have. Andrew Homer 10:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the reason I am asking, guys. This character has been making rather odd edits and defamed me whereever our paths cross (and told me I know nothing of the subject when I ask about it, which is rather redundant). Anyway, I would like to know (from someone willing to answer questions, you can relax, Andrew) whether this is incontroversial - it seems reasonable enough that the constallations and signs "parted ways" at some point. Can we have more confirmations of it? Lundse 07:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

But there haven't always been 12 zodiac signs. Libra, for example, was a relatively late addition to the Zodiac, added by the Greeks and coming well after the original babylonian origins of the Zodiac (hence why the Arabic names for its two brightest stars refer to them as the Scorpion's claws). I've heard that Aries, as well, was added later, being split off from Taurus (hence why Taurus is now only a head and forelegs), which is why early observers considered themselves to be in the Age of Taurus until nearly the age of Pisces. Furthermore, what is the need for this argument? Isn't it fair that since this article is Zodiac, not Zodiac (Astrology) that it include both astrological and astronomical definitions of the Zodiac--and the astronomical definition would certainly HAVE to include Ophiuchus (who himself may have origins back to Babylon, making him no more arbitrary than any of the rest of the Zodiac). I don't see how it hurts astrologers that Ophiuchus is astronomically part of the zodiac--given the astrological zodiac has so little relation to the actual position, location, size and shape of the constellations anyway. Can't we scientists have our Zodiac and you can have yours and they both get mention in the article? --QuantumDriverX 05:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour of keeping Ophiuchus in there because of the way that it illustrates the point that the zodiacal signs are not the same thing as the constellations. It seems to be a common misconception amongst the general public that the two are somehow related - I'm in favour of doing as much as possible to clear up that misconception. Chrisobyrne 15:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about zodiac SIGNS. Any reference to the star constellation Ophiucus is NOT irrelevant. Andrew Homer 10:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I came across a very useful piece about this interloping serpent Ophiucus and its insinuation into the modern Zodiac from an official observatory source - [1]. It might serve as inspiration for the Zodiac page. -- user:JWJM

That article is wrong. The sun passed through Ophiuchus as it was recognised by Ptolemy well before the IAU drew up constellation boundaries. See the Wikipedia article on Ophiuchus for more information. I've emailed Griffith Observatory about it, and have received no response. Chrisobyrne 15:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Constellations have never been an inspiration for zodiac signs. Do your homework. Andrew Homer 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I've reworked the articles for individual constellations. I standardized them and made a separate astrology section, which mentions "zodiac signs" as opposed to arbitrary "constellations". The article on Aquarius needs more work though. --- Zocky

---

I reworded slightly "tried to use ... for divinatory purposes" to "used". They actually DID use them for divination. Whether or not the divination actually gave useful results is another question. - Montréalais

---

:In astronomy, the zodiac is a certain part of the sky which has no intrinsic physical significance, representing simply the region of the sky close to the circle on which the randomly oriented plane of our solar system intersects the celestial sphere. It includes the ecliptic. It is, however, a useful region of the sky to define, because it has practical implications for observations from the earth's surface. A naked-eye observer knows that a bright object lying outside of the ecliptic cannot be a planet. Antarctic observatories cannot easily observe the planets, because the ecliptic is too close to the horizon.

Astronomers didn't agree to use Zodiac signs until 1980. Do your homework. Andrew Homer 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dating back to the time when there was no clear distinction between astronomy and astrology, the zodiac is traditionally thought of as comprising an exact division of the ecliptic by 12.

The thirteen constellations through which the ecliptic cuts are Leo, Cancer, Gemini, Taurus, Aries, Pisces, Aquarius, Capricornus, Sagittarius, Ophiuchus, Scorpius, and Virgo. (The exclusion of Ophiuchus from the astrological zodiac is on mystical grounds, due to a numerological preference for the number 12, and a belief that 13 was unlucky.)

Thanks for deliberatately obfuscating the issue. But 12 is 12 and 13 is 13, and Tropical Astrologers have ALWAYS used 12 Zodiac Signs. If you bothered to study the topic of Astrology, you'd find "western" astrologers use zodiac signs, not arbitrary clusters of stars. Now, take your arbitrary constellations and run along. Andrew Homer 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In modern astronomy, these constellations are recognized as chance groupings of stars, with no natural significance. In fact, they are not even true groupings of stars in three-dimensional space. We see the sky without any perception of its depth, so two stars that appear to be neighbors in the same constellation may actually be separated by vast distances.

• • If it has no significance, why even bother with the distinction.

I didn't say "no significance," I said "no natural significance." -- [User:Bcrowell]

Actually it was "no intrinsic physical significance", but whatever it was if it had no significance why would they bother with it at all. -Ec

• • "randomly oriented" plane! I don't think the astronomers would agree with this.

My PhD is in physics, not astronomy, although I did quite a bit of undergraduate coursework in astronomy (one course short of a bachelor's degree). It is certainly random; the plane of rotation of the solar system was randomly determined by turbulence in the cloud of gas from which it condensed.-- User:Bcrowell

And what's the source for your "cloud of gas" theory for making the plane of the solar system "random"

• • A bright object outside the zodiac isn't a planet for astrologers either.

• • Antarctic astrologers have the same disadvantage as Antarctic astronomers.

The point of these examples is to show why there is an astronomical reason for defining such a thing as the zodiac. Astrologers have their own completely different reasons for defining a zodiac. User:Bcrowell

It certainly doesn't accomplish that point very well. The gratuitous reference to superstition is nothing more than an inflammatory allegation.

"Astrologers have their own completely different reasons for defining a zodiac." - About 1980, the astronomers adapted the same reasoning Tropical Astrologers have been using for 5,000 years. Now, we both use the Sun's position @ the first second of Spring (Aries 00:00) as a reference point along the ecliptic. Andrew Homer 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• • The listing of twelve astronomical constelations is redundant; it's already in a chart later in the article.

Astrologers arbitrarily exclude Ophiuchus, so the two lists are different. -- User:Bcrowell

Astrologers ignore Ophiuchus fore a valid reason: it's NOT a Zodiac Sign. Andrew Homer 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. Ophiuchus was not a part of the zodiac before the International Astronomical Union added it in 1930. Perhaps you may want to mention the brief passage that the sun makes in Orion, Sextans and Cetus while your at it. Be that as it may the table does include Ophiuchus. -Ec

Astronomy uses arbitrary star constellations. Western/tropical Astrologers use Zodiac Signs. Calling a star constellation a Zodiac Sign doesn't make it so. Andrew Homer 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• • The "numerological preference" is complete nonsense. Provide a source if you're going to make such a claim. I've added a link on the topic at the bottom, and removed the statement that it was numerological.

• • The constellations didn't become chance groupings to please the modern astronomer; they already were.

I didn't say they did.-- User:Bcrowell

• • The different distances are applicable to all stars, not just the ones in the zodiac.

Correct. The point is to explain how the astronomical meaning of the zodiac differs from the astrological meaning.-- User:Bcrowell

What "astronomical meaning"??? Andrew Homer 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not accomplished very well. Eclecticology 19:25 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)

Is there an article on the Chinese zodiac? Each year being represented by a different animal? -- Zoe

See chinese astrology. Eclecticology 02:02 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Couldn't we just post the information about Ophiuchus, like for the other Zodiac signs, and put a paragraph on how it's title as a Zodiac is contraversal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.71.63.228 (talk • contribs) .

This is an article about Zodiac SIGNS, not star constellations. Any reference to the constellations Ophiuchus, Orion, Sextans or Cetus is NOT relevant. Andrew Homer 10:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] Historical origin

The following moved here as it is more discussion than article. Original by User:Waterman The origins of the zodiac lay in Sumer., where the twelefold division was established. "The twelvefold division of the zodiac was evidently suggested by the occurrence of twelve full moons in successive parts of it in the course of each year," (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911) begs the question, for there are ordinatily thirteen new moons in a solar year. The number twelve had to have overwhelming significance. (further text needed here) Lumos3 19:13, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The significance is that in a lunar calendar (in use at the time of the signs of the zodiac's creation), there are exactly 12 new moons and 12 full moons every year. There may be an additional moon in the leap month, but that's outside the 12 moons of the year. --Cplot 00:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical origin example

I think it's good t have an example here, but this seems incorrect. Under any relevant epoch I can't figure out how Altair could be in Scorpius. Perhaps I'm making a mistake here.

The zodiacal signs remained in use as the basis of an ecliptic coordinate system throughout the Middle Ages, replaced by equatorial coordinate systems in Early Modern times. Thus, Hermannus Contractus in his de mensura astrolabii liber gives the locations of stars in stereographic projection for the construction of an astrolabe, for example giving the ecliptic coordinate of Altair (Altahir vel Abiatra) as 14. Scorpius, equalling an ecliptic longitude of 223° (the 14th degree from the beginning of Scorpius at 210°).

Altair is in the constellation Aquila. When projected onto the zodiac constellations that puts it in Capricorn (the constellation, but not necessarily the sign). For the 1000 epoch it's just over 2 full signs from the vernal equinox. So that would put it in Capricorn (counting to 3: Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn). For the 2000 epoch it's still in Capricorn. Anyway there's no source there to check on this. It could be some sort of vandalism, but if so, it's amazingly subtle. Any thoughts? --Cplot 05:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well from my other work deciphering the coordinate system I think I' ve found the answer to my question. The star is wrong. It should read Antares and not Altair. From the coordinates I laid out above Antares is at 224.76° or just shy of 15 Scorpius in 14 Scorpius. So I'll make the correction in the article.--Cplot 12:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This page lacks the balance of the astrology entry and presents articles of faith and belief as accepted fact. In addition, there is some duplicated information in the zodiac and astrology entries. I wonder if someone might take a crack at balancing this article in a respectful manner? Jokestress 20:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Angels of the zodiac

I merged and redirected the article Angels of the zodiac into this page. I don't know anything about the actual information but I assume it to be valid; if not then it can be removed entirely. Paul 17:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

There are NO angels of the Zodiac. That's complete hog swallow. Andrew Homer 20:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

let's remove this then. dab (ᛏ) 11:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planets of the Zodiac

What Zodiac Sign do each of the planets represent? --User:Angie Y.

Modern Rulerships (by California Astrologers in the 1970s: Joyce Wehrman, Zip Dobyns, Lois Rodden, etc) - - Aries: Mars - Taurus: Persephone (Transpluto) - Gemini: Mercury - Cancer: Moon - Leo: Sun - Virgo: Ceres, Pallas Athene, Juno, Vesta (Asteroids discovered in 1801) - Libra: Venus - Scorpio: Pluto - Sagittarius: Jupiter - Capricorn: Saturn - Aquarius: Uranus - Pisces: Neptune. Andrew Homer 22:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup

I made some major edits to the article. It seemed to needlessly 'debunk' the zodiac (insisting that the constellations are just apparent by projection on the celestial sphere etc.). The zodiac was a serious coordinate system in Hellenism, and Ptolemy was no fool. It is now superceded by the RA/Dec coordinate system, but that doesn't make it less serious, it is just makes it a historical astronomical coordinate system. Of course its associations are mostly with astrology now, but the opposition of astrology and astronomy is modern, while the zodiac is not. There can well be a section of specifically astrological significance of the zodiac, but first and foremost, this is an article about astronomy in Hellenism. dab (ᛏ) 11:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

the article as I found it was rife with misconceptions, and the precession of the equinoxes was explained, with varying lucidity, about half a dozen times. I hope I have cleaned it up into encyclopedic shape, cleanly separating "signs" and constellations, and straightforward issues of celestial coordinates in Greek astronomy from mystical or astrological notions (which should be confined to the astrology section). There remain a number of unsourced statements. dab (ᛏ) 12:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ophiuchus

I have restored Ophiuchus to the table otherwise there is a mysterious gap in the passage of the Sun between November 30th and December 18th. I have shown it as not being a part of either the tropical or sidereal zodiac systems of co-ordinates. An encyclopaedia should not try to paper over awkward inconsistencies, but describe the situation and then give the best explanation we can. Lumos3 17:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You're seriously confused. This is an article about Zodiac Signs NOT arbitrary Star Constellations. Different terms, different definitions. Ophiuchus has NOthing to do with Astrology. Andrew Homer 05:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should not discuss Ophiuchus or any of the actual consellations here, because that's simply offtopic. In fact, there is a missing citation at Sidereal_astrology#The_13_astronomical_constellations_of_the_ecliptic explaining who this "small number of astrologists" using the 1930 IAU boundaries really are. If no citation is brought forward, the "The 13 astronomical constellations of the ecliptic" and "The 21 zodiacal constellations of the planets" should be removed there also for having nothing whatsoever to do even with "sidereal astrology" (let alone mainstream astrology or Ptolemy's zodiac). dab (ᛏ) 07:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No this is an article about an historic astronomical coordiate system of the heavens that is still used today by astrologers. Its relationship to the actual heavens and coordiates in use today are very relevanr. Lumos3 08:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

the history of the system is relevant. Explain how you think this relates at all to the 1930 IAU constellation boundaries? Yes, we can discuss the reference to Ophiuchus by Ptolemy. Cite where Ptolemy mentions Ophiuchus, and we'll discuss that reference. Your dates are still irrelevant, because Ptolemy certainly didn't have the 1930 IAU constellation boundaries at his disposition. dab (ᛏ) 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not claiming that Ophiuchus is part of any Zodiac system, but to understand the zodiac systems and how they relate to the actual movement of the sun against the background of stars , as is described in the table, we need to refer to Ophiuchus. I have adjusted the table heading to better reflect this. Lumos3 14:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you bothered to study Astronomy, you would know that Zodiac Signs have NO relevance. If you bothered to study Astrology, you would know that Star Constellations have NO relevance. (But stars, INDIVIDUALLY, do.) Just because you're confused doesn't mean anyone else is. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Andrew Homer 08:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

now let us be reasonable. The constellations (not signs) have the relevance of being the namesakes of the signs. They were picked by the Chaldean astronomers in 700 BC or so for being near their 12 partitions of the ecliptic. The entire point of this partition is to divide the yearly course of the sun into twelve equal parts, the stars have nothing to do with it. Today, the signs remain named after the constellations by pure convention, with no direct connection, but the connection exists of course historically. Either way, Ophiuchus is entirely irrelevant to the whole debate. The only interesting point would be Ptolemy mentioning Ophiuchus as being irrelevant, so please provide that quote. Otherwise it's just entirely irrelevant to discuss movement of the sun relative to the background stars altogether in this article: The zodiac is about movement of the Sun relative to the celestial equator, not the stars. dab (ᛏ) 08:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the zodiac is that it is drawn from the constellations as dab, you say. However it's not only due to established convention, but also the loss and lapse of practicing astrologists that explain both the tropic zodiac and the missing zodiac sign (I'm using the term deliberately): Ophiucus. The tropical zodiac merely cofies astrological observations as they were for the ancient astrologers. In other words it gives up on their method in order to imagine their time-sensitive results are instead eternal. Though these ancient astrologers didn't use the same concept of consteallations as that introduced in 1930, the 1930 mapping clearly was meant to reflect the ancients' work.

If the zodiac is divided into twelve signs before astronomers/astologers are aware of precession (as it was) then it's not surprising that the previous twelve regions will become 13 regions as sooon as precession occurs long enough. Eventually one constellation could fall out of the zodiac, returning it to 12, but there's no guarantee. Alternatively, the boundaries of the regions (both zodiac signs and constellations because constellations were just as important to the ancient astrologers) could be stretched and shrunk to maintan 12 signs, but otherwise the constallations passing in and out of the zodiac will change as will the stars and the signs (at lease I think that's how Ptolemy would have seen it, though I never met him). And Andew Homer, stop saying do your homework; that's only the mantra of someone who's got nothing else to say. --Cplot 00:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought I can't think of any reason why precession should change or widen the constellations crossing the vernal equinox (something I read said it did), though maybe I'm missing something. Though I still stand behind what I wrote on the tropical zodiac. It makes sense that the Hindu astrologers would maintain the sidereal zodiac since the practice of astrology did not lose favor as it did in the west. --Cplot 07:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Some clarifications. First of all, Ptolemy recognised the constellation of Ophiuchus AND he recognised that it contained the sun during the year - see the Wikipedia article on Ophiuchus for more information. Second, this article isn't about Astrology - it is about the Zodiac, and astronomers also use the term "Zodiac" to describe a particular region of the sky - a region that most definitely contains Ophiuchus. Not only that, but astronomers also refer to a planetary zodiac that contains 21 constellations - therefore those constellations are also fair game to be discussed in an article entitled "Zodiac". Of course, the article needs to distinguish between the different usages (and users) of the term "Zodiac". But, just because the most common meaning of "Zodiac" is "twelve equally-spaced divisions of the path of the sun across the sky" doesn't mean that the other meanings of Zodiac shouldn't be discussed. Chrisobyrne 16:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Further clarifications: There are NO other meanings of the word "Zodiac." The particular region in the sky that a Zodiac Sign pertain to is along the ecliptic and NO where else. You continually get sloppy with the distinct definitions for Zodiac Sign vs. Star Constellation. What is your motivation? Do you really think you'll reverse an issue more than a millennium old? Andrew Homer 08:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As you may have guessed, I am an astronomer and, as an astronomer, I have been using the word "Zodiac" to mean "that belt of the sky either side of the ecliptic" (I believe the belt is usually considered to be 8 degrees either side of the ecliptic). I also understand that "Zodiac" means "the collection of 12 astrological signs". So, how am I mistaken in believing that there are (at least) two definitions of "Zodiac"? Am I mistaken in believing that "Zodiac" means "the collection of 12 astrological signs"?

It may be helpful to both of us if I wrote out some of the definitions as I understand them, and you can correct them as per your understanding -

"Ecliptic" - the path of the sun through the sky

"Constellation" - a collection of stars in the sky, usually considered to have a pattern to them. Astronomically speaking, a constellation is a delimited area of the sky (i.e. astronomers have drawn borders around the constellations)

"Astrological sign" - a name given to a period of time, where there are 12 equally-spaced such periods in a year, and where the first one starts at the spring equinox.

"Zodiac" (astronomy) - the part of the sky 8 degrees either side of the ecliptic, which intersects 13 (count 'em!) constellations

"Zodiac" (astrology) - the collection of the 12 astrological signs.

(Note - the names of the astrological signs are the same as the names of 12 of the 13 constellations of the (astronomical) Zodiac).

So where am I going wrong in believing that there is more than one meaning of the word "Zodiac"? Chrisobyrne 11:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sidereal v Tropical; Coordinate System v. Astrological Significance

I don't think you understand the point. At least you don't seem to make a lot of sense. Try to read through the precession articles again. The idea that the zodiac partition has a direct connection to the background stars is a misunderstanding. But it is a common misunderstanding, which notably Hindu astrology fell victim to. Today, Hindu astrologists appear to be proud to have stuck to the "original" (AD 300, when they adopted it) system, while they have just missed the point of the system. It is misleading to speak of "tropical zodiac": the zodiac is fundamentally "tropical", that's its whole point. The "sidereal" zodiac arises from such misunderstandings, and "tropical zodiac" is simply a retronym to refer to the original system to prevent confusion. Anyway, the zodiac is only really relevant for discussing ancient and medieval astronomy and has been replaced by less confusing coordinate systems in early modern times. Of course "astrology" still works with the zodiac, but that's mostly for effect and deliberate obfuscation: since astrologists do whatever they want anyway, it doesn't really matter whether they understand the system. For discussion of ancient science, however, it is crucial to have a clear understanding of the terms. dab (ᛏ) 12:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand precession. I'm trying to understand your view. You seem to think of the zodiac signs as merely useful as a coordinate system. If so than why does it matter what day of the year one associates with that zodiac sign? As a coordinate system the tropical and sidereal systems work the same right? As an astrological tool they work differently. And since the Hindu's have practiced asdtrology continuously since ancient times whereas, in the west it was mostly lost and resurected, why do you think the Hindu's are the ones who are confused? Or maybe more to the point, why do you care if you think the zodiac signs merely serve as a cooredinate system? --Cplot 07:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sidereal astrologers still divide the zodiac into 12 equally sized regions , they have just shifted the origin of the system so that each 30 degree segment approximately aligns with the constrellation of the same name. They do not use IAU defined constellations. The inclusion of Ophiuchus in this article is only to allow comaparison between the 3 sytems of tropical zodiac, sidereal zodiac and modern sky maps. Lumos3 14:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Aries was defined to mark vernal equinox. The Hindus have tied Aries to some random star, and performed the impressive feat of continuously watching that star for 1700 years. So that now their Aries begins at some random point of the ecliptic, and vernal equinox lies at some random point of their coordinate system. That's an impressive amount of zeal and diligence, and an impressive lack of asking for the reason why you are doing things. Ptolemy could have told them they shouldn't do that.

The important thing is that the zodiac is a coordinate system both in astronomy and astrology. Astrology uses it to describe the positions of the planets at a certain point of time. Then astrology goes on to make claims of all sorts of meanings derived from these positions. The zodiac in this process simply serves as a means of expressing positions, you could perfectly well do the exact same horoscope using rectascension and declension, the kooky thing is how they arrive from the positions at the predictions, not in how they describe the positions themselves. "Zodiac" has a bad ring to it today because it is only used for such nonsense anymore, but at the time of its inception, it was a perfectly valid and scientific coordinate system, nothing more, and nothing less. dab (ᛏ) 17:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Dab, I think you're misunderstanding it as a coordinate system. It's not simply a coarser version of celestial longitude, but instead treats the zodiac signs as the fixed reference point with which to measure other things (as opposed to celestial longitude where the vernal equinox is fixed and bodies are measured in reference to it). So in the zodiac system of coordinates it makes sense to ask what position the vernal equinox is in. Whereas in celestial longitude that doesn't really tell us much since the vernal equinox always is at 0° because that's the fixed point by definition. As a parallel it would be like asking the position of aries in the zodiac sign coordinate system. Well it happens to be in aries. The difference beteween tropical and sidereal then (not as coordinate systems but astrologically speaking) is just one of mapping those zodiac signs (or constellations but not necessarily IAU consetllations) to the months of the year (whether moon monthls of the tropical year or the Ptolemeic months of the Great year). Since as a coordinate system this mapping (to the months) is irrelevant I don't see why you feel so strongly about it. --Cplot 07:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

what nonsense, Aries is fixed at equinox in the zodiac. It is of course not fixed in the "Sidereal zodiac", refer to sidereal zodiac if you are interested in that. dab (ᛏ) 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

ə

Why is it nonsense then? My point is simply that as a coordinate system, the zodiac can fix the stars or it can fix the equinox. For most of it's existence the zodiac fixed the stars (hence the names of the signs derrived from constellations). One guy (Ptolemy; single-source anyone?) comes along and reverses that. For Ptolemy though, the origina of Aries happened to fall quite close to the equinox and there's not necessarily any difference between the sidereal and the tropical zodiac for that epoch. However,the subsequent reversal of the coordinate system is part and parcel of a devotion to supposedly his geocentric conception, in that the Earth's equinox was fixed and the heavens moved around the earth. Prior to late mideival interpretations of Ptolemy, the coordinate system held to the fixing of the stars and the movement of the Sun and the Earth through the fixed heavens. When astronomy's practice resumed in the West it adopted a fixed star coordinate system (right ascension) like the sidereal zodiac. There's also a move back toward fixed equinox in the celestial longitude and latitude system. Then another move toward heaven centered coordinates with the galactic coordiantes (probably better referred to as soloar coordinates). So the nonsense is to admit that this is aribtary, but then claim that the only way to do it arbitrarily is to fix the equinox and measure the moon, planets, sun and other stars relative to that And all this talk of an equinox fixed coordinate system (which in terms of astronomy is just one of the ways of doing it and one of several ways in which it was done) is just a disguise to either promote some bizarre neo-ptolemeic geo-centrism or to create a fixed mapping of the zodiac to the months of the year to make the job of newspaper publisher's easier (becuse then they can easily publish recyled horoscopes over ages and ages:-).

To me this article should describe the zodiac as the cirlce of animals, talk about how it can serve as a geo-centric or celestial centric coordinate system and talk about how astrologers would use the information about the position of the planets (relative to the fixed stars as in sidereal zodiac or relative to the fixed equinox as in tropical zodiac). There's no need for us to take a position or settle age old questions of which is the proper way to understand the position of the heavens or the meaning of events here on earth.--Cplot 01:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

ah, but that's where you are wrong. The zodiac did not "for most of its existence mark the stars". It was tied to the equinoxes from the beginning. It's just that it was only after some 400 years that precession of the equinoxes was even discovered, before that, it was naturally assumed that equinox was stationary wrt background stars: The zodiac was introduced in ca. the 6th century BC by the Chaldeans. It was adopted by the Greeks, say in the 4th c. BC. In the 2nd c. BC, Hipparchus discovers the precession of the equinoxes, but people stick with the system of calling the 30 deg segment of vernal equinox "Aries". In the 2nd c. AD, Ptolemy gives an account of the whole system, still sticking with Aries=vernal equinox. In the 4th c. AD, the Hindus adopt the system, and tie it to the background stars (viz., that is not the original system, but a Hindu innovation). Hindu and Greek zodiac drift apart over the following centuries. In the 17th c. or so, western astronomy drops the system altogether, and it survives only in esotericism. dab (ᛏ) 09:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying you think our job here is to settle these different points of view in the anthropological record rather than write an ecnycolpedia article? My understanding of this is quite different. I see little evidence of a tropical zodiac except in Ptolemy. Not even Keplar, Nostradomus seem to use a tropical zodiac (though I imagine Tycho probably does). There certainly evidence both ways on this. I don't understand why (since you think this is mostly escoteric) you feel so strongly about this geocentric view? --Cplot 13:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

what different points of view? what "anthropological record"? I have outlined a historical process above, not a controversy. AFAIK, zodiac means "tropical", except in Hinduism and in recent (20th c.) "reconstructions". You seem to think otherwise. Provide your references, then. I don't see how Kepler or Nostradamus tie into this, but if you have evidence that they, against Ptolemy, came up with a sidereal interpretation, by all means, explain yourself. I would obviously welcome new insights, although Kepler can hardly be said to be closer to the system's inception than Ptolemy. dab (ᛏ) 13:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Will Dbachmann please supple a reference for the assertion that Hindus adopted a sidereal approach only in AD 300. My understanding is that Hindus practised astronomy as well as astrology and kept their practise in step with actual sky objects as everyone had done before them. Western astrologers in the Middle ages stopped observing and based their practise on ancient texts without reference to the real word. Some progressive western astrologers have recently tried to do a catching up exercise but most still do not even understand there is a problem. There is plenty of evidence of sidereal horoscopes before AD300, see http://www.skyscript.co.uk/sidereal2.html Lumos3 15:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot take seriously an article debating the question of which system is more 'effective'. What do they mean by 'effective'? We are here debating which systems were in use at what point, and not if you will capture my destiny with any more accuracy if you draw up either my tropical or my sidereal horoscope. Also, to debate whether "tropical zodiacs were in use before or after Hipparchus" is nonsense. Before the precession of the equinoxes was discovered, there was no known difference between the systems. I also fail to make sense of your question. If "Western astrologers in the Middle ages stopped observing", how is it that the Western zodiac is 2500 years out of tune with the constellations rather than a mere 1000 or so? I am sorry, but you really seem to lack basic understanding of the matter. dab (ᛏ) 15:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

DAB your dates are off there. As far as I can tell Ptolemy's coordinates (one of the only surviving works used by those resurecting astrology in the West) pretty much corresponds to the coordinates used by the modern tropical astrologers. The divergence is from Ptolemy's cataloguing of the stars and constellations. While there's no decisvive indication of a tropical zodiac in Ptolemy, that's how he was read by some (though I insist the big Western astrologers did not make that mistake, that's why I brought up Nostradomus and Kepler). I can understand why one might adhere to a tropic calendar year, but a tropical coordinate system is unduly cumbersome and a tropical astrology is bizaarre. That's my point of view, but I think the article should be written adhering to the NPOV guideline.

Also, I just took a fresh look at The Almagest with this issue in mind and now I don't even think Ptolemy subscribes to your view of a tropical zodiac. When constructing his spherical model of the heavens, Ptolemy says: "Since it is not reasonable to mark the solsitial and equinoctial points on the actual zodiac of the globe (for the stars depicted [on the globe] do not retain a constant distance with respect to these points), we need to take some fixed starting-point in the delineated fxied stars. So we mark the brightest of them namely the star in the mouth of Canis Major [sirius]..." (emphasis is mine; brackets are translators insertions). So Ptolemy's response to the issue of precesion is that the zodiac moves through the equinox and also he makes it clear he understands that the equinox moves through the zociac. But he's insistant that the constellations matter. In fact he organizes his catalogue by constellation moving from the northern celestial pole through the constellations of the zodiac to toward those in the southern celestial hemisphere.

Also, I notice a marked shift in his thinking from Book Vii where he discusses precession with a very geocentric view to a much less greocentric view after he finishes cataloging over 1,000 heavenly bodies. Before he speaks of the equitorial and ecliptic plains as being fixed to the Earth (i.e., for him then The Universe). He says: "the sphere of the fixed stars also performs a motion of its own in the opposite direction to the revolution of the universe, that is [the motion of] the great circle through both poles, that of the equator and that of the ecliptic." Of course Ptolemy has no idea that these two planes are not even fixed in relation to one another but vary over a period of 10s of thousands of years.

So it's possible to read in Ptolemy's geocentric vision of the universe a tropic zodiac, but from his consturction of the celestial spherical model he adheres vehemently to a sidereal zodiac. So I think we need to reowrk the article to reflect the actual understandings of the zodiac with references and not just assert a particular POV with no support whatsoever (which is the current state of this article). Cplot

[edit] We are not trying to establish the truth of tropical over sidereal

We are not trying to establish the truth of tropical over sidereal or visa versa. This is Wikipedia. We are aiming to describe both ( and any other ) systems in a fair way that believers in those systems would agree with plus describe any criticism they may have for each other. Wikipedia does not aim to find one objective truth but to describe the landscape in which conflicting ideas exist. Remember we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Discussions on this page which aim to prove one is right and the other wrong are fruitless and an abuse of the Wikipedia discussion page which should be used to improve the article. Lumos3 19:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

what "truth"? It is entirely a matter of definition. The "sidereal zodiac" historically arose from a misunderstanding of the zodiac, and is duly treated at sidereal zodiac. Where is the problem? dab (ᛏ) 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "sidereal" refers to stars. The word "zodiac" refers to an even division of the ecliptic by 12 SIGNS. Constellations are completely arbitrary and thus have NO boundaries. To use the phrase "sidereal zodiac" reveals someone who knows neither Astrology nor astronomy. Andrew Homer 20:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Zodiac article describes all zodiac systems including chinese etc. Other articles describe individual systems. Lumos3 14:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Zodiac" is a Greek term and refers to the Hellenistic system. I don't know if "Zodiac" means anything in Chinese, but it certainly isn't Chinese for "circle of animals". "Chinese Zodiac" may be a term coined to compare a Chinese system with the Greek Zodiac, but that sure as hell doesn't make the term "Zodiac" refer to the Chinese system. dab (ᛏ) 17:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, zodiac is an English term. It may have been derived from a Greek term but its meaning has changed since then. I just did a Google search for "chinese zodiac" and found tons of references. Bryan 20:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Did any of those profound references mention that the Chinese sequence of the 12 "zodiac" months START with the Aquarian New Moon? A good place for you newbies to start getting serious about Astrology: http://www.AndrewHomer.Com/Astrology.html - Andrew Homer 01:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not addressing those details. I was merely pointing out that "zodiac" is indeed used to refer to the Chinese system too. Bryan 06:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mnemonic and what needs citing

Dbachmann, I don't feel particularly strongly about the mnemonic poem for remembering the order of the signs. However, it's not a random poem. It's clearly a mnumonic poem for recalling the order of the signs in an artilce about he zodiac signs. Because the source of it is lost that is no reason it cannot be in the article. And my guess is the original source for the poem is entirely lost so placing [citation needed] next to it is pointless. It's also the kind of information that is self-evident. It would be like putting [citation needed] next to the assertion 2+2 = 4. Yes there are all osrts of esoteric debates about the meaning of that asertion, but ibn most contexts it can simply be asserted without attribution or further appeals to authoirty. On the other hand most of the articles I see on WP are filled with assertions that do require support or attribution. Typically everyone involved simply ignores the fact because presumably someone else will track iit down or they all want the information to remain in there despite it's lack of citation..

So anyway back to the current mnumonic. What's your gripe about placing a mnumonic poem to help remember the signs of the zodiac in an article about the signs of the zodiac? --Cplot 19:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The mnemonic poem is irrelevant, without a source, your grandmother could have composed it. But, Jesus Christ, what did you mess up a perfectly good article for? It's a horrible mess now. I am afraid I will have to revert most of your recent activity. dab (ᛏ) 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

you know what, it is enough work to write a decent article without people tearing stuff down as you write it. The present intro is a bad joke. It is painfully evident that the article was tampered with by people with no idea of what they are talking about. The only redeeming features are the things that you condescended to leave intact. If you play fair and return to citing Ptolemy and improving citations, the article may benefit. If you insist on turning it into meaningless blather, I won't stop you, because I waste enough time on Wikipedia already without indulging in such nonsense. dab (ᛏ) 18:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sidereal versus Tropical; Sign versus Constellation, Astronomy versus Astrology

My main reason for beginning this heading is to try to understand Andrew Homer's objections to the articlee — which from the tone of recent comments here, — these objections seem merely based on wanting the article to only reflect one POV (that of tropical astrologers). Let me try to separate these distinctions along several axes to help make the discussion clearer and resolve this dispute.

• Astronomy v Astrology

Both fields use (or used) the conecpt of a zodiac. Astronomy specifically as a celestial coordinate system and then astrology which uses the coordinate system specifically for divinitory purposes (there may be others, but I just want to draw out some initial distinction).

• Sign versus contellation

Both represent an arbitrarily defined region of the celestial sphere. However, a sign represents a 30° segment of the 16°wide band centered on the ecliptic called the zodiac. (though the precise number of 16° may be disputed; that's not my concern at the moment) Constellations vary in their dimension. Apart from the sign constellation distinction, there are also many different ways to define the constellations: the IAU being only one way (but again that's not at issue here as far as I can tell.

• Sidereal versus tropical

Here the difference is primarily over the fixed frame of reference for the signs. Are they fixed relative to the Earth's tropical cycle (tropical zodiac signs) or are they fixed relative to the celestial sphere (sidereal zodiac signs)?

Perhaps we should make some of these distinctions more clear in the article itself, but right now I want to understand the dispute. My understaninding of your position, Andrew Homer, is that you want the article to only reflect a sidereal-sign-astrology pov. Is that correct? This clearly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Perhaps there's some other explanation, but I'm hard-pressed to divine what it could be. Please clarify your position.--Cplot 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW,, I created those images specifically to show the equinox moving through the signs (no the constellations). So I'm certain it's a mistake to indicate the constellations. In fact if I wanted to highlight the constellations (especially the IAU constellations) I could have clicked on a checkbox to add those boundaries to the images. However, I specifically wanted to avoid showing those constellations to focus on the sidereal signs. --Cplot 07:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving indo-European from lead section

I think I understand the motivvation for moving the Indo-European zodiac discussion from the lead section, to its own section. However, I think there's some problems with doing that. First the thrust of this article really is the Indo-European zodiac with just mention of other similar beliefs originiating in other parts of the World. By moving this to its own section it suggests to the reader to expect more about the other zodiacs (and maybe less about the Indo-European). Second, I think it leaves the lead section rather shallow for many hoping to glean the salient bits of information they're seeking from the article from just the lead section. A more suitable approach may be to promote the subsection on “Other zodiac astrologies” to a higher level and then incorporate summaries from the other supporting articles on astrology and other zodiacs. I'm not all that familiar with the astrology stuff, so I'm afraid I can't offer much else than this suggestion.

If you look at the article's current organization you'll see that every section deals solely with Indo-European zodiac except that single two paragraph subsection on “Other zodiac astrologies”. That's not necessarily a problem with the article, but the lead section should also reflect that thrust. I think its good for the lead section to mention the Chinese zodiac and such: but more as a way to differentiate and shape the understanding of the Indo-European zodiac (i.e., how its similar yet different). Just my thoughts. --Cplot 17:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

there isn't a single shred of evidence for the zodiac being in any way "Indo-European". Much to the contrary, the Greek themselves admit it is "Chaldean". The term "Indo-European" has simply no place here. dab (ᛏ) 08:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dab, Indo-Euorpean is being used to describe a region of the earth: i.e. Indo-European as opposed to East Asian. Babylonia falls in that region. The zodiac spread from Babylon across the region, but shows strong ties to thosse roots. --Cplot 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

is it, now? funny, I have been into Indo-European studies for quite some years now, figure that I should learn this on a Wikipedia talkpage (as opposed from someone who knows their stuff). dab (ᛏ) 20:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu zodiac as the origin for the Greek zodiac

I reverted a change to the Hindu astrology section arguing for the Hindus zodiac as the origin for the Greek zodiac. Many of the sources for the article indiate an influence in the opposite direction. In other words that the Greek Zodiac originates in Babylon, influenced the Greek culture and then traveled to the East. I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I think a change like that which stands opposite to the current sources requires some source citation. My appolgies to the anonymous editor. --Cplot 05:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent changes

Dab, I changed those changes you made back to the previous version. Overall, it’s hard to see what you’re trying to accomplish with those changes. However, you’re removing references which is not good. And you’re not making the article any more clear with those changes. Perhaps if we discussed what your’re trying to say in the article here we could help you say it. --Cplot 15:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove any "references". All I removed was your notion of an "Indo-European zodiac", which is utter nonsense. dab (ᛏ) 20:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] READ

What happens when the end or beginning date of a sign is changed? Like how Gemini's end date used to be June 20th, but was changed to the 21st...does that mean someone who's birthday was June 21st becomes more Gemini-like after it was changed? I know they're still on the cusp, but does that make them a Gemini/Cancer as opposed to a Cancer/Gemini, as it was before it was changed? Or does it only apply to people born on that date after the change?--Tainted Drifter 10:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone else may be better able to answer this, but my understanding is that the horoscope is based on your birthday, which remains the same for the year you're born no matter how those dates may shift in other years. When making astrological prognostications, the sign one is in guides what happens. For example, somone born on the cusp of Gemini (near Cander) remains a Gemini through they're whole life: even if their birthday happens to fall in cancer some particular year. However, when trying to determine what happens this year events on that date will be guided by Cancer. I hope that helps answer your question.--Cplot 06:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source for Zodiac is 'circle of little animals'

Does anyone have a source for there this comes from? I have always seen Zodiac comming from zodiakos and has nothing to do with living creatures. based on the word Zoad meaing a path or way of steps. The animal part is implied incorrectly purely because of the animal figure and connection to the word Zoo but has no basis. I will get sources for this claim but would like to know if sources for the already stated text may have superceeded them.155.144.251.120 05:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's been there since before I started editing. I don't think I checked on it. A quick look at my Oxfrod American Dictionary reveals:

ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French zodiaque, via Latin from Greek zōidiakos, from zōidion ‘sculptured animal figure,’ diminutive of zōion ‘animal.’

Hope that helps. --Cplot 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Greek root is ζωη, one of the Greek words for life. Zoo comes from this, too. Zeusnoos 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)