Talk:Zodiac

"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 constellations. True as the astronomical fact may be, astrology and its traditions do not depend entirely on them. 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.

---

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

---

I've added a complete statement to clarify the fact that the signs of the zodiac are not the same as the constelations of the zodiac. 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 came across a very useful piece about this interloping serpent Ophiucus and its insinuation into the modern Zodiac from an official observatory source - [1] (http://www.griffithobs.org/SkyOphiuchus.html). It might serve as inspiration for the Zodiac page. -- user:JWJM

---

I've reworked the articles for individual constellations. I standardized them and made a separate astrology section, which mentions "astrological signs" as opposed to "zodiac 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

---

The attempt to distinguish the zodiac of astrology from the one used in astronomy, tries to make a distinction that doesn't exist. The zodiac was established before the two sciences diverged, and both use it in their own way.

: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 zodiacal region cannot be a planet. Antarctic observatories cannot easily observe the planets, because the zodiac is too close to the horizon.

Dating back to the time when there was no clear distinction between astronomy and astrology, the zodiac is traditionally thought of as comprising a certain set of constellations. 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.) 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, which are based on supersition.-- User:Bcrowell

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

• • The listing of twelve astronomical zodiac 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

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

• • 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

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)

---

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)

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)