Talk:Ophiuchus (astrology)

Missing Citations

The first citation is broken and links to GeoCities 404. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmanser (talk • contribs) 10:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ophiuchus is not a sign of the zodiac

Ophiuchus is a constellation (star-grouping) that has been known since antiquity. It is not and never has been a sign of the zodiac (geometric 30 degree division = one twelfth of 360 degree circle). This article is a furphy, instigated by someone who evidently fails to understand anything about astrology. If it is true that some sidereal "astrologers" have invented a 13 sign zodiac, they don't understand astrology either. Dr Shepherd Simpson's apparently erudite page shows that even a man with an axe to grind still needs to understand the basics. Berg is incorrect also and should be reprimanded for misleading the Japanese, if indeed he has done. Surely they are smarter than that! This article should be deleted. It's no wonder there are missing citations -- Geocities is dead and so should this concept be. Alvahir (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ophiuchus is not a sign of the zodiac, indeed. But I don't see anywhere in the article that says it is. Not 'in most versions of astrology'. Rothorpe (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

this article is total crap

its junk like this that makes so many people devalue wikipedia.ViniTheHat (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the "total crap" part where the author takes it upon himself to say Ophiuchus is now accepted Zodiac cannon, which it is not. I don't think a news story is sufficient citation to draw this conclusion. I'm sure astrologers must have some kind of governing body, they should be the ones to make this kind of announcement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.91.77 (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's funny how quickly people can displace the old system with something they just read on the websites. Someone963852 (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"I'm sure astrologers must have some kind of governing body"... Sorry, I had to quote that. Just made my day... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.199.241 (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Call the Swami General, we need an authority. ViniTheHat (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you aren't sure of its existence is sufficient proof for me to suggest that you're not qualified to render an opinion on the subject. I edited the article yesterday to display information regarding the dispute of the recent news's validity. To say that this insinuates Ophiuchus's permanent placement within the generally accepted zodiac is an unfortunate untruth.Poxywallow (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

who are you even addressing? Hahahaha.. ViniTheHat (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any news, and there isn't any dispute. Seriously, if you or NBC just discovered the difference between sidereal and tropical astrology, that is your problem entirely. Read all about it in this article that has travelled here from the year 1848.

Suggestions of Ophuchus as an astrological sign have not appeared until the 1970s, even though everyone since Ptolemy has been perfectly aware that the Sun passes through Ophiuchus. So you may either say that the 1974 suggestion by Schmidt was extremely old news because it rehashes Ptolemy. Or you may say that the 2011 NBC item is extremely old news because it rehashes Schmidt (1974) and Berg (1995). --dab (𒁳) 11:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This confuses me: the entire spectacle of yesterday was focused around the idea that Ophiuchus is, by some, now thought to be the thirteenth astrological sign. I do not dispute the "newness" of the decision; I merely cite that it exists, and mentioning it in this article is a relevant activity. Poxywallow (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

what do you mean, "I do not dispute the newness of the decision"? "Newness" as in 40 years ago, or as in two days ago? The Japanese have widely used this for more than ten years, so it certainly isn't new in the "two days" sense, this can hardly be disputed. At best, we can say that NBC has "newly" become aware of a Japanese pop culture item. The "new as in 40 years" (vs. 2,600 years of zodiacal astrology) is of course undisputed. --dab (𒁳) 16:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Information on Ophiuchus as the "new 13th sign of the zodiac"?

I know it's been around for ages, but I've seen some sources stating that because of the gravity of the moon and the sun, the earth is not where it used to be and now they can fit a 13th odiac sign in. Or something. I can't find any verifiable sources. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.162.191 (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

See zodiac. — kwami (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

omg, gravity of the moon and the sun! See also precession of the equinoxes. That "news" was announced by a guy called Hipparchus in 130 BCE. --dab (𒁳) 11:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hoax?

This is the first I have ever heard of this "sign of the zodiac" and I suspect that this is some sort of hoax. Nekochan1973 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's articles on the sign and constellation go back to 2002 and mention the astrological question even in the earliest version I can find, so it's certainly not a new "hoax". I prefer to call it a "canard" - a misconception circulated by people who don't know the subject and in some cases have malicious intent. Some opponents of astrology would love to have us all believe that astrologers can't count, regardless of whether that's even remotely plausible. 130.179.29.59 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a hoax, it's Japanese pop culture. Eccentric (non-mainstream) astrologers have written about this for 40 years, but you wouldn't have heard about it if it hadn't become popular in Japan in the 1990s. --dab (𒁳) 11:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Japanese term

With the help of google translate, I gather from ja:へびつかい座 that 座 marks constellations, while 宮 marks astrological signs. They go on about how in English this distinction is important (I suppose thanks to our efforts here on this wiki). Compare ja:獅子座 with ja:獅子宮. But in Japanese as in English, it seems this distinction is not made by the hoi polloi, and since only the clueless seem to have any interest in Berg's 13 sign system, it appears that the Ophiuchus sign is mostly known as へびつかい座, not へびつかい宮. Case in point, 13-sign astrology is known as ja:13星座, not 13星宮. See also google. We probably need a Japanese speaker to shed more light on this. --dab (𒁳) 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, this guy published the same idea in Japan in 1995, a year before Berg's book appeared in translation by Mizui Kumi. I wonder what happened -- perhaps Mizui had a hunch that this would be a commercial goldmine and, as a "radio personality" could cash in on it? I am sure Berg has made millions in Japan. And, at the latest, with the publication of "Blood Type × Horoscopes in 2008 dispelled any doubt as to whether he is in it for anything other than the cash.

One of my primary gripes with the skeptical editors on Wikipedia is that they are so busy "debunking" astrology that they neglect to cover it for what it is, a multi-billion industry. You can "debunk" a multi-billion industry all you want, it will still be a real force that provides thousands of jobs. --dab (𒁳) 16:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Rod of Asclepius

This has been in the article for some time, and since it sounded plausible enough nobody challenged it or requested citation. But now I research this, it turns out that the "Ophiuchus sign" has essentially been suggested by Schmidt (1970) and Berg (1995), and neither author used this symbol, they both came up with one of their own. The question is therefore, who has ever used the rod of Asclepius as a symbol of Ophiuchus? I am removing the claim pending citation. --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a Geocities website that used it a while ago. Here it is. There's also a Nasa page that uses a completely different sign I'm not familiar with. — MK (^t/_c) 01:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Why is it removed? There has been no posted justification.