Talk:Ophiuchus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Year and a day

The expression “a year and a day” in fairy tales is probably a remnant where the calendar was reckoned in thirteen 28 day months with a single day left over. The Roman god Janus with his two heads looking in opposite directions may be the god positioned on the extra day. He is looking to the year past and the year ahead. The thirteenth sign may be part of the Mystery cults and removed from the eyes of the profane. It was undoubtedly an Earth Goddess sign (her sign was the serpent, after all) and suppressed by the change to a patralineal society.

There was a concerted effort by most religious sects to dethrone the moon as the object of keeping time and replace it with the sun. The astrological priesthood needed to remover her constellation in order to provide a solar year of 4 equal parts. The Masonic rituals still refer to the squaring of the circle in astrological terms using the signs of the zodiac.

In the Bible, Eve was “cast out” of the Garden of Eden and may be a reference to the suppression of Ophiucus and the earth goddess religious sects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.228.36.236 (talk) 21:45, 2004 July 6 (UTC)

Tau Ceti

"If we were to observe Earth's Sun from Tau Ceti, it would appear as a 2.54 magnitude star in Ophiuchus."

Not true. The Sun would be in Bootes and of magnitude 1.43 (according to Starry Night Pro).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eroica (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

It would be in Bootes, but with a magnitude of 2.66 (3.64parsecs away)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard B (talk • contribs) 00:51, 2005 October 12 (UTC)

I believe you're corrected, and have edited out the Tau Ceti reference. -- Curps 03:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of the Reasons Why Ophiuchus was Dropped from the Zodiac

The section giving the "reasons" Ophiuchus was dropped from the Zodiac needs to be discussed further. The History of Astrology article also should be expanded because it is more general and not specific. This article and that article are not too informative. I'm curious as to when Ophiuchus was dropped from the official Zodiac listing and for what reasons. We know Libra was carved out of the claws of Scorpius and the stars of Libra even bear the word "claw" in them (Zugen-). The reasons I've seen by searching online were:

1. European superstition over the number 13. This would explain why in Christianized Europe, astrology would only have 12 signs.

2. effort to switch away from a 13 month lunar calendar and onto a 12 month solar calendar as a result of secular revisions in the calendar or due to religious clashes between solar-based and lunar-based religions.

It would make sense that the Greeks had 12 constellations (Ophiuchus but no Virgos), but what of the Romans? The celestial bodies would certainly pass through Ophiuchus still.

Another question is what is the history of the constellation's name. The 12 other constellations have Latin names, yet Ophiuchus has its Greek name used. What was the history of its name usage? The Greeks called it Ophiuchus, the Romans Serpentarius, but what about the European peoples who came after them? Did they switch the name back if they were the ones to drop it from the astrological zodiac or did it revert back for some other reason?

The real way to answer this question is to look at every ancient society: Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and the various Mesopotamian peoples and see how many constellations they had and what those constellations were. It would also be curious to see when the Elements (Fire, Water, Earth, Air) and Temperaments (Cardinal, Fixed, Mutable) were associated with the signs to see how they have changed with the removal of this sign if they even existed before Ophiuchus was removed. I've seen accounts saying the Romans created Libra, but the Babylonians also viewed the stars in that span of the ecliptic as a pair of scales. It would be good to sort out what the Zodiac meant to the various ancient cultures, what characteristics they defined the Zodiac through (element, etc) and how many constellations they considered to be in the Zodiac. --139.67.202.120 06:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There are 12 signs because that's just how the system was developed. At least as far back as Hellenistic astrology, there has been a system of triplicities (earth, air, fire, water), quadruplicates (fixed, mutable, cardinal), planetary rulerships, etc., that all depend on an even number of signs, specifically 12. 13 thus does not fit the bill, so this would definitely be a reason to drop Ophiuchus (if it was ever a zodiac sign to begin with, of course). Samuel Grant 22:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the more important question, here, isn't why it was dropped, but rather when was it a part of the zodiac. As far as I can tell, all of this discussion comes from one astrologer's recent press release. I've studied various schools of occult thought for over 20 years, admittedly, some more deeply than others, and I have never even heard so much as a peep about this constellation's formerly being among the zodiac.

The claims that it was dropped from the zodiac need to be far, far better substantiated or they need to be dropped from the article or at the very least described in accurate terms as a very recent fringe belief.98.230.50.44 (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that it was ever part of the Zodiac? The story that set this off claims that the Babylonians "dropped it". Babylonian star catalogues lists Zodiac constellations, but Ophiuchus is not one of them. Did the Babylonians even recognized Ophiuchus as a constellation at all? It is clear that Ophiuchus, as defined by the IAU since 1930 (and also apparently by Ptolemy; http://www.reocities.com/astrologyconstellations/ophiuchus.htm) crosses the ecliptic, so it is a constellation which could be considered to be in the Zodiac. However, it's quite possible that the Babylonians didn't recognize it as a constellation, or drew the boundaries of Ophiuchus such that it didn't contain the ecliptic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I've been reading, the Babylonians did recognize it as a constellation but not a zodiacal constellation. There are apparently more than 12 (and, as it happens, more than 13) constellations that cross the ecliptic but are not part of the western astrological system. This raises an interesting point for astrologers and various media outlets, not so much for Wikipedia. Claims that it was once a part of any astrological system need to be substantiated from some primary source (i.e. other than modern 13-sign system advocates or media articles based on them). Information taken from secondary (or tertiary) sources needs to be given the proper caveat. If the relevant section hasn't changed to include only well-cited, accurately worded claims by EOD today, I'll remove and begin working on replacement text. 146.201.16.50 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to see some assoiation between Ophiuchus and "Laocoon!" See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laoco%C3%B6n, for more. Could this similarity led to some confusion in the past? Except for the "children" it seems to fit. 96.19.147.40 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Earth Goddess?

Incredibly unlikely that this sign has anything to do with the "Earth Goddess" symbology, because the concept of a universal Earth Goddess which ancient paganism followed is a 20th century invention based on the inaccurate and contrived literature of Margaret Murray in her 1921 book "The Witch-Cult in Western Europe".

While goddess of fertlity and agriculture certaintly were worshiped, these goddess are ancenstral to the present day concept of the "Earth Goddess" invented by Gardner (a good aquaintance of Mrs. Murray) when he constructed Wicca. There was no one singular goddess anymore than there was one singular god. Historically speaking, what was largely suppressed during the Inquisition (or "Burning Times", if you will) was Christian mysticism such as Goetian (demon summoning and commanding using grimories such as the Key of Solomon-- it is interesting to note many Catholic exorcists engaged in the practice at the time) practices and Christian-Kabbalah hybrids. The vast majority of ancient pagan gods were transformed into Saints and incorporated into orthodox Christianity (Catholicism) long before the Inquisition was ever dreamed up. Very little paganism was actually practiced in Europe at the time-- the religious populations were pretty much split between Christian orthodoxy, Judaism/Kabbalah and Islam; although Christian orthodoxy held greater sway of influence than any of the other religions did. Much of the actual religious persecution was against these latter religions by the Christian orthodoxy. The accusations filed against the Knights Templar is a prime example: they were accused of worshiping Mohammed(Baphomet was an extremely common french misspelling of Mohammed) in the official records. The concept that Templars were paganists is a modern day invention.

And any serious scholar of occultic/religious history knows all of these things.

I can only speculate on why Ophiuchus was left out the same way I can only speculate on why the current Zodiac consists of Twelve Constellations but not any others. However, I can say with a great deal of certainty it had nothing to do with the persecution of a non-existant "Earth Goddess cult". --65.102.7.2 02:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Even the Italian Benandanti, often used as an example of an "Earth Goddess cult", were in reality a Christian sub-sect for goodness sake! They were tried for heresy not witchcraft. Very different crimes (heresy is deviation from Christian orthodoxy, and witchcraft was anything that had nothing to do with Christianity) --65.102.7.2 02:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a revision of the above statement that ''Baphomet was an extremely common french misspelling of Mohammed" as this is not a view that is now taken seriously in academic circles and in any event, were the Templars Islamic in some form or other, there is no Muslim sect or group that has ever worshipped Muhammad or would countenance doing so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Segovius (talk • contribs) 09:54, 2006 August 20 (UTC)

Constellation borders?

It looks from the image on teh wikibox that Alpha Ophiucus is in the area of hte sky assigned to Hercules. Why is that? Nik42 06:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two images on Hercules (constellation), one steals the star from Ophiuchus and one doesn't. • Maurog • 08:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Splitoff

Yesterday I splitoff Ophiuchus (astrology) from this article: I think the mythological stuff takes too much place in quite a few articles, and that astronomical facts is the main point, while mythology, history and visualizations only serves as a memoization aid in order to add a "human decoration" to the spicey spacey rock hard astronomy facts. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 09:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Images

Would be nice to have a pc of the famous Rho Ophiuchus nebula [1]. Fig (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Leggo my snake

"until recently"? When, exactly, did the Greek superceed? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If this wasn't known before the Roman era, then why is the Greek name more popular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.97.157 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Hercularis

Why is this star shown as being part of the constellation of Oph. in the info box? 203.206.23.120 (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Alpha Her in the infobox, but I see that the brightest star is Alpha Oph. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Mythology a blank spot

The mythology section was just removed from the astrology article on the premise it's about "modern astrology, not the history" etc. I've asked the deleting editor the why and the wherefore of that, but it's also curious to me why it's not here. Are astronomers so "anti-superstition" they don't even deign to include the mythological origin of the signs; are the other zodiacal constellations and other constellations also bereft of any reference to their mythological origins, or the figures they represent??Skookum1 (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be restored, anyone want to be bold? Coolgamer (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I 2RRd it already, doesn't really matter if I were too as I'm a long-time editor but I really don't like edit warring....go ahead and restore it, add a cite/fact tag, and I'll do what I can at the library here to see what I can find out about its mythological origins; it's not like modern astrologers put this in the sky, is it? The Imhotelp seems plausible to me, at least insofar as a claim possibly made by the hermetic tradition if not the actual Egyptian origin. The otehr serpent-wrestler in Greek legend, other than Heracles, is Apollo himself, who wrastled with Python for control of the Delphic oracle; I doubt that's the reference, though, but it may be.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

confused association with zodiac signs

This section should be moved to Ophiuchus (astrology), an article that was split of here in 2009, and was just voted a Keep in an AfD nomination. As for the constellation Ophiuchus there is no confusion or controversy at all that it is part of the astronomical zodiac, as per IAU defintion of 1930. This is also being reflected in Ophiuchus being listed as such in Zodiac#Table_of_dates.
Any controversy among astrologers about using Ophiuchus in the astrological zodiac clearly belongs in Ophiuchus (astrology).
There is no need to reopen the debates that led to the splitting up of this article in 2009. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The one paragraph clarifying the situation needs to remain on this page, regardless of whether there is another page that explores that issue more fully. The paragraph can include a link to the other page too, so that those who want to can follow it (I will add that in). Also consider that the other page does not give clear information to differentiate between fact and fiction; this page must, to prevent a situation where editors continually try to add rubbishy confused details about this, and so that the page holds one very clear statement that Ophiuchus is a constellation and has never been a sign, with a brief explanation of why such confusion ever occured. And BTW, pages do not need to lose relevant information because there are other pages that contain similar information too.

Please do not remove this relevant and substantiated information again without obtaining consensus first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 08:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The lede immediately starts with This article is about the constellation. For the astrological sign, see Ophiuchus (astrology)

That's how it is done per WP guidelines.

So your arguments on that point are without merit.

There is no need to add more 'see also' links, one is enough.

Can you explain why you are reintroducing material about astrologer's confusion here, after exactly that kind of materials has been split off from this article by concensus agreement in 2009? And it was you who nominated Ophiuchus (astrology) for deletion last week isn't it? How does that fit together? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The addition clarifies that the *constellation* is not to be confused with the sign; therefore it is entirely appropriate for the article on the constellation - and necessary. It is not astrologers who suffer from confusion on this point, it is the general public and the media, who turn to this page to understand the position better, and rightly expect that some kind of reliable statement concerning the issue is given here. Zac Δ talk 10:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to clarify what a constellation is. People can look it up on WP if they want.

Criteria like "appropriate" and "necessary" for the media and general public, are not mentioned in any WP policies or guidelines. Who decides on what is "appropriate" or "necessary"? You?

If the general public wants to know something about the controversy around astrology of Ophiuchus, then they will find it on Ophiuchus (astrology)

So, again your argument makes no sense.

I will repeat my question which I don't see addressed:

Can you explain why you are reintroducing material about astrologer's confusion here, after exactly that kind of materials has been split off from this article by concensus agreement in 2009? And it was you who nominated Ophiuchus (astrology) for deletion last week isn't it? How does that fit together?

MakeSense64 (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No comment or new elements after 3 days, so we can assume that User:Zachariel has dropped his objections to the proposed edit. I will now go ahead with the change according to concensus.

If there are any other arguments to keep the astrology references here, despite Ophiuchus (astrology) just having been voted a Keep for that purpose, then feel welcome to bring them here to Talk. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don’t ever assume that if I don’t keep repeating answers to repeating questions that you can take this as my tacit agreement. Once I have given my comment, even if I don’t comment again for 3 months you cannot assume my mind has changed. It is not OK to remove relevant and appropriate content from Wikipedia (as this is relevant here). Zac Δ talk 20:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been glancing at this debate occasionally, & I'm finding it pretty silly. The hatnote expressly says there's an astrological sign which isn't this & points to the astrology page in question. What possible need can there be for adding anything else? It's off-topic at best, trivial cruft at worst, needless either way. Delete & quit arguing about it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No there isn't an astology sign and that's the point. I have corrected the hatline because there is only a false rumour that Ophiuchus comprises an astrological sign. That confusion regularly circulates and brings readers to this page in search of clarification. There is only the constellation Ophiuchus, which gets mistakenly presumed to be a sign. This is a point of reference, notability and interest for the constellation it involves. It is a discreet comment but factually correct, highly relevant and sourced. Zac Δ talk 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Y'know what? I don't care if there's a 13h or a 19h astrological sign. The debate over it belongs on another page. It is on another page. There is no good reason for it being on this page, which has nothing to do with astrology. What I simply cannot grasp is why you insist on bringing it here, when it has nothing to do with the subject of this page & is covered extensively & well elsewhere. It is, I submit, a silly damn argument to be having. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't accept that a comment specifically about this constellation has nothing to do with this constellation. I don't care if it's the 7th or 19th sign either, no one has ever suggested it is. But I could supply more references than you would want to look at where major news broadcasters have given misunderstood 'news reports' to say that this constellation is the 13th astrological sign. Check the other zodiac constellation pages and you will see that they have references to that fact that they are also astrological signs; so it is in keeping that this one has a small comment clarifying that this one is not. Zac Δ talk 11:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have put this to DR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ophiuchus.2C_Ophiuchus_.28astrology.29

MakeSense64 (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The section "Confused association with zodiac signs" is unprovable in its present form because there is no association of astrologers that has world-wide recognition comparable to the recognition that the International Astronomical Union receives from astronomers and international standards-setting organizations. Therefore, there is no forum in which to decide the issue. If such a section is to exist, it should only briefly summarize the confusion that exists, especially in media that serves the general public (as opposed to astronomy- or astrology-media). Jc3s5h (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever confusion exists about it is covered in Ophiuchus (astrology), so it doesn't need to be covered here as well. To give it a section here is giving it undue weight in an article that is about an astronomical constellation. That's why the article was split in 2009. MakeSense64 (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The latter point (of Makesense64) is against WP policy. If the matter is relevant to the subject of Ophiuchus (which it is), then even though the more extensive coverage is spun off into a separate page, there should still be a short summary provided on this page, along with the link to the daughter article - see WP:SS. It is never undue weight to give clarifying information on a notable point of interest regarding the subject of the page, but here we are talking about an astronomical matter anyway, so I’m not sure what there could be undue weight towards.

Jc3s5h, this is a point that you have failed to grasp too. The zodiac was designed for the purpose of astronomical measurement, to divide the ecliptic into 360 degrees of celestial longitude and provide 12 equal subdivisions of 30° each; which reflects associated calendrical divisions. This is the case regardless of whether the tropical zodiac or the sidereal zodiac is used; has been the case of two and a half thousand years, and remains the astronomical reality today. See ‘Smith's illustrated astronomy’ which explains in basic language how the signs of the zodiac act as astronomical divisions of celestial longitude which are historically used as shorthand notations for absolute longitude. Hence we don’t need a committee of modern astrologers to decide the legitimate number of zodiacal signs, they would have no remit to do so since the zodiac presents a system of astronomical measurement specifically intended to give 12 equal divisions of the ecliptic measuring 30° each, and does not allow a division into any other number. The fact that those divisions have also acquired astrological meaning is a red herring to the astronomical point which is being clarified on this page. Please note that there is not a single astrological reference in the text I have contributed: this is an astronomical principle, not an astrological one. Zac Δ talk 08:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the front matter, Asa Smith was a school principal and the book was published in 1848. It is not a reliable source by the standards in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources nor according to my personal concepts of what a reliable source is. It would be pointless to establish whether the astronomical community used zodiac signs in sense of 12 equal divisions of the zodiac for actual measurements (even very rough ones) in the past; they do not, so far as I can tell, today. This article is about astronomy, not the history of astronomy.

The source was given for your elucidation, because anyone with a good basic knowledge of astronomy ought to know that an astrological sign demarks 30° of celestial longitude and represents a division of the ecliptic into 12 (they were originally called "the twelfth parts"). And yes these divisions were used for actual measurments - not "very rough ones" but precise ones. Zac Δ talk 14:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If the confusion about Ophiuchus is worth including at all, that short section would be about astrologers perception of the signs of the zodiac, not astronomer's perceptions. Since this article is written for readers interested in astronomy, one cannot expect readers to be familiar with which, if any, sources, give a reliable overview of the practices of the entire astrological community, or at least that part of the community that uses the zodiac at all. It is up to those who want to include the section to first convince editors with a reasonable understanding of astronomy that such a source exists, give the bibliographic details, and demonstrate the source supports whatever is to be included in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When you say "If the confusion about Ophiuchus is worth including at all" ... can you explain to me why it would not be (so I understand your objection)? This is, after all, a point that receives international media attention.

Since the comments made don't lean towards opinions but only briefly report the fact of the matter, can you explain why you would rather have it written towards perceptions? Let's remind ourselves of what is being discussed here. The comments read (in full):

Because of the partial overlap of the constellation Ophiuchus and the Sun's path upon which zodiacal longitude is based, Ophiuchus is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the '13th sign of the zodiac'. This is an innapropriate reference since the zodiac is a division of the ecliptic into twelve equal parts, initially originated for calendrical purposes. This makes the notion of a '13th sign' a mathematical impossibility. It is only correct to refer to Ophiuchus as one of the constellations which cross the zodiac; which does not constitute a zodiacal sign, of which all historical records acknowledge only twelve. (ref)

What part of that comment gives you a problem and why? What would you rather it said instead?

Also can you explain why you think this article is written only for readers interested in astronomy generally rather than readers interested in the relevant details of this constellation specifically; why this would interrupt anyone's interest in astronomy anyway; and why you don't accept that the page will be read by schoolchildren, journalists, and general members of the public who are curious about the widespread misunderstandings? Do you think it would be helpful to include the following footnote (as the Zodiac page does)?: Zac Δ talk 14:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The notion [of Ophiuchus being a sign] received further international media attention in January 2011, when it was reported that astronomer Parke Kunkle, a board-member of the Minnesota Planetarium Society, had suggested that Ophiuchus was the zodiac's '13th sign'. He later issued a statement to say he had not reported that the zodiac ought to include 13 signs instead of 12, but was only mentioning that there were 13 constellations; reported in Mad Astronomy: Why did your zodiac sign change? 13 January 2011.

Let me address some of your questions, not in order.

"And yes these divisions were used for actual measurments - not "very rough ones" but precise ones." I don't care if they were used by astronomers for measurements, I care if they are used by astronomers.

"Also can you explain why you think this article is written only for readers interested in astronomy generally rather than readers interested in the relevant details of this constellation specifically". Because there is an explicit cross-reference to a different article about the astrology aspects of this constellation, any mention of astrology should be in the nature of an explanatory cross-reference. Also, this article should stick to astronomical measurements and nomenclature; any other measurements or nomenclature should be labeled as such in the immediate vicinity of the measurement or term. I will adopt that approach in these comments.

"When you say 'If the confusion about Ophiuchus is worth including at all' ... can you explain to me why it would not be (so I understand your objection?" The current version is unacceptable, as explained elsewhere. I can't form an opinion about whether a new version should be included until I can read the new version.

As for the specific contents of the passage as it now exists, I question the source. Prove that the magazine is a reliable source and the author of the particular article is qualified to comment on, and give a fair overview of, all astrologers who use anything like the 12, 13, or 14 signs of the zodiac. Also, within the citation, what does "tropical zodiac" mean? What other kinds of zodiac are there, and how prevalent are they? How do you know the original reason the ecliptic was divided into 12 equal parts was for calendrical purposes? The source does not say anything about calendars.

"zodiac is a division of the ecliptic into twelve equal parts" is an incorrect definition in an astronomy article. A correct astronomical definition may be found in the American Heritage Dictionary 3rd ed. (1992): "1.a. Astronomy. A band of the celestial sphere extending about 8° to either side of the ecliptic that represents the path of the principal planets, the moon, and the sun." The same source supports the idea that at least in English, the predominant meaning of zodiac in the astrological sense is "b. In astrology, this band is divided into 12 equal parts called signs, each 30° wide, bearing the name of a constellation for which it was originally named but which it no longe coincides owing to the precession of the equinoxes."

As far as I know, "zodiacal longitude" is not defined in a modern astronomical sense. It is not in the aforementioned American Heritage Dictionary, neither under "zodiacal longitude" nor under "longitude". Nor can it be found under those terms in the Glossary of the Astronomical Almanac Online even though that publication distinguishes among three kinds of longitude.

"...which all historical records acknowledge only twelve." Really? Who checked all historical records? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

: Your response with my replies more sharply indented (So you can see more clearly who said what):

"And yes these divisions were used for actual measurments - not "very rough ones" but precise ones." I don't care if they were used by astronomers for measurements, I care if they are used by astronomers.

Well yes, it is (and always will be) the case that there are only 12 signs of the zodiac - hence the need for Parke Kunkle to correct himself (see above). But ultimately you shouldn't be arguing for what you care about and what you want to see on the page (see below). Zac Δ talk 17:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Also can you explain why you think this article is written only for readers interested in astronomy generally rather than readers interested in the relevant details of this constellation specifically". Because there is an explicit cross-reference to a different article about the astrology aspects of this constellation, any mention of astrology should be in the nature of an explanatory cross-reference. Also, this article should stick to astronomical measurements and nomenclature; any other measurements or nomenclature should be labeled as such in the immediate vicinity of the measurement or term. I will adopt that approach in these comments.

Perhaps you missed this point before - if the matter is relevant to the subject of Ophiuchus (which this is), then even though the more extensive coverage of certain points is spun off into a separate page, there should still be a short summary provided on this page, along with the link to the daughter article - see WP:SS. Zac Δ talk 17:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"When you say 'If the confusion about Ophiuchus is worth including at all' ... can you explain to me why it would not be (so I understand your objection?" The current version is unacceptable, as explained elsewhere. I can't form an opinion about whether a new version should be included until I can read the new version.

You have not explained what is not suitable about the current version. What fact do you dispute? Zac Δ talk 17:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the specific contents of the passage as it now exists, I question the source. Prove that the magazine is a reliable source and the author of the particular article is qualified to comment on, and give a fair overview of, all astrologers who use anything like the 12, 13, or 14 signs of the zodiac. Also, within the citation, what does "tropical zodiac" mean? What other kinds of zodiac are there, and how prevalent are they? How do you know the original reason the ecliptic was divided into 12 equal parts was for calendrical purposes? The source does not say anything about calendars.

To go into every detail of every astrological rumour would be off-topic. How do I know these things? because I am informed and have studied astronomy. I am not going to educate you on what the tropical zodiac is and the history and original purpose of the zodiac; if you don't know do some research. It is not necessary for that explanation to be made on the page because the comment doesn't rely upon it. Zac Δ talk 17:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"zodiac is a division of the ecliptic into twelve equal parts" is an incorrect definition in an astronomy article. A correct astronomical definition may be found in the American Heritage Dictionary 3rd ed. (1992): "1.a. Astronomy. A band of the celestial sphere extending about 8° to either side of the ecliptic that represents the path of the principal planets, the moon, and the sun." The same source supports the idea that at least in English, the predominant meaning of zodiac in the astrological sense is "b. In astrology, this band is divided into 12 equal parts called signs, each 30° wide, bearing the name of a constellation for which it was originally named but which it no longe coincides owing to the precession of the equinoxes."

There you go. Both definitions are correct (as was mine) and relate to the same divisions. The zodiac is centred upon the ecliptic and extends in breadth about 8-9° either side of the ecliptic, because this is the area of sky which holds the observable movement of all the observable (to the naked eye) planets; it is divided into twelve 30° sections, each of which is traditionally named after the constellation closest to it at its time of invention. The tropical zodiac commences at the vernal equinox (called 0° Aries). There have only ever been twelve of these divisions; never 13.

As far as I know, "zodiacal longitude" is not defined in a modern astronomical sense. It is not in the aforementioned American Heritage Dictionary, neither under "zodiacal longitude" nor under "longitude". Nor can it be found under those terms in the Glossary of the Astronomical Almanac Online even though that publication distinguishes among three kinds of longitude.

Try this : Elements of Astronomy By J. Norman Lockyer p.196-197.

"...which all historical records acknowledge only twelve." Really? Who checked all historical records? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's not necessary to check every historical source because what is not in doubt is the principle of what the zodiac is - a division of the 360° of celestial longitude into 12 equal divisions of 30° (not 13 divisions, 14 or 15 ever - for as long as 360/12=30). The only confusion lies in the incorrect reports of those who do not know what they are talking about, which is a modern phenomenon, not supported in any historical text (astronomical or astrological). There really isn't anything in my comment that is not reliable or factual Zac Δ talk 16:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Zodiacal longitude" is not defined by Lockyer, as far as I can see. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Jc3s5h 'celestial longitude' (which Lockyer defines) is 'zodiacal longitude'. Zac Δ talk 19:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)