Untitled

Deleting racist vandalism by 24.112.128.253

Changing "United States" to "the Americas," as tropical astrology is the norm in Brazil as well, at least, if not the rest of South America.

Shouldn't this list of dates be in Sidereal zodiac? Tropical zodiac doesn't use them, right? DenisMoskowitz 15:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved them Lumos3 16:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just made major additions, saved the page, and then discovered that Wikipedia had somehow logged me out just before I saved. Anyway, any kudos and criticisms for the last big edit should go to me. J. Sheldon 18:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice clear edit. I have made a minor addition to siderial criticisms. Lumos3 22:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't get it? Why are the constellations changing position? eg aries is on April 19-May 22 as of 2009. Is it becaues of 2012? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The constellations are changing apparent position due to 'precession of the equinoxes'. It's worth noting that precession does not affect tropical astrology, just sidereal astrology. It has nothing directly to do with 2012.(Xpaulk (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

ERROR IN TOPIC

The following is incorrect: "Even by the time the earliest horoscopes were written, however, in the fifth century BCE, the equinoctial point had drifted -- to about the 28th degree of Aries. The last time the vernal equinox was in the first degree of Aries was around 1900 BCE, give or take a hundred years, depending on how you read the ecliptic.

it should read: "Even by the time the earliest horoscopes were written, however, in the fifth century BCE, the equinoctial point had drifted -- to about the 10th degree of Aries. The last time the vernal equinox was in the first degree of Aries was around 350 CE, give or take a hundred years, depending on how you read the ecliptic." Terry Macro (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't even understand the point anyway to be honest. When it says the 1st degree of Aries, does this mean the 1st degree of the constellation Aries? If so, then according to which ayanamsha? Or are they all too similar to be worth considering a difference? Either way I think it would be worth highlighting that it's the constellation that relevant to it, so "the last time the vernal equinox was in the first degree of the constellation Aries was around..."

In relation to this point, in the previous sentence it says "considered to be in the first degree of the star sign Aries", maybe the word 'star' should be removed from it as it is relevant to Tropical Astrology. In fact I'm not entirely sure why there is so much more mention of sidereal astrology in a topic on tropical astrology. It's obviously important to specify the differences between tropical and sidereal but the article seems to deal with sidereal just as much as it does tropical. For example:

"this is because when astrology was being developed by the Babylonians and the Hellenistic Greeks the sun actually was in the constellation Aries at the vernal equinox (whereas now it is in Pisces)."

Actually this is irrelevant to tropical astrology and is a non-sequitor to the previous statement. In other words, that the vernal equinox is considered to be the first degree of Aries has nothing to do with the fact that sun was in the constellation Aries at the vernal equinox, in fact that statement presumes an a priori truth of sidereal astrology. Tropical astrologers would counter that the signs are not related to the constellations AT ALL. More true to tropical astrology would be to say that the zodiac begins at one of the points that the ecliptic intersects the celestial equator, but this is mentioned nowhere in the article. It's certainly not because the constellation Aries was at the vernal equinox, you might argue that it was NAMED after that constellation, but the 'this is because' is totally non-sequitor.

Also the criticisms that sidereal astrologers have for tropical are erroneous as given at the end of the article and the rebuttal of the tropical astrologers is weak. After all, even in Sidereal Aries relates to new beginnings just as it does to Tropical so the argument from seasonal bias is weak. Also Tropical astrologers don't merely contend that there are different ways of viewing the stars, but counter that the constellations are arbitrary and that sidereal astrologers do not align their signs with the constellations like they claim to, and choose and otherwise arbitrary point as the beginning of their zodiac unlike the mathematically and astronomically precise intersection of the celestial equator with the plane of the ecliptic. It's this lack of definition of what tropical astrology actually is, whilst being juxtaposed with sidereal astrology which makes this entire article strongly lacking. I consider an overhaul of the article entirely with point being made to be more strictly sourced as the article as it stands seems more like a rebuttal of tropical astrology by the sidereal argument than it does about informing about what tropical astrology actually is.

Xpaulk (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]