Talk:Aries (constellation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Constellations Task Force
The article page to this talk page, is subject to revision by the WikiProject Astronomy's Constellations Task Force. Please discuss the layout of the article page on the Constellation Task Force's discussion page.
Status: structure: unchecked, correctness: unassessed, completeness: unchecked

I have read that Aries was not initially recognized as an independent constellation but, rather, was initially the hindquarters of Taurus. I wonder if anyone else has seen a source that might confirm or deny this? The only references I have are, I believe, a couple of Egyptian sky maps I've seen and Guy Ottewell's Astronomical Companion. If this is true, it would certainly merit mention in the article, no? --QuantumDriverX 05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Aries an independent constellation

I have read in many astrology books that aries is an indepedent constellation and that in fact Pisces was the hindquarters of Tauras.

Well, then instead read some astronomy books. There's nothing about Pisces being bum'o'Taur. Besides, I thought astrologers was more preoccupied with Signs, not constellations. Rursus 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] aries

aries is a smaller constellation do you think it should be a constellation? ~~THE EDITOR~~

It is a constellation, standardized and everything. Rursus 07:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aries alternate

If we look closely – the line of α and β is forming the back bone of the ram (although the stars upper α and β, actually). α is the shoulder and β shall be the pelvis. The γ star after β is the tail. The small cluster near northwest of α is forming the head and horn of the ram. The legs are formed by the 5 stars located near southwest α and β.

Star 41 and others are not included.

Combination of them will resemble a ram walking northwest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.186.88.89 (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Those alternate constellation lines does not seem historically correct at all to me: in all old star maps the stars 35, 39 and 41 constitutes the asterism (or in some cases, the separate constellation) Musca Borealis/Vespa. In those maps the back of Aries goes from η, via ν, ε to ζ, and the tail includes ζ, τ, 63 and δ Arietis. I'm in heavy doubt whether we shall use those ahistorical alternate constellation linings. It smells original research too much. Rursus 19:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That "alternate" outline for Aries isn't "original research" from a Wikipedia author; it's actually the one created by H. A. Rey in "The Stars," published in 1976, in which he intentionally changed many traditional constellation outlines. I'm not sure it belongs here (though personally I like Rey's versions), but if it's going to be kept, it should be credited to its originator and explained to be a relatively new and not widely accepted variant, not just vaguely labeled "alternate." 149.159.144.122 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Constellations#Alternate graphic visualization. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-11t11:46z
But as much as i've heard, that WikiProject is deleted. Is it or not? Rursus 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Has someone hacked the mythology section? (April 30, 2007)Cwmagee 01:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly missing Aries as mythology.....

[edit] Astrology and religion section

In my view we should keep astrology out of all the constellation entries, other than a cross-ref for those who are looking for that sort of thing. The Astrology and Religion section of this entry is particularly out of place. I vote to delete. Skeptic2 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


Rather than just move to delete, would you care to offer another place to put it? What is the point of an article if not all facets of the subject can be explored? Bdag 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


So there's no discussion about it, the 'Hebrew mythology' just gets deleted without revisions? No offer of a better place to put it? Lame. I would have thought that this site was concerned with thought-provoking and encyclopedic material. Apparently anything to do with religion, esp. Christianity gets snuffed. Get over it. Bdag 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing and Validity

Could someone please help me with how to cite my references? The addition of the religion section was taken directly from the book Mazzaroth which I found online. And why was the reference marked as unreliable? I didn't realize that books were unreliable sources. Is it because it is out of print, or because a copy has been made available online? Is it because someone is just trying to keep religion off of Wikipedia? If you take the time to follow the link and read the book, you would see that the text is gleaned from the book, not a personal view or 'story' as it were. If you're going to denegrate a source, at least check its validity first. I'm just trying to help by adding what I've found on the subject. I thought others might be interested. Bdag 15:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mazzaroth is not a scientific source, alas. Skeptic2 16:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Thank you for the explanation. I didn't see that this page was specifically limited to the scientific realm of the constellations. Perhaps all the constellation pages should have a header along the lines of: "This article is strictly concerned with the scientific aspect of the constellation. For other aspects, click here". We should probably remove the mythology sections from all articles as well. Bdag 16:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the entries should be restricted to the scientific aspects. I'm sure there are plenty of Wikipedia entries which deal with the astrological significance etc. However, the mythology – the Greek and Roman mythology, at least – is strongly connected with the origins of these constellations and should, in my view, be kept. Skeptic2 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you in the least. There is a very blurred line between religion and mythology though, especially as it pertains to the Greeks and Romans. If it suits the jury, I would be happy to revise the Religion section to read more like a Hebrew mythology section. I had never heard of the Hebrew slant on constellations until I ran across the aforementioned book Mazzaroth. I think it offers another interesting insight into the history of the constellations. Of course the Chaldeans and Egyptians had their own mythology, as did the Norse and the ancient American tribes. What Rolleston notes is the history of the zodiacal tradition:

By Plato we are informed that Solon made an investigation, apparently on scientific and theological subjects, into the power of names, and found that the Egyptians, from whom the Greeks derived them, had transferred them from "barbarian" dialects into their own language. According to ancient authorities, the Egyptians had learnt their astronomy from the Chaldeans. The meaning of the names of astronomy transmitted by the Greeks should therefore be sought in the dialect of those from whom the Egyptians received the science. In the Chaldee contained in the Hebrew Scriptures it may be seen that every Chaldee word is explicable by the cognate Hebrew root, to which, therefore, those names are here referred. The early Arabic is thus equally intelligible. The refinements of modern Arabic have scarcely at all affected the names of ancient astronomy. Its descriptive epithets used as synonyms, and its melodious profusion of inserted vowels, ornament and may a little obscure the original idea, but do not alter the sense.

That is, the Greeks received their constellations from the Egyptians, the Egyptians from the Chaldees, and the Chaldees from the early Semites. Names may have changed, but the basic figure or object remained the same. I'm not trying to push religion into the article, I'm trying to show further connections. If you can tolerate the religion sections, I would read the book, it is absolutely fascinating.Bdag 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)