Talk:Astrological age

Problems with the Introduction -> changed to OVERVIEW

The introductory section is not referenced correctly, introduces minority or one sided points of views of various aspect of the ages and introduces concepts that are badly presented and probably irrelevant in the introductory section.

The second paragraph should be removed or thoroughly reworked to provide alternative approaches to the issues indicated in the following:

"The entrance into a new Great Month is not considered to be a single moment of time but a process by which one age initiates its influences, in a slowly increasing way, before the end of the previous age. Due to this reason, some astrologers consider the last ca. 10 degrees of a given age (ca. 720 years) as the time period during which the new age starts to make visible its influences, also called "Orb of influence"."

There is no reference(s) to say that 'a new Great Month is not considered to be a single moment of time but a process by which one age initiates its influences' - this is just an unsubstantiated opinion. In Nicholas Campion's " The Book of World Horoscopes" Pgs 489-495 there are 6 pages of exact dates for the start of the Aquarian age with approximately 12 dates per page. Furthermore these dates cover a range from 1447 to 3621 for the start of the Age of Aquarius. Therefore to state that 'a new Great Month is not considered to be a single moment of time' is to go against the vast majority of researchers in this field and thus is a minority point of view.

Re "A decanate is a band of any Sign of the Zodiac, which is overlaid by the influence of the next sequential Sign of the same element. For example, the 1st decanate of Libra (0 to 10 degrees) is Libra overlaying Libra, the 2nd decanate of Libra is Aquarius overlaying Libra, and the 3rd decanate of Libra is Gemini overlaying Libra." - this must be to worst presented description of decanates I have ever read in over 30 years. I defy any non-astrologer to undestand what a decanate is after reading this and astrologers would only understand this based on their previous understanding. This is just totally confusing and misrepresenting decans - and is also unreferenced. Furthermore to introduce decanates so as to dilineate from the unsubstantiuated and unproven concept of `orb of influence' is totally unnecessary in this introduction.

Re "some astrologers consider the last ca. 10 degrees of a given age (ca. 720 years) as the time period during which the new age starts to make visible its influences, also called "Orb of influence"."" Who are these astrologers, or at least give one reference? It is not a widely held view. As a long time researcher in the field this "Orb of influence" is new to me. What reference(s) is there to this "Orb of influence".

" ... whereas the orb involves, in this case, the gradual fading from one Sign into the next Sign" This is the old cusp argument and no known reputable astrologer will agree that cusps are anything other than an urban myth promoted by non-astrologers and novices that don't know any better. To my knowledge there is no research verifying that `cusps' have any astrological validity whatsoever in any other branch of astrology so why are is it pulled out of the hat here? If there is some research validating cusps and/or orbs it should be referenced here. Cusps are nothing more than an urban myth.

"The changes upon Earth are caused and marked by the influences of the given astrological sign, related to the northern hemisphere." There are two mutually exclusive schools of thought on this subject, one states that astrological influences are causative, the other that astrology is purely an example of synchronicty as expounded by Professor Richard Tarnas in "Cosmos and Psyche - Intimations of a New World View". Therefore to state that the causative hypothesis of astrology is the source of the power of the ages is one sided and unreferenced.

" ... for this reason the current Piscean age is called in astrology the "Age of Pisces-Virgo." This is another hypothesis held by a few astrologers but certainly not universally adopted by research astrologers in this field. Furthermore it is a detraction from the main gist of the case for astrological ages. If the minority view is that ages are paired with their opposite sign this should be referenced and stated more evenly - or removed .

The lack of quality in this introductory section continues on through the following sections as well. In nearly every issue of the ages, be they astronomical or astrological, there are different points of views and approaches by researchers in this field. The only issue about the astrological ages I have found that appears universally agreed upon is that the ages are retrograde due to precession of the equinoxes (but even here I think I vaguely remember someone disputing this - but to my knowledge they were unpublished so it does not matter). Everything else about the astrological ages is disputed. Therefore in any description of the ages the different publish opinions on each and every point should be stated and correctly referenced so as to project the correct balance and facts to the general public.

I propose to rewrite the Introduction incorporating the points I have made above. The most relevant point to be presented to the public is the totally contentious points of views by archeoastronomers, astronomers and astrologers surrounding nearly every aspect of the astrological ages. I will post the reworked introduction in this Discussion section first to iron out any anomalies.

Terrymacro (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Main Problem with the Introduction and Topic in General

The main problem with the introduction and topic in general is that apart from the presentation of minority or extremist views on the ages and use of antiquated non-mainstream terminology (i.e. the ‘Great Month of Aquarius’ instead of the ‘Age of Aquarius’) is that the topic does not take a top down view of the ages outlining the major issues and views expressed about the ages. The section on Past Great Years is really a joke and I notice it has no reference. Unless issues are referenced to published documentation they should not be included in this topic.

The major issue of the astrological ages is that nearly every aspect of the ages is disputed by astrologers, astronomers and archeoastronomers. The only issue I have found that is not disputed is the retrograde passage of the ages in reverse of their traditional astrological order. From this point on everything is disputed. Therefore to correctly present this topic the main issues of disputes and the points of views expressed should be presented to a reasonable degree.

Very careful consideration should be given to any one claim about the ages as there is no consensus about all the disputes surrounding the ages. Therefore to promote the work or views of one astrologer above others, or to promote the views of esoteric astrologers above other less esoteric approaches is gross misrepresentation. There needs to be a balance outlining the opposing viewpoints. For example it is commonly stated that Hipparchus discovered the precession of the equinoxes and thus the ages. This is highly contentious as there is much documented reference that earlier cultures were aware of the ages and that even other Ancient Greek astronomers were aware of precession before Hipparchus.

Terrymacro (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This section needs additional citations for verification

I have been adding references whenever I can but the whole topic was virtually a reference-free zone when I arrived. My inital focus has been to remove all the junk and clutter, then focus upon quality including references. In the end, references will have to be the deciding point on what is included in this topic. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There are four broad perspectives on the Astrological Ages

I added this is as an added perspective but can find no published reference to date. It can be removed if this is contentious Terry MacKinnell (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Proposed Approach to Editing

I intend to clearly delineate between information on the astrological ages that has achieved one of the following status:

• consensus in the astrological community (i.e. the ages proceed in retrograde fashion compared to the normal order of the zodiac)
• majority opinion where there is dissension but there is a fairly defined majority opinion on the subject (i.e. the Vernal point passing through a zodiacal constellation or associated sidereal zodiac is the established method for determining the astrological ages)
• minority opinions - points of view that are established but only but a minority of researchers (i.e. each astrological age coexists with its opposite sign so that the Aquarian age is actually the Aquarian-Leo age)
• fringe ideas (new or innovative ideas not yet established (i.e. Walter Cruttenden’s hypothesis that precession of the equinoxes is not caused by the wobbling earth but by the solar system existing within a binary pair of stars where our own Sun is one of the stars)

Reconstructing this topic should put greater emphasis on the first two of the above list (i.e. consensus and majority), mention minority opinions as an aside, and only briefly mention fringe ideas. For example calling the ‘Age of Aquarius’ the ‘Great Month of Aquarius’ is a minority point of view – the majority is definitely the `Age of Aquarius’ and so should be returned to this style of nomenclature. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Now that I have edited a significant part of this topic, my inital approach is to clean up and reorganise what is actuually placed in the topic. Once this is completed, new material should be added as the is a lot of information relevant to the Astrological ages that is not yet included in this topic.

Terry MacKinnell (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Editing Comments on the Introduction

I have started cleaning up the Introduction along the hierarchical lines indicated above. Consensus and majority opinion concepts are emphasised while minority and fringe ideas remain included, but severely truncated. As an example the whole explanatory “Orb of Influence” hypothesis has been removed as this is a fringe idea, and unless some reference can be found any reference to “Orb of Influence” should be removed in entirety from the final version of the Introduction. It is very possible that at a later stage an sub-topic in Astrological Ages could be included that fleshes out the myriad fringe ideas associated with the astrological ages.

There was one sentence in the Introduction that was totally incorrect – it stated that the sign of the equinox in the Southern Hemisphere is the opposite sign to that in the Northern Hemisphere. This is definitely not the case and I have done an initial adjustment but it will probably require more. I have not yet inserted references yet to published papers or books – this will come. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I found the answer I was looking for; so I know understand the "error" in the text of "the sign of the equinox in the Southern Hemisphere is the opposite sign to that in the Northern Hemisphere" (though it is not technically correct but there's something more to it that may have been overlooked). Anyway, it doesn't in any way invalidate that the Zodiacal sign in which the Vernal equinox [March] occurs, determining the Astrological Age (eg.: Pisces) won't be complemented by the opposite sign (its influences upon the Age, eg. Virgo), which occurs at the Autumnal equinox [September] in northern hemisphere (reverse equinoxes in southern hemisphere).

Also although the main features of any given past civilization framed within an Age will be able to "parallel" with the Zodiacal sign associated to the related age (through the vernal equinox position); there are some features of the same given civilization, a few are even described through the article, that won't be understood without the complement of the opposite Zodiacal sign (meanwhile erased). The temptation will be for sure to erase those features: it is what "we" ususally do when things don't seem to fit or, instead, when there to many unxeplained "impossible" coincidences... But then I am not an Astrologer, even less a professional one.(my sincere apology for this previous final ironic comment, sometimes it is not so easy to avoid) Best regards --195.23.163.115 (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that it does not invalidate the influence of the opposite sign in any Astrological Age but whether this mechanism is linked to the Autumnal equinox is unsubstantiated. You will notice that I have slightly modified this again (before I saw your note here in Discussion) because I cannot remember the actual technique of introducing the opposite sign into an Age, is it based on the Autumnal Equinox or just on the opposite sign (which are in reality the same sign anyway) but how did the opposite sign get introduced? An actual reference to a text with reelevant details is really required here. What i do know is that this concept of Age polarities introducing the opposite sign in such a manner that the Age of Pisces is called the Age of Pisces-Virgo is definitely a minority view, but a view or opinion nevertheless. If you have a reference and a sentence or two you would like added to this aspect of the ages please let me know. As I work through the topic ultimately we should only include minority or fringe views if they have a reference to a published article or book, otherwise you could end up with so many fringe views that it would be a topic specialising in cacophany.

Re: Please allow my brief answer here: As far as I am able to recall, the influence of the opposite sign was introduced when conducting some search through online sites of oriental philosophies and astrology and they mentioned briefly about this aspect. However, the most thorough account I am acquainted with is presented at the following book:

Max & Augusta Foss Heindel, The Message of the Stars, ISBN 0-911274-18-9 www2, though it intimately associates Astrology with Esoteric Christian philosophy, in a Rosicrucian perspective, and deals also with Medical Astrology.

Although I agree the Philosophy presented is currently considered "fringe" by current Science & Religious authorities (yet some have been acquainted with it and become silent), I wouldn't say that this book of Astrology constitutes "minority". The reason is that, although I am not Astrologer, I am convinced that this book together with the books Simplified Scientific Astrology (www2), an introductory manual to Astrology, and Astro-Diagnosis - A Guide to Healing (Medical astrology) from the same authors in the 1910s (U.S.), and with several editions from different publishing houses, are among the top manuals of Astrology throughout the 20th century (even here in Europe).

And add to this also the fact that the School founded by the Heindels, The Rosicrucian Fellowship, is currently perhaps one of the worlds oldest institutions dedicated to the teaching of Astrology and their Ephemeris [1] [2] among the most appreciated worldwide (see links comments).

I submit these details (which includes my point of view) because I consider the above described book as the source to be included in the paragraph of the Introduction about the opposite sign, but only if gathers a consensual view. Please be kind to express your perspective on this issue. Thanks. --195.23.163.44 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The old schools and texts on astrology are dated and much of the material is not considered current in the astrological community. Many of the old school astrology texts included the pet fringe theories of the astrologer author. This still occures in contemporary texts. While i have come across the opposite or binary sign theory for the ages, it is indeed a rare experience and if 1% of the references to ages included this binary ages hypothesis I would be surprised. However it is in excellent hypthesis for the new fringe theory section. Currently the fringe theory section is too fringe, and ultimately all material in this section without adequate references should be removed for more relavant fringe theories such as your binary ages. If we included all fringe theories such as your binary ages in the main body of the text it loses its focus. I am a researcher in the ages and I have my own fringe theory, but you will notice I have not allowed my fringe theory to appear in the main body of text in this topic. Over time i think we will find that the largest section in this topic will be fringe theories. I have read so many fringe theories on the astrological ages over the last 20 years I could wallpaper my house with them! Terry MacKinnell (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your

there are some features of the same given civilization, a few are even described through the article, that won't be understood without the complement of the opposite Zodiacal sign (meanwhile erased).

I have not got to that issue yet and it is true that some entries may not be properley understood without the opposite sign. However due to the contentious and disputational nature of the topic, the same approach should be taken whereby the majority view about what historical events parallel any given age should dominate. For example the Sphinx with the Age of Leo is a total joke as it stands - it is worth a sentence or two as an aside.

Re: I remember when that section was added. My first impulse was to revert it. But it was kept since, though in the wrong age - it should be in the Age of Taurus[-Scorpio], which would be also in accordance to archeological dating - it presented data, with sources ("fringe" as one may think of them), which made a plausible relation to the earlier Age of Leo. From my point of view there is such relation, but a logical explanation why such constructions from a later period relate to an earlier stage (thousands of years previously) would require the reader to previously be acquainted with things not really yet in "public domain"... at the time I added the section « Aquarius and the Great Floods » under the Age of Leo[-Aquarius]; See, even now there are still people that date the age of Earth as 6,000 years old... Anyway, the solution found by editor Alunsalt linking to Orion Correlation Theory seems fine to me. --195.23.163.44 (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that some approach to how to handle minority views such as the polar opposite signs approach you refer to above should be handled. There are numerous minority views such as this. Should a new sub-section, topic etc be introduced to allow these minority views to be expressed fully? Perhaps we need a Alternative Approach sub-heading? What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrymacro (talk • contribs) 08:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Well, I donnot think such special sub-sections are needed through the all article. But, from my point of view, the section of each Age should identify immediately below each Age both the vernal equinox sign [northern hemisphere] (from which the Age acquires its name) and the opposite sign (previously technically explained in an wrong way); since the lack of this "little" detail won't allow people to identify some important known historical events with the Astrological ages (as similarities/parallels, of course). --195.23.163.44 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I had a look at the issue you mentioned re age polarities, which seems to appear in the esoteric section for some of the ages. Esoteric views are minority views (probably fringe views but I am being generous), but the real issue here is that as we go down the heirarchy, (ie unanimous, majority, minority and fringe) that not only less space be given down the totem pole, but the necessity for references to actual books or publications should be required for these to remain in this topic. What do you think? Terry MacKinnell (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Esoteric section, in each age, was introduced as short paragraphs in order to allow immediate comparison of certains aspects from the Age of Leo till now with the period previous to that "initial" Age of Leo, for those who have a keen interest in the study of major Epochs, as presented in the Root race article. It is "fringe", as it challenges current tectonics theory (plate tectonics/continental drift), but one never knows... :) I do not oppose if removed (except the section under the future Aquarian age; which is rather different but it can very well be debated); though I request that if those "Esoteric sections" be removed that the related paragraphs be inserted under an ad hoc section at the talk page. --195.23.163.44 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My knowledge on this subject is that I have been a serious researcher in this field for 21 years and interface with archeoastronomers and astrologers as well as developing my own (fringe theory). It is due to my long time research in this area that I have a fairly good handle on what is unanimous, majority view, minority view and fringe view (plus crazy view to be comprehensive). However if you think I have made an error in my judgement please let me know asap so we can discuss the issue.

Eheheh, don't worry as you seem to be a really assertive and fair individual. Whatever you decide it will be for sure guided in accordance with your best logical reasoning (even if contrary to my few points of view above expressed). Whatever you decide, I must thank you for the attention you have devoted to my words; as strange as they may seem to you at this time. Cheers. --195.23.163.44 (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To be really fair, to bring the binary age hypothesis back into the main body of this topic you would need a referenced source stating that the binary ages concept is widely accepted, used by a reasonable minority of astrologers etc etc. In my own research on the ages i do recognise the relation between the age in question and the opposite sign. For example in the Age of Taurus, Scorpio is `deflated'. As an example we see in Ancient Egypt in the Taurus age where they believed they have beaten (Scorpio) death and that they can eat, drink and be merry in this life, stack up their pyramid or tomb with goodies so they can continue to eat, drink and be merry in the next life. In other words the next life is the same as this life so death really does not exist apart from some momentary lapse of continuity. However this relationship between Tauruis and Scorpio exists throughout all branches of astrology but we don't call taurus the sign of Taurus-Scorpio. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Major Rewrite in Introduction

I have commenced working down the Introduction to introduce the most important issues associated with the ages first, and mentioning those items that have the greatest concensus. I will continue working through the introduction in this heirarchical way asap. If anyone disputed what i have added (see below) let's discuss the issue(s)

Definitive details on the Astrological Ages are lacking and consequently most details and urban myths available about the Astrological Ages are contentious and disputed. The eminent 20th century British astrologer, Charles Carter, stated that

"It is probable that there is no branch of Astrology upon which more nonesense has been poured forth than the doctrine of the precession of the equinoxes'"

(Precession of the equinoxes is the root astronomical cause of the Astrological Ages.)

Neil Spencer more recently in his book "True as the Stars Above" strongly agrees with Charles Carter. Spencer singles out the Astrological Ages as being "fuzzy", "speculative" and least defined area of astrological lore. Therefore a note of caution, claims about the Astrological Ages such as the Age of Aquarius should be taken with some scepticism, especially the urban myths widely propagated about the Age of Aquarius.

Though so many issues are contentious or disputed, there are two aspects of the Astrological Ages that have virtual unanimous consensus. Firstly the Astrological Ages are linked to precession of the equinoxes. Secondly that due to the nature of the precession of the equinoxes, the progression of the ages proceeds in reverse direction through the zodiacal signs. Normally during the course of the astrological year, commencing around the 21st March at the vernal equinox , the Sun moves through the zodiacal signs commencing with Aries, then Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and finally Pisces. After Pisces the Sun enters Aries and commences the cycle all over again. However the Astrological Ages proceed in the reverse direction. Therefore after the Age of Pisces, the next age is the Age of Aquarius, followed by the Age of Capricorn, and so on.

There is a third aspect of the Astrological Ages that has very wide consensus amongst astrologers. Though astrologers cannot agree upon the year, century or millennium for the start of any age, they generally agree upon the core historical events associated with the recent Ages since the start of the Holocene Epoch. For example the Age of Leo with massive global warming that resulted in the deglaciation of Earth at the end of the last Ice Age, Age of Cancer with domestication and the Biblical Flood, the Age of Gemini is associated with the invention of writing, the Age of Taurus with Ancient Egypt and its massive pyramids, the Aries age with the Iron Age and the Age of Pisces with Christianity. Astrologers claim that each zodiacal sign has associated archetypes often referred to traditionally as `rulerships'. For example Gemini `rules' the hands, dexterity and communication and draws upon all these archetypes to `produce' the first written word in the Age of Gemini, specifically in Sumer (Mesopotamia).

Though almost total unanimity or wide consensus in the astrological community exists in the above three areas, everything else is contentious, disputed and a huge array of alternative hypotheses, claims and approaches exists. Furthermore the Astrological Ages have entered the realm of urban myth. Blogs, newspaper, magazines and the printed media around the world refer the Age of Aquarius on a daily basis. There is a common speculation that the Age of Aquarius began around the 1960's and 1970's, and some publications even imply that those two decades were the Age of Aquarius as if it existed for about two decades. Furthermore most details available in the public media on the Age of Aquarius imply that it will be a paradisiacal Garden of Eden, bring world peace, spiritual evolution or fulfilment and so on. Unfortunately all these archetypal expectations are related to the sign of Pisces, not Aquarius. This urban myth paradox has not yet been resolved in the mind of the general public, and there is no evidence to suggest that the general public is even aware that this paradox exists.

Re: Major Rewrite in Introduction

Though it was obvious that the article needed "professional care", it should also be noted that the article - as it was - has introduced the concept of the Astrological ages to our readers, when most probably the majority of them had never been acquainted with this concept previously.

The article contained several timeframes for the each age according to different astrologers in order to try to present a most mpov view (in a subject which, as you have described above, is far from having a complete consensus within those who practice Astrology).

It is true that the wording was far from perfect (as it was not written by professionals): but it should be noted also that at the time the article was developed it seemed like no editor at Wikipedia in the Astrology section was interested in developing this article.

It tried to present the distinction between the zodiacal constellations and the fixed sidereal zodiac (30 degrees each): many online sites about the ages don't even talk about this (some only see astronomy instead of astrology), etc.

All in all, although not of a professional level it was able to catch the attention from the readers who have been adding data here and there related to each Age; and this was only because people understood through the simplicity of the article that there are real similarities between the Astrological ages and the past civilizations timeframes.

Anyway, as a former contributor to the article I am truly glad someone in the field has decided to aid in order to that a more encyclopedic article can be formed; and I welcome you as I'm certain we can only benefit with the expertise & experience you share with all of us.

There is one or another aspect in the article on which I would like to comment at this talk page; as soon as I can get enough spare time. Thank you. At your service --195.23.163.44 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - A most valuable & assertive contributor has been editor Fractain; whose contribution, from my point of view, should not be disregarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.163.44 (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to Fractain I hope I don't tread on any toes in editing this topic, which is not my intention. For the most part I will outline what I intend to do beforehand so that if anyone objects we can discuss the issues. The topic of the Astrological Ages is probably the most difficult branch of astrology to explain due to the general lack of concensus and consequently the incredible number of fringe theories various astrologers, astronomers and archeoastronomers throw at it, not to mention the even greater number of urban myths.

It is difficult to present some concepts such as the distinction between the zodiacal constellations and the fixed sidereal zodiac as even many astrologers cannot understand this either. I understood what was said before I edited it, but my journalistic experience of discussinng complicated astrological concepts that are easily understandable to the layman has come to my assistance here. You will notice that I did not start afresh, but took mainly what you have done as a base and try and improve it. You did a valiant effort. I have looked at this topic for sometime but I was not in a position to do anything about it previously due to that greatest of curses - lack of time.

I notice from the History that you have done a lot of previous work on this topic, so I look forward to any comments or suggestions you may have. I do know a lot about the Astrological ages, the history of the astrological ages, archeoastronomers approaches to the ages and I keep as up to date on the subject as I possibly can - but it is so vast that no one person can be on top of all the issues facing these ages.

I think your approach re:

it was able to catch the attention from the readers who have been adding data here and there related to each Age; and this was only because people understood through the simplicity of the article that there are real similarities between the Astrological ages and the past civilizations timeframes.

is a good approach. However it really is necessary to draw the line betwen mainstream or concensus correlations between astrological ages and historical events and fringe ideas. The more that different people contribute towards this area the richer will be the topic. However the intrusion of fringe ideas in the main body of the topic really does devalue the topic. Rather than delete the intrusive fringe ideas, I think we should follow the approach of the Archeoastronomy topic and just make a FRINGE IDEAS section here as well. Therefore I don't intend to delete these fringe ideas, just move them to where they belong. If other people edit in their fringe ideas we can just move them from the main body of the topic to the Fringe section and so not unduly upset them.

Anyway Fractain, I look forward to your future input .... and there is no guarantee how long I will have the spare time - I am trying to get a book to the publishers by December. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Calculation Aspects

I removed temporarily:

Like nearly everything else related to the astrological ages, Hipparchus' approach remains contentious.

because Hipparchus' approach is very close to unanimous concensus, and so considereing I put this sentence in, I have taken it out until this issue is properly dealt with by an expanation of the fringe alternative approaches Terry MacKinnell (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the following paragraph after the first paragraph in nthis sub-section with the high school student in mind.

In graphical terms, the Earth behaves like a spinning top, and tops tend to wobble as they spin. The spin of the Earth is its daily (diurnal) rotation. The spinning Earth slowly wobbles over a period slightly less than 26,000 years. From our perspective on Earth, the stars are ever so slightly `moving' from West to East at the rate of one degree approximately every 72 years. One degree is about twice the diameter of the Sun or Moon as viewed from Earth. The easiest way to notice this slow movement of the stars is at any fixed time each year. The most common fixed time is at the vernal equinox around 21 March each year.

Is this being too simplistic or pedantic? Terry MacKinnell (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The following paragraph should be moved to the proposed new Fringe Theory section, as Esoteric astrology is fringe astrology - albeit a popular fringe.

Many current-day astrologers advance timeframes for the Ages based solely in the astronomical division of the constellations; however, as esoteric astrologers refer, basing astrology in direct connection to constellation configuration in the sky (i.e. its borders) is not astrology but only astronomy assumptions. This perspective is also confirmed by the conclusions of the Austrian astronomer Professor Hermann Haupt who examined the question of when the Age of Aquarius begins in an article published in 1992 by the Austrian Academy of Science: with the German title Der Beginn des Wassermannzeitalters, eine astronomische Frage? (The Start of the Aquarian Age, an Astronomical Question?, see below [[The Age of Aquarius).

Terry MacKinnell (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• What I have done with the above paragraph is change it to the following:

One approach by many current-day astrologers is to base their timeframes for the Ages based solely in the astronomical division of the irregular constellations. Based on this approach the Austrian astronomer Professor Hermann Haupt examined the question of when the Age of Aquarius begins in an article published in 1992 by the Austrian Academy of Science: with the German title Der Beginn des Wassermannzeitalters, eine astronomische Frage? (The Start of the Aquarian Age, an Astronomical Question?, see below [[The Age of Aquarius). While this approach is very popular in the wider astrological community, amongst astrologers that actually research the Ages, and publish papers on their research, generally adopt the sidereal zodiac method whereby each age consists of 30 degrees each, and are not affected by the irregular zodiacal constellations.

This was a difficult paragraph as it was not clear in its original form what its intention was or what exactly it was trying to say. I think I have got it right in my edit but let me know if anyone has a problem with my approach. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Archeoastronomy

I am editing my way through the Astrological Ages topic and am trying to deal with fringe theories. I would like to move the following from the Age of Leo to Fringe Archeoastronomy at the Archeoastronomy topic. I have left a query at the Archeoastronomy topic if they are willing to accept it. The sub-topic Fringe Archeoastronomy probably indicates how we deal with the myriad fringe theories re the astrological ages here. Rather than clog up each section with fringe ideas, we should group them altogether in a sub-topic called something like `Fringe Theories of the Astrological Ages'. If the Archeoastronomy site does not take the `Leo and the Great Sphynx' we can dump it in Fringe Theories of the Astrological Ages???

Leo and the Great Sphynx

The Great Sphinx is a statue with the face of a man and the body of a lion. Carved out of the surrounding limestone bedrock, it is 57 metres (185 feet) long, 6 m (20 ft) wide, and has a height of 20 m (65 ft), making it the largest single-stone statue in the world. The Great Sphinx is one of the world’s largest and oldest statues, yet basic facts about it such as the real-life model for the face, when it was built, and by whom, are debated. These questions have collectively earned the title “Riddle of the Sphinx,” a nod to its Greek namesake, although this phrase should not be confused with the original Greek legend.

The Great Sphinx is commonly accepted by Egyptologists to represent the likeness of King Khafra (also known by the Hellenised version of his name, Chephren) who is often credited as the builder as well. This would place the time of construction somewhere between 2520 BC and 2494 BC. Because the limited evidence giving provenance to Khafra is ambiguous and circumstantial, the idea of who built the Sphinx, and when, continues to be the subject of debate. One well-publicised debate[8] was generated by the works of two writers, Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, in a series of separate and collaborative publications from the late 1980s onwards. Their claims include that the construction of the Great Sphinx and the monument at Tiwanaku in modern Bolivia was begun in 10,500 BC; that the Sphinx's lion-shape is a definitive reference to the constellation of Leo; and that the layout and orientation of the Sphinx, the Giza pyramid complex and the Nile River is an accurate reflection or “map” of the constellations of Leo, Orion (specifically, Orion’s Belt) and the Milky Way, respectively.

Their initial claims regarding the alignment of the Giza pyramids with Orion (“…the three pyramids were an unbelievably precise terrestrial map of the three stars of Orion’s belt”— Hancock’s Fingerprints of the Gods, 1995, p.375) are later joined with speculation about the age of the Sphinx (Hancock and Bauval, Keeper of Genesis, published 1997 in the U.S. as The Message of the Sphinx). By 1998’s The Mars Mystery, they contend:

…we have demonstrated with a substantial body of evidence that the pattern of stars that is “frozen” on the ground at Giza in the form of the three pyramids and the Sphinx represents the disposition of the constellations of Orion and Leo as they looked at the moment of sunrise on the spring equinox during the astronomical “Age of Leo” (i.e., the epoch in which the Sun was “housed” by Leo on the spring equinox.) Like all precessional ages this was a 2,160-year period. It is generally calculated to have fallen between the Gregorian calendar dates of 10,970 and 8810 BC. (op. cit., p.189)

A date of 10,500 BC is chosen because they maintain this is the only time in the precession of the equinoxes when the astrological age was Leo and when that constellation rose directly east of the Sphinx at the vernal equinox. They also suggest that in this epoch the angles between the three stars of Orion’s Belt and the horizon was an “exact match” to the angles between the three main Giza pyramids. This time period coincidentally also coincides with the American psychic Edgar Cayce’s “dating” of Atlantis. These and other theories are used to support the overall belief in an advanced and ancient, but now vanished, global progenitor civilization.

• Additional Note

The astrological ages are already debatable and it does not help the Astrological Ages topic to include such fringe theories as the above - which appears a far more suitable topic for Fringe Archeastronomy. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've set up an Orion Correlation Theory page and linked through to that from the mention of the Sphinx which was in the Religious Similarities subsection. I hope that was helpful, but if not then please revert me. Alunsalt (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Alunsalt, what you have done is certainly an improvement. I may move the remaining entry to a different section but still reference it from the Age of Leo. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

1st Point of Aries alignment

The following

(the autumnal equinox occurs in the southern hemisphere at the same time that the vernal equinox, as used in the western astrology, is occurring in the northern hemisphere).

is also totally confusing and incorrect in context and you will see how i corrected it. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• The following should be the first item moved to the proposed new NEW, INNOVATIVE & FRINGE THEORIES section:

"In other words, this means that according to the Rosicrucians the current astrological Age of Pisces began around the 5th century, since that was the last time that, astronomically, the vernal equinox occurred in the first point of the constellation Aries (but the Piscean age influences were already slowly increasing since about the previous 720 years, late 3rd century BCE/2nd century BCE). Nowadays, the vernal equinox occurs astronomically in about nine degrees of the constellation Pisces and it will be about 2600 when it actually finishes moving backwards through all the 30 degrees of Pisces and enters the constellation Aquarius. Which means however that the first and still growing influences of the Age of Aquarius are to have started in the first half of the 20th century.

This conception is accepted by some Western esoteric astrologers and by Eastern ones,[6] although some eastern astrologers mention that each astrological age may be led by the constellation sign in which the autumnal equinox occurs (the autumnal equinox occurs around the 20th of September each year). Also, astrologically there have been five major "Epochs" in the evolution of mankind, with the "Fourth Epoch" being Atlantean and the present "Fifth Epoch" being Aryan. Because these concepts relate to Astrology, they are not recognized by modern science nor by the average astrologer."

I will also include in the new FRINGE THEORY section some material; on this topic that I have deleted. There is room for EVERYONE' opinions on the Astrological Ages, however provided that such opinions end up in the correct section Terry MacKinnell (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Past Ages

• The same basic problem occurs in Historical Similarities as with this topic in general. Unorthodox associations between areas of activities and astrological signs are widely in evidence. For example paper is shown in the Age of Taurus while Rex E Bill's "The Rulership Book" says paper is ruled by Mercury and/or Gemini. Rulerships if questioned should revert to published rulership books. Rex E Bill's "The Rulership Book" is not the only book that is a reference.

• I have removed all sub-sub, and sub-subs-sub headings from this wsection but left them in bold as they were unnecessarily clogging up the Contents for this topic. There is a lot of fringe theories expressed in the Age of Pisces and Age of Aquarius sections that seriously lowers the quality of these sections. I intend to move (not delete) these fringe theories to the Fringe Theories section to be created.

Popular Culture

We probably need to create a Popular Culture section for reference to any of the ages? Terry MacKinnell (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Age of Taurus

There is no direct archetypal connection bewteen the following historical similarities and therefore these should either be explained or qualified, or DELETED:

The wheel, although having been used earlier as potter's wheels, was used for the first time in this age for transport. The symbol shown above for Taurus evokes the image of a wheel with a container to carry load. I BELIEVE THE WHEEL WAS INVENTED BEFORE THE TAURUS AGE - according to Wikipedia, "The wheel most likely originated in ancient Mesopotamia in the 4th millennium BC" which is before the Age of taurus according to the timeframes provided. I am moving it to the Gemini Age as transporation is DEFINITELY associated with Gemini.

Papyrus was invented during this time, enabling improved writing techniques. It could be manufactured into very long strips that could be rolled (but not yet folded) into scrolls or rolls for efficient storage and handling. (The Taurus glyph invokes the image of the partially-unrolled scroll). THIS LINKING TO GLYPHS IS SUSPECT

In the Religious similarities section is included Mithraism and The Mithraic Question and Precession. Most archeoastronomers link Mithraism to Aries. DOES THIS REFERENCE IN TAURUS BELONG HERE? Terry MacKinnell (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Terry

The Age of Pisces

The following do not appear to follow tradional astrological rulerships or archetypes and should be DELETED:

Historical similarities The steam engine and the internal combustion engine were invented during this period. The Pisces symbol (two fishes opposed, but connected by a line) can best be seen in the 180-degree twin-cylinder variants of the reciprocating engine, (typical of, for instance, the Honda 450 twin motorcycle engine) using a process of intermittent combustion of vapourised liquid (Pisces : mutable water). LINKING PISCES TO THE STEAM ENGINE IS EXTREMELY NEBULOUS

The Space Age began during this time, and can be seen depicted in the Piscean dual fish symbol as a rocket ship ascending in its characteristically-curved trajectory into space, the line depicting its orbit, with the descending fish depicting its curved re-entry to Earth. THE SPACE AGE IS AQUARIUS AND/OR SCORPIO (Scorpio has nothing to do with space age or any technological, spiritual and philosophical development. There are not the characteristics of the sign of scorpio. If the space age begins in the Age of Aquarius, everybody knows that after The Age of Aquarius there will be the ages of Capricorn, Sagittarius and long after Scorpio. Scorpio is not just after Aquarius. There is two more signs between so we can say the space age is also Capricorn and Sagittarus, if this supposed space age will last during these ages of course. And nobody can predict what will happen in the Age of Scorpio. The end of the world maybe?85.107.163.54 (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

Paper was invented during this time. The glyph of Pisces (two fishes connected by a line) invokes the image of paper being formed within a thick soup of fibers in water, followed by its surface being hardened and smoothed between rollers. PAPER IS RULED BY GEMINI

New, Alternative & Fringe Theories of the Astrological Ages

I have created this new section and intend to move the questionable material from all other parts of this topic to this part. Ultimately this section could become unwieldly, and if this turns out to be the case, only those fringe theories with published references should remain in this section. However initially I am moving any fringe theory here regardless of their lack of references Terry MacKinnell (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Line 222

The addition of the following in bold is fringe theory, not referenced and incorrect.

"Though it cannot be expected that astrologers will follow the official boundaries of the constellations, there will be an attempt to calculate the entry of the spring equinox point into the constellation of Aquarius. Some of my studies say 2595, but some of my studies have pointed out that the Aquarian age will start somewhere near the end of 2012.It depends on wich formula you use." ...

There was another vandalism entry stating that the 1928 conference decided the age of Aquarius arrives in 2012 as follows:

In 1928, at the Conference of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Leiden, the Netherlands, the edges of the 88 official constellations became defined in astronomical terms. The edge established between Pisces and Aquarius locates the beginning of the Aquarian Age around the year 2012. But others say around the year 2600.

Terry MacKinnell (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit that produced the bold content above is totally incorrect. The IAU never located the boundary of the constellations of Pisces and aquarius at 2012.

THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRECESSION OF THE EQUINOXES, ASTROLOGICAL AGES AND THE MAYAN 2012 CALENDAR END DATE. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed 5th approach to the ages

The following has been removed:

5. The connection between the Maya calander and the atrological ages, wich if they are connected puts the Age of Aquarius some where arond 2012. The end of Pisces and the begin of Aquarius.

Apart from the gross mispelling is a fringe opinion. If you have refeence to some material in a book that can support your assertion you should put it into the Fringe Theories section Terry MacKinnell (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

MAJOR EDIT WRAP-UP

I have completed the first major edit of the Astrological Ages topic but more needs to be completed over time. In addition a History section and a Sub-Period section is required. Also some of the early ages from the Age of Leo onwards requires additional referenced material.

The Astrological Ages topic is subject to vandalism – there was one encounter this week. Due to the contentious nature of the topic and the very different perspectives of the stakeholders in this topic, I suggest that anyone who edits the topic without discussing the edits in advance in this Discussion area is liable to have their edits undone immediately, especially if the editing fails to provide the requisite references to publications. Website references are a dime a dozen and don’t count. Based on my experience of this editing process I propose that the following guidelines I have adopted should remain in place. The highest priority should be given to content the fulfils the first in the following list:

1. The subject matter has attained consensus in the astrological or archeoastronomy communities (i.e. the ages proceed in retrograde fashion compared to the normal order of the zodiac)
2. A majority opinion exists but where dissension exists though there is a fairly defined majority opinion on the subject (i.e. the Vernal point passing through a zodiacal constellation or associated sidereal zodiac is the established method for determining the astrological ages)
3. A minority opinions - points of view that are established but only but a minority of researchers (i.e. each astrological age coexists with its opposite sign so that the Aquarian age is actually the Aquarian-Leo age). These should be given only a passing mention in the main body of the topic.
4. Fringe ideas (new or innovative ideas not yet established (i.e. Walter Cruttenden’s hypothesis that precession of the equinoxes is not caused by the wobbling earth but by the solar system existing within a binary pair of stars where our own Sun is one of the stars). All fringe ideas should appear in the New, Alternative & Fringe Theories section provided adequate references are provided.
Terry MacKinnell (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced and Unreferenced Items to be Removed

The inclusion of the

at any section indicates that the text referred to will be removed ASAP unless sufficient references are provided

Terry MacKinnell (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Tags - Age of Taurus

I wish there was something stronger than dubious for this!

"Many names from this time sound like Ram"... Surely ram doesn't sound like 'Ram' in all these languages?

The existance of the battering Ram... surely it isn't called a 'ram' in every language?

Althought it is not called a ram in every language it tended to be adorned by the head of a ram at the tip of the battering shaft in most cultures that had this device

It is probably best to stick to events in this article and not linguistics, unless someone here can cite otherwise. Portia1780 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreement Portia780 - You should make the changes as apart from the dubious nature of the linguistic assertions as you suggest, there are no references. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Age of Aquarius

At the top it says "Age of Aquarius redirects here", but it doesn't. There's a whole separate page, Age of Aquarius, which should probably be merged into this one (Astrological age). (P.S. I hope someone's filtering all this astrology stuff for Wikipedia:Verifiability!) - Open4D (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to say if the topic Age of Aquarius should merge with Astrological Ages due to the fact that the Age of Aquarius is widely known but the term Astrological Ages is not. However it is not a big issue if they were to be merged.

I have commenced filtering the astrological information at this topic. I have removed a large amount of personal opinions, and I have flagged sections where no external references are provided. The quality of external references was low when I commenced editing this topic and new additions are removed if they are opinions unnconnected to suitable references. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced Material

This topic has been the dumping ground for numerous unreferenced material. Some unreferenced material remains on this topic and will be removed in due course. Nevertheless, any additional editing on this topic requires verification - " Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Terry MacKinnell (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)