Talk:Astrological age/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 [http://www.amazon.com/Ephemerides-Rosicrucian-Ephemeris-1900-2000-Midnight/dp/0911274057/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206383328&sr=1-4] [http://www.amazon.com/Rosicrucian-Ephemeris-2000-2100-12H-Noon/dp/0911274243/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206383328&sr=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 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 Aquarius and Scorpio, 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

Erroneus statements irrelevant to the true significances of astrogical signs are of course deleted. Such an exemple is "Traits of Pisces such as being 'gentle' but sometimes 'impractical' may suggest the dominance of the British Empire." Of course the one who wrote this should clearly explain why the dominance of the British Empire should be considered as gentle but impractical. And, is it the same for also the other empires in the Age of Pisces like Ottoman Empire or Byzantine Empire? Were they also gentle but impractical? Is Pisces really impractical at all?

Slavery (ruled by Pisces) and associated social structures such as serfdom were widely in evidence in this age including Ancient Rome and from the 15th century onwards when Europeans discovered their (Pisces) sea legs. This doesn't make sense neither. Slavery isn't ruled by Pisces as we can trace evidences of slavery back to 1800 BC in Mezopotamia. And the fact that "Europeans discovered their sea legs" doesn't really make sense in order to define something as charasteristic of the piscean age. Because fishes swim in the sea it doesn't mean that everything happened in the seas/oceans and related to the seas/oceans in a certain period of time should be defined as the characterictics of the Age of Pisces.

Defining the Age of Pisces by everything negative happened in a certain period of time, (like inquisition, "witch" huntings, slavery etc.) and relating to the coming of the Age of Aquarius everything positive (such as industrialization, technological development, new and "better" (for some) spiritual movements) occured at the SAME period of time, is totally erroneus and discriminatory. It's the same when some pseudo astrologers claim that Pisces are some kind of alchoolic community doing nothing but dreaming (which has nothing to do with reality of course, as we see many succesful Piscean writers, actors and actresses, business men, scientists, journalists and politicians). When something happens IN the Age of Pisces that means it IS the characteristic of the Age of Pisces. And what happens BEFORE the beginning of the Age of Aquarius can NOT be related to the Age of Aquarius or be considered as some kind of auguries announcing the coming of the Age of Aquarius. The Age of Aquarius hasn't begun yet, at the vernal equinox, the sun still coincides with the Pisces constellation.

And also defining the Age of Pisces by events happened ONLY in Europe and USA is also insufficent because one should look what happened in Asia, Africa and other countries too, as these countries aren't somewhere in space, in another planet or solar system but they are also on the planet earth too. 85.107.163.54 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• You have brought up some extremely relevant points in your above analysis mainly of the Pisces age but this topic is not about opinions, yours or anyone else. It is about references to published information. If you can support your argument with sufficient references and citations to reliable sources than the information you have provided can be included in the topic.

• If you read the topic in full you will find that your claim "The Age of Aquarius hasn't begun yet, at the vernal equinox, the sun still coincides with the Pisces constellation." is really just one of a number of opinions. Any opinion supported by reliable references can be included. The same applies to the relationship between Scorpio and space exploration. According to Rex e Bills "The Rulership Book", space exploration is ruled by Pluto and spaceships by Uranus and Pluto. With the ages there are no planets so Pluto translates to Scorpio and Uranus to Aquarius. Independently of this book, my own research clearly indicates a strong relationship between Scorpio and space exploration. According to Rex e Bills slavery is ruled by Saturn, Neptune and the 12th house so a strong case can be made for the connection between Pisces (ruled by Neptune) and slavery.

• It is important to put your own opinions in context to all the published opinions that are available. For example your statement "And what happens BEFORE the beginning of the Age of Aquarius can NOT be related to the Age of Aquarius or be considered as some kind of auguries announcing the coming of the Age of Aquarius." is in direct contrast to those that follow the cusp or Orb of Influence arguments. I intend to removed the Orb of Influence section from this topic not due to the content, but to the lack mof corroborating reliable references. I actually agree with your opinion but amongst astrologers there are a number of published opinions supporting advanced effects of the ages before they arrive.

Terry MacKinnell (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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 {{Refimprovesect}} 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 Aries

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)

Disagree Although I agree both of these statements should be cited properly, they are supported by evidence suggesting these cultures are all very closely related decendants of the Proto-Indo-European Culture. All the names mentioned do indeed have that sound in the name, and are all chief gods or patriarchs of these cultures. In addition the correlation between both the Western and Indian zodiacs for this sign would support the notion that the religious and esoteric (not to mention lingual) traditions of these cultures resembled one another to a high degree. I think these statements should be marked "Citation Needed" instead of "Dubious". --Mtchiodo (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

""Agreement"" Portia1780 and Terrymacro: you're both absolutely correct. This is a silly assertion. It suggests that the word "ram" refers to the same animal in each culture, or that their associations with Aries were all called "ram". Also one wouldn't suggest that "rat" is a similar word to "ram" and as such names like "Ra" are more or less entirely irrelevant, lest they be associated with the Chinese Rat Zodiac figure, or that things which "ran" were identified with that Age. Please delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.126.53 (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2011 (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)

• unless notification of doubtful edits are discussed in this DISCUSSION page first then they will be reversed unless sufficient verifiable and referenced support is provided for the edits, which was not provided for all the edits on 8 Jan 2009. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• religious insights into the astrological ages and ongoing edits on religious insights tend to not have references to reliable sources. These will be removed. References to the Bible in most incidences are incorrect as they depend upon someone's interpretation or POV. Unless such POV comes from a relaible published source it has no place here Terry MacKinnell (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a lot of stuff in this article has to go - I highly doubt that references could be provided for much of the article's content. ClovisPt (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have been aware of this problem and had been hoping that new referenced and encyclopedic material would be added, and that unreferenced POV would be deleted - but new material of the correct calibre has been slow in coming. As you have correctly done, some material definitely needs to be culled Terry MacKinnell (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• yet another example of unreferenced material - what is the source for:

"The beginning of the four astrological ages of the historical period are marked with their zodiac symbols: the Age of Taurus from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age, the Age of Aries from the Middle Bronze Age to Classical Antiquity, the Age of Pisces from Late Antiquity to the present, and the Age of Aquarius beginning in the mid 3rd millennium.]]" Furthermore this figure of the north celestial pole is taking to prominent a position for such a tangential piece of information about the astrological ages. It WILL be removed or moved somewhere appropriate. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope it is uncontroversial when I state that this article is a giant mess and needs determined cleanup. I just find it dubious that the one thing which is very simple and verifiable, i.e. the precession of the equinoxes, should be the object of your scepticism. The "astrologial ages" refers to the precession of the equinoxes along the zodiac. I don't know what could be more "appropriate" than a diagram showing the precession of the vernal equinox along the zodiac. As I have already stated here, seeing that "astrological age" is only a fancy term for precession of the equinoxes, it may be best to just merge this into precession of the equinoxes. --dab (𒁳) 14:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• you have very strong opinions about the astrological ages but wikipedia is not about strong opinions, it is about verifiable information sourced from reliable sources. I don't have any scepticism about precession of the equinoxes and in fact have been studying the topic for over 20 years. Your diagram would be ideal for the topic if the information you provided with it was referenced and preferably there was some context for the diagram. The fact that precession can be measured along the ecliptic AND the celestial poles would probably need some explanation if placed in this topic. However this topic is about the astrological ages, details about precession of the equinoxes should be placed in that topic, with only some incidental information about precession in the astrological ages topic.

• Re your: "astrological age" is only a fancy term for precession of the equinoxes, it may be best to just merge this into precession of the equinoxes

The astrological ages interpret precession of the equinoxes from an astrological perspective. I am sure that the astronomers that support the precession of the equinoxes topic would be horrified if their topic was invaded by astrology. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Re "The apparent position of the sun in one of the constellations of the zodiac at the time of the vernal equinox on Earth, determines the current astrological age. The Sun currently rises in spring in Aquarius, as determined by traditional astrology, or Pisces, as determined by astronomy, in either case it is very close to the boundary between the two signs."

Apart from the fact no external refeence to a reliable source is quoted, your paragraph makes out that the sun's position at the vernal equinox determines the current astrological age as a fact, while if you read the topic in full, this is one approach to determining the astrological ages and is already adequately covered in the topic. Terry Macro (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

References for pseudoscience? Whatever. I was trying to clarify the concept, you rv like its vandalism, the intro is still vague, mission accomplished Robogun (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki to my knowledge does not discriminate aginst `pseudoscience'. You should try and clarify what you are saying and with correct referencing etc i am sure no one will object. Terry Macro (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is loaded with unreferenced material, as well as self-referenced material (circular references), it is the epitome of confusion and ambiguity, which is how we know we are on an arcane topic and not discussing science or anything that can be settled or verified in any way shape or form. Robogun (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I for one agree to most of your points. Wiki is not a scientific journal and therefore covers all subject matter including arcane topics as you say. However there are numerous book references including academic book references (eg Hamlet's Mill by Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend.) Many academics contribute to this field and are call archeo-astronomers (or archeoastronomers, cultural astronomers etc)and some are referenced in this topic. While the article may be 'the epitome of confusion and ambiguity' has a lot of validity, you should have seen it a couple of years ago. One of the reasons why it was such a mess was that all and sundry were adding unreferenced material. I did not pick your edit up for its relative worth or otherwise, merely that you provided no relaiable reference to back up your statement. If we don't apply this rule, how will the article improve? As an editor, why don't you suggest some changes? Terry Macro (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

While it's nice that there are more sources now, some of the sources used do not appear to meet the requirements of WP:RS. In particular, these all appear to be self-published:

• http://elsaglover.netfirms.com/the_aquarian_age.htm
• http://www.geocities.com/astrologyages/astrologicalage.htm
• http://www.yeatsvision.com/GreatYear.html
• http://www.sacredsites.com/africa/egypt/sphinx.html
• http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_9
• Albert Amao, "Aquarian Age & The Andean Prophecy",AuthorHouse ("AuthorHouse" appears to be a vanity press with no editorial oversight.[1] Their own website calls it "self-publishing".)

A good start might be cutting out poorly-sources like these.   Will Beback  talk  01:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Its a difficult decision to decide what should or should not be cut out and I am not willing to make this judgement at this time of their appropriateness in light of WP:RS and will leave this decision to other editors. However I do not support the immediate removal of Albert Amao, "Aquarian Age & The Andean Prophecy" due to: "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't know if Albert Amao has been previously published etc. Terry Macro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC).

I see no sign that Amao is an established expert on the topic of astrological ages.   Will Beback  talk  19:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Major Cleanup and Organization Needed

This article contains a lot of information, but it is haphazardly written. Much of its behemoth contents are both disorganized and redundant, and the stylistic approaches used reflect spoken word more than encyclopedic record. I recommend a full rewrite using a scratch page as an editorial sandbox.

Chinagreenelvis (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with your comment, as this topic is a dog's breakfeast of information. I did a major overhaul of about 50% of the content over a year ago but I was aware at the time of the issue you have raised. Provided in any rewrite it keeps and expands its citations and neutral stance I am in agreement. I would certainly be interested in being involved in any rewrite, tho my time this year is in short surply due to many other committments. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Albert Amao has two other books: "The New Age reflections" and "Beyond Conventional Wisdom." which can be verify in Amazon.com. Mr Amao has long experience in Astrology, he has taught Astrology for many years to college graduate students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.197.7 (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

From memory references to Albert Amao on this topic or the age of aquarius were rejected by another editor as they were self-published books. However you could certainly attempt an edit using the material, or discuss on this page first to ensure all the Wiki protocols are met. Terry Macro (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

External links

Astrological ages

• The Grand Ages
• The Astrological Great Year
• Astrological Age
• Precession of the Equinoxes
• Precession of the Earth's Axis
• Platonic Month
• Alternative View of the Astrological Ages
• The Dawn of Aquarius - From the Piscean Age to the Aquarian

Age of Aquarius

• Rosicrucian Age of Aquarius
• New Age of Aquarius by Jamis Lopez
• The Aquarian Age by Elsa M Glover
• Shepherd Simpson: The Age of Aquarius
• Shepherd Simpson: Searching for a New Age..
• Sepp Rothwangl: Considerations About the Start of the Age of Aquarius
• TheAQUARIANproject.Net
• The Age of Pisces and the Age of Aquarius
• CESNUR 2006 International Conference - Globalisation or Aquarius: Are 'we' talking from the same thing?
• Demystifying the Aquarian Age
• Drawing Down the Fire of the Gods: Reflections on the Leo/Aquarius Axis by Ray Grasse
• Zeitgeist the movie

Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided has a long list of links to avoid, including blogs and other self-published sites along with those that are excessively commercial or which contain "unverifiable research". Many of these links seem to violate one or another of those. Furthermore, we already have an article on Age of Aquarius, so any worthwhile links on that specific topic should probably go there instead. (See a parallel discussion on that talk page, Talk:Age of Aquarius#External links).   Will Beback  talk  01:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

History

Shouldn't this article contain an explanation as to who, where and when started this whole Astrological Age business? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.241.121 (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely - are you prepared to do the research? Terry Macro (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. Terry Macro (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done.--Oneiros (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Message to 188.80.3.129

No problems with your three recent edits. I am a player in the field and over the years i have done a lot of editing on this subject. Anyone can see my involvement in the subject from my user page and discussions in these talk pages. My editing on this subject is to keep a neutral point of view and foster a diversity of opinions and views provided they are not based on POV or unreliable sources - which definitely means website references are inappropriate otherwise we could fill volumes on all the divergent POVs found on the web re astrological ages. Unfortunately this subject, and other similar subjects such as the New Age etc, are prone to a huge number of edits with unreliable sources and editors POV. The reference to my article is not a self-published article - it was published by the International Society of Astrological Researchers (ISAR). If you think the section 'Alternative approach to calibrating precession' is not well sourced and inappropriate lets have an editorial discussion about it and remove it if the editorial consensus is against it. I am definitely not into suppressing views divergent to my own on the subject. Due to my extensive interest in the subject over the last 2 decades i have been exposed to many views on the astrological ages and i could probably write a book exclusively on all these mostly mutually exclusive views. Because Wiki is an encyclopedia and because there is no definitive approach to the subject it is important to show these divergent views provided they have appropriate sources. A lot of the material on this subject still does not meet reliable standards of which some you have recently deleted (appropriately). I would have deleted a lot of the material two years ago but I was leaving a period of grace.

I have added the following sections over the years on this subject:

• Contentious aspects of the astrological ages
• Consensus approach to the astrological ages
• Are ages equal or of variable lengths based on the zodiacal constellations?
• Age cusps
• Other opinions on the astrological ages
• The sub-periods of ages
• Aries to Pisces sub-periods
• Dwadasamsa sub-periods
• Sub-period direction (forward or retrograde?)
• New, alternative, and fringe theories

Originally there were a lot more entries on the 'New, alternative, and fringe theories' section but apart from 'Alternative approach to calibrating precession' all the other theories have slowly been deleted by other editors due to their lack of references to usually any hard copy sources. There should definitely be some more material in this section. For example Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet in 'The Gnostic Circle' shows a deep level of research into the subject yet her research on the astrological ages does not yet appear in Wiki in this topic.

To improve the quality of this topic, and to prevent every enthusiastic editor promoting their POV about the ages it would seem that at a minimum the material must first be referenced and secondly references to some hard copy (except if it is a 'reliable' online encyclopedia such as Wiki). Terry Macro (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, thank you for the attention and effort you have devoted to clarify this situation, by expounding your point of view, dear Terry Macro. Although your words truly appear to be highly reasonable and i do agree with what you purpose to do, they do not resonate, from my viewpoint, with your own recent editing practice, which at the time, under the circumstances, it appeared to carry the standards of WP:COI (thus, causing my somewhat harsh subsequent intervention): by your action of reverting the reference earlier provided to a work (book) with several editions, in English (since 1910) and foreign languages in a large number of countries, when detailed reference of one of those editions (hard copy) was fully provided (here), along with a link to the Internet Archive (not any unrealiable or inappropriate website), so that anyone could verify its authenticity and in order to sustain, at least partially, the related specific account, as requested.

When there is a fascinating subject such as this one, the Astrological ages, voluntarly ignored by the so-called current mainstream (that is, the current paradigm of a society enslaved by the materialist-reductionist ideology), a subject where "so many issues are contentious or disputed" (as the article states), it is only logical that multiple point of views -- MPOV -- must be embraced and references to each provided based upon publications of either astrology professionals with recognized career (such as yourself), and/or recognized-recognizable organizations or schools: this was not the case in your mentioned previous practice, since the reference provided was related to a recognized astrologer (List_of_astrologers#H) founder of the perhaps oldest active school of Astrology worldwide (cf. Astrological organizations), not that per se alone both these "credentials" may mean any closer proximity to Truth, but at least they bear the weight of: Credibility (since fully 'reliable' sources on this subject are yet to be seen; or as you, dear Terry Macro, put it "there is no definitive approach to the subject" yet...).

All in all, it is not my intention to provide a "diversity of opinions and views" (indeed agreeing with you: mostly mutually exclusive), neither it is my aim to exhaustively work on this article, as both the spare time and knowledge, at this point, are insuficient to present an unifying view of the subject, as i would like to. Nevertheless, i may casually present, as possible, referenced-sourced data on the particular POV (within the MPOV article) that i believe, upon my passion and ... dedication too to this subject, to be able to lead toward the coming unified view of the Ages.

Wishing that your work, and the work of other akin professionals, if conducted with true devotion on this particular field, may be blessed with the most enlightening experiences, my friend, and then that you may freely (that gratis) share your findings with us all ("freely ye have received, freely give"). Sincerely yours, --188.80.23.1 (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• If folks are considering an overhaul of the article, please note that there are several sources used that don't meet the requirements of WP:V. I compiled a list in #Unreferenced Material above. That was last year and it looks like they are still in the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

While i'll agree the inclusion of such material in the article needs to be revised, there are a few things, that though to be removed meanwhile, may be useful for a later occasion. As an example, the webpage http://elsaglover.netfirms.com/the_aquarian_age.htm is the online edition of a book witten, hard copy ([http://www.amazon.com/Aquarian-Age-Elsa-M-Glover/dp/0533073383/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280351897&sr=8-1 amazon.com]), by a North-American professor of physics (PhD; a paper) with background in astrology provided at TRF, and in such book format it is reasonable, from my viewpoint, that it may become a reference to the article, IF needed at a later occasion, due to some of its contents. Btw, the website is not self-published, the author deceased in 26th June 2003 and the site was build, as a tribute, by her friends. --188.81.136.129 (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• 188.80.3.159, we are basically in agreement. Why don't you propose your edit here on the Talk page and see if we can get agreement. There remains a lot of material poorly referenced on this topic as Beback mentions but the percentage of poorly referenced material is about 1/3 of what it was a few years ago - it was a real dog's breakfast! The problem of removing poorly referenced material is that it cuts out large sections of relevant ideas - even if they are mainly fringe theories. However from the academic viewpoint, the whole topic is a fringe theory. Therefore i am not advocating the deletion of material just because it is currently poorly referenced, but new material should be properly referenced to slowly improve the quality of the article. I think this topic should display the huge diversity of opinion on the astrological ages. The more new material added to the topic that is properly referenced the more we can remove the poorly referenced material. I have added a lot of material that i personally disagree with but the information satisfies Wiki's guidelines.. Terry Macro (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i believe we are. At the moment i have not any major edit that i would like to insert into the article as it is; there was a minor edition i had in mind but you have already done it meanwhile here, though i am inclined have to complement it with a reference of the mentioned (ommited) school...

Maybe we may do some collaborative work, if you don't mind, to try to get a first-class informative article. However, there are a few basic tenets-guidelines, apart from Wiki that i would purpose to be agreed upon before any major edits due to this specific subject that, as you well stated "from the academic viewpoint, the whole topic is a fringe theory", though not all academic schools are so abhored by the subject (cf. Western Esotericism (academic field), astrology included).

no battery lol See you. --188.81.136.129 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Great, though I am interested in knowing the details of the "few basic tenets-guidelines, apart from Wiki that i would purpose to be agreed upon". When i did a major overhaul of the topic a few years ago there was little collaboration at the time and i felt like i was working in a vacuum. I finally ran out of oomph to do more with this topic though a lot more needs to be done as you suggest. I look forward to seeing your proposals or looking at your actual edits. i don't think it necessary to review in advance any of your proposed edits on this Talk page if they are properly sourced. The more diverse details included on the astrological ages the better and you probably have a very different outlook than me on the subject which is good for the topic. I don't know the Wiki policy re online versions of books but I cannot see a problem with such an approach unless any other editor has some relevant input. We can always ask Beback who, in my experience, is a walking encyclopedia on Wiki policies and guidelines.Terry Macro (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, i believe i am able to understand what you mean; let me assure you i can see that you have brought a wide range of pertinent material into the article, which is necessary for a full-fledge article able to cover the current human still limited knowledge on this subject. As a side note, there is no "vacuum", that is, void Space (thus current physics community terms it now as false vacuum, with vacuum energy filled with "virtual particles", being the source of peculiar effects, such as Van der Waals force, Casimir effect; terminologies that come "as expressions of our ignorance" (scientificamerican.com) about the whole crystalline phenomena yet be unveiled...); but indeed, when dealing into this subject of the Ages, one may be looking far deeper in the so-called "vacuum" (literally) than it may be realized at the moment. Well, returning to the topic, my earlier expression "apart from Wiki" meant not to ignore or bypass Wikipedia's guidelines, but trying to come up with reasonable strategies in order to find a different approach to the subjec, obviously without incurring in WP:OR, in order that we can attempt to present the contents in a logical clarifying manner to our readers, allowing them to get a grasp of the basic idea for their own evaluation and even subsequent research (taking not Wikipedia or any particular author as the definitive word, that is, avoiding dogma). Being Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -- a most valuable arena ("place or scene where forces contend or events unfold") of knowlegde where we, collectively, can make the difference, imho :) -- the contributions, to this approach as well to the contents, of Beback experience and other users constructive input is welcome and a must. It is all for the moment; see you soon. --Elaither (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I look forward to your proposal(s) and edits. Remember there is an External Links section to this topic that you can link to an external source (including a website) if that source can directly facilitate someone learning about the topic. The topic of the astrological ages is interesting inasmuch as though there is very little agreement on most aspect of the ages, there remains a 'mainstream' approach to the ages which is reflected in various texts. Therefore most of the topic needs to be devoted to the mainstream view to maintain neutrality. One anomaly we shall have to address is Fringe Theories. When i originally set this up there were a number of fringe theories included, but most fringe theories do not seem to make it into texts or research papers etc and so no suitable references were provided. Subsequently they were progressively deleted by various editors. This left only my fringe theory. Unless we can include some other fringe theories we shall have to delete fringe theories altogether, including my section as it no longer represents the range of fringe theories that exist on the topic. Terry Macro (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Age start quotes

I note that this article has suffered some vandalism since I last checked and several of the age-starting references have been deleted. I have added the Heindel-Rosicrucian start date for the start date of the Age of Pisces back in. The same site has their other age start dates. (89.240.97.138 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)).

A more viable alternative

Here's part of a recent correspondence that is pertinent to this page. It's an alternative view, or competing paradigm, that IMO is worthy of mention.

I think the current idea of the ages goes counter to astrology and is a damaging error that has mired the relationship between astrologers and astronomers. I've written about it before and plan to do a detailed article on it someday.

In astrology, the signs are the main reference frame, not the constellations. There is huge confusion over the astrological ages that the current, view, promoted and fueled by anti-astrology "skeptics," will never resolve. The vernal equinox should not be thought as moving backward through the constellations, but the stars move forward through the signs. For example Algol is currently at 27 Taurus 07 (in the signs!), but of course it is moving forward through the signs, just like everything else that isn't moving retrograde. Without this key relativistic realization regarding signs (ecliptic longitude), the whole issue becomes a loaded trap that defies reason.

The signs have a natural symmetry, but the constellations don't. The stars are just celestial bodies that move slowly, even wrt each other. The constellations are losing their shapes and will cease to "exist." But they do have a physical connection to the galactic center and the galaxy is symmetrical within a physical plane. The galactic center was known among the Mayans observers as a highly significant place and has been linked to the great year ages.

The gc has been in Sagittarius for the past 2000 years. This age marked the domination of religion in everyday life (particularly the "middle ages" right in the center of the age; the world was explored; long distance communications was developed; sailing and flight were developed; the world shrank and cultures clashed. Before that, going back to 2000 BCE, was the Scorpionic age when ideas about death, burial, reincarnation, public wealth, taxes, debt instruments, and related scorpionic concerns dominated everyday life. Before that, the Libran age, justice and punishment, law and treaty, writing, math, commerce, fair exchange, and trading. Before that, Virgoan age, agriculture with irrigation, crop rotation, fertilizers, livestock breeding. I could go on, but I'm sure others would be more interested in making the associations than me.

The next age is Capricorn, where we must globally conserve resources, recycle, and do more with less. The argument that we've been in the Age of Pisces because the fish was a Christian symbol is extremely weak and highly offensive. The point is I don't like to see the current concept of ages developed any further because it will become harder to dismantle and set things right. Ken McRitchie (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken, the galactic centre spends about 5 1/2 million years in each sign. I believe the gc is currently in the last few degrees of Sagittarius. Most reserachers into the astrological ages do not use the actual zodiacal constellations as the reference point, but the sideral zodiac overlayed onto the constellations - which is what the Greeks did almost 2,500 years ago. I agree with you that the current concept of ages is extremely weak. You may be interested in a new book on the astrological ages that I believe addresses all or most of your points:

THE DAWNING Shedding New Light on the Astrological Ages by Terry MacKinnell

A new book on the astrological ages is now available at most major online book websites and some leading book stores. This book is the result of research that commenced in earnest in 1987, and three years of writing, reviewing and editing. The book is a mixture of styles as I have tried to make the subject matter palatable to the interested general public, academics, archeo-astronomers as well as astrologers. It includes over 700 endnotes, but the style is more narrative or journalistic than academic.

The crux of the book revolves around three salient issues associated with the astrological ages. Firstly, when the ancient Greek astronomer-astrologer Hipparchus discovered precession of the equinoxes, he applied his newly invented Vernal Point as the fiduciary reference point for the astrological ages, and astrologers have used this technique for over 2,000 years. Hipparchus failed to take into account that the zodiacal constellations were much older than Ancient Greek culture. The earliest widely used method of calibrating the zodiacal constellations is the heliacal rising (and sometimes setting) constellation. I am much indebted to Rumen Kolev’s insights into ancient astronomy techniques for my understanding of the heliacal rising methodology. The difference in timing of the astrological ages based on the heliacal method is to bring forward all ages by over 1,000 years. The constellation of Aquarius has been the heliacal rising constellation at the Vernal Equinox for many centuries.

Secondly, most historians state that the Modern World arrived in or around the 15th century CE. Thirdly, my analysis of the start of the Age of Aquarius provides a small time-frame in the 15th century when the Aquarian age could have arrived – 1433 CE or up to two years earlier. This analysis is based upon utilizing sub-periods of the ages based on decanates and dwadasamsa (a current Vedic technique that was also employed in the ancient western arena of astrology). All three approaches strongly focus upon the 15th century as the arrival date of the Age of Aquarius.

To ensure the book remained approachable by the general public, most of the serious theory associated with the astrological ages is relegated to the appendices. Appendix B is focused upon mainstream historians perspective upon eras and ages, and the beginning of the Modern World around the 15th century. Appendix C is focused upon a the rectification method employed to provide such an accurate date for the arrival of the Aquarian age.

THE DAWNING Shedding New Light on the Astrological Ages is in two parts. Part 1 reviews the astrological ages since the beginning of the Holocene Epoch (commencing c.12,000 BCE). Part 2 reviews the age-decans mainly from the beginning of Ancient Egypt onwards. Part 2 also includes a final speculative chapter “Outline of the Future” based on extrapolating the research insights on previous ages and age-decans into the future.

Note: the book is available in ebook, paperback and hardback formats - 396 pages Signed author copies will be available shortly from www.macro-astrology.com Some selected international suppliers: Amazon USA -> http://www.amazon.com/Dawning-Terry-MacKinnell/dp/1456882538/ref=sr_1_1_title_0_main?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310702197&sr=1-1 Barnes & Noble USA -> http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/dawning-terry-mackinnell/1100382077?ean=9781456882532&itm=1&usri=mackinnell Amazon UK Amazon France Amazon Germany etc Terry Macro (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Terry, unless everything I've read is mistaken, the statement "the galactic centre spends about 5 1/2 million years in each sign" is not correct. The GC moves forward through the signs at the same rate as the local stars do. All the sources I've seen say this and I have never seen a source that states otherwise. For example radio source Sagittarius A, believed to be a super massive black hole, is thought to be at the center, see Galactic Center. The GC is in the constellation Sagittarius and does not move into other constellations in order to maintain a position in the signs for 5-1/2 million years. The GC moves, along with the "fixed" stars, because precession is a phenomenon local to the Earth.

The differences between the zodiac and constellations and the history of how it all happened are well known and well documented, though the public seems easily confused about it. I haven't read it yet, but I expect The Dawning is a good source for these historical details.

I am not suggesting that one view should exclude all other views, but just that alternative documented views should also be presented. I'm working on other articles, but I will try to put something together on this. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I mistook your concept of the Galactic Centre. The arms of our galaxy take 5.5 x 12 million years for one cycle. Of course the location of the GC should be included in the astro ages if you can find a reliable source - though it may need its own topic. You may have better input on this than me as i have not seen any reliable references to date on the GC. I work from the principal that any astronomical occurence, event or cycle has the potential to have an astrological correlation.

BTW, most research astrologers do not refer to the zodiacal constellations but rather the superimposed sidereal zodiac of 12 x 30 degree signs. The Ancient Greeks were the first to superimpose a tidy sidereal zodiac upon the constellations which the Vedic astrologers use to this day (and which 2,000 years of use confirms the sidereal zodiac's viability). Therefore there is the same symmetry with the sidereal zodiac as with the tropical zodiac. My understanding of the sidereal constellations is that they were always symbolic, and never meant to be taken literally. Terry Macro (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

past vs future

The current artice on astrological ages only informs us up untill the aquarian age. Surely if this age business is taken seriously as it should, someone could be qualified enough to write something about the capricornian, sagitarian, scorpian etc ages of humanity. Talking about Jericho only has so much use; if these things are to be taken seriously enough to write about, someone could write knowledgably about them. Links to seperate ages in the article are now referred to the article on astrological ages in general, which is a poorly illustrated article. it would be helpfull to have a companion in honest research amongst ordinary seekers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.72.139 (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Error in "The sub-periods of ages"

The Navamsa is not a zodiac of nine signs, as the author states, but a method of calculating a horoscope according to the ninth harmonic. See http://jyotishvidya.com/navamsa.htm or see the work of Addey /wiki/John_Addey_(astrologer) for this distinction. Harmonic charts use the same 12 sign zodiac but recalculate placement of planets in those signs in a way similar to 'base' counting (in this case using base 9 instead of base 1 for the navamsa). 72.70.53.145 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont't agree with Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's application of the navamsa but that what she includes in her book. Basically she is just saying that she divides each sign into nine parts, not that there are only nine signs. Her view is included as there is no consensus about how to approach the astrological ages. Terry Macro (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete list of past ages

First off, I am not a "believer" in astrology at all. It may not be relevant to the Article, but I thought I should get it of the way nevertheless.

Now, there are 12 Zodiac signs, and the Article only takes the past ages as far back as the Age of Leo. Seeing as the Age of Pisces is the current and second-to-last age (the Age of Aquarius being the immediately future and final age), wasn't there (seeing as the Article only lists as far back as the Age of Leo) a Prehistoric Age of Virgo before that, Age of Libra before that, Age of Scorpio before that, Age of Sagittarius before that, and finally in reverse order the very 1st age was the Age of Capricorn? Is the reason that these ages are too Prehistoric and that the Article limits past ages to at least the cusp of Recorded History if not quite into it (so, Recorded History and very late Prehistory)? If that is why, perhaps we should add a "Prehistoric ages" Section for ages before the Age of Leo. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think that the section begins with the Leo age because that is the furthest back in history that any correlation to historical events have been published. Coincidentally the Leo age kind of coincides with the beginning of the Holocene Era - our current era so it is kind of appropriate. BTW, many "non believers" in astrology refer to the ages from the perspective of archeo-astronomy or cultural astronomy. Terry Macro (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The Holocene is an Epoch, not an Era. The current Era is the Cenozoic, which began in c. 65 million BC. Anyway, why not have a separate Prehistoric Ages Section as long as we explain that the Age of Capricorn (the very 1st Age) up through the Age of Virgo were Pre-Holocene? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all if you can find the material.Terry Macro (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

only Christianity ?

in the text about the Age of Pisces there is only a reference to Christian culture. But Christianity is not the only culture reflecting the Age of Pisces. For instance, Islam is also very close to Pisces values and ideas. Christianity and Islam are the two major cultures or interpretations of this Age. But we can easily find other similar ideas in other countries and cultures around the world, although they didnt form a different religion, the ideas are there.83.60.47.78 (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• what you say is very true but you still need to find a reliable reference(s)to support this assertion. The Pisces age spawned two major religions (the twin fish archetype) and under examination, Islam seems more Pisces than Christianity. Terry Macro (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Dubiosity about Gemini dubiosity

Someone else doubted the following "Age of Gemini" (6450-4300 BC) statements:

• "writing developed" ― No! First attested usage of a sumerian proto-cuneiform occurred c:a 3500 BC, and first precursors to egyptian proto-hieroglyphs in the next few 100 years or so.
• "polytheistic Gods first occurred now" ― is virtually impossible to state.

Now, are we really intending this Astrological ages article to be a factual history theory, or should we instead try to collect the various claims from sources out there? Me myself is regarding astrology as wild-run systemism without (attested) reality foundation, and when reading the article, I'm much more interested what people believe, not so much what I know to be true/false/unknown.

I propose the age descriptions are taken as individual beliefs, that must be sourced, rather than factual reality claims. The "[dubious - discuss]" tags should instead be "[citation needed]":s, and the article should be more written like "X believes[1]", "Y believes[2]", etc.. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It really does not matter if the age descriptions are beliefs or facts - provided they are adequately sourced. You are quite right with your comments on writing not fitting into the Gemini age (though many astrological books state this as fact) - but the polytheistic religions are on more solid grounds. I have definitely seen reliable sources to support that argument but if it is not reliably sourced here in this topic then you have every right to delete if if you want to. Terry Macro (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents, the Dispilio Tablet and the Tărtăria tablets have been dated well into the Geminian age. Whether the scribblings on them are actual writing remains controversial however. Tai Ferret (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Aries Ram Names

I am not an expert in astrology, but I have had training in linguistics. The section on the age of Aries says that an attribute of the age is that there where many names with ram in them and that the battering ram was used to great effect. The connection of course being that the ram is the symbol of Aries. This connection is very strange given that ram is an English word of Germanic origin, and battering ram is the English name for it. This section in fact only makes sense to someone who only speaks English. That section needs complete revision by someone who knows about astrology and can come up with something less spurious than coincidental phonetic similarities between a few people's names and the name of an animal and the term for something that knocks down gates in a language that was not to be spoken for another 1000-3000 years. -sandy 76.95.101.221 (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

yes, it's up there with Herbert W. Armstrong and British Israelism. In fact, you know that astrology is silly, right? Why tilt at one tiny windmill? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

the "ram" linguistics is not referenced and therefore should not be included anyway as it looks like WP:OR. I did a lot of work on this topic some years ago but I think I ran out of steam before i got to that section. However, FYI, a 'battering ram' conforms to an archetype belonging to Aries irregardless of the actual name given to the device, however I could not find any reference to it in any text. Terry Macro (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Age of pisces overview is not what it should be.

The age of pisces overview as the "age of deception" is highly dubious and doesnt seem to be grounded in any evidence but general superstition of governing forces, which hardly makes this age any different from any other. the source is questionable, and the statement cannot be considered as based on any academic grounds.

this is what is currently says: The Age of Pisces could be called the “Age of Deception”. Some of the keywords symbolizing Pisces are: deception, illusion, hidden, misled, confusion, fraudulent schemes, fantasy world, secrets, false, fake, mysteries, drugs/alcohol and on the positive side, kind, intuitive, and gentle. It rules the arts and humanities. You can see the “deception” and “illusion” in every aspect of your life; appearance, finances, communication, your home, entertainment, health, the foods you consume, drugs, government, and religion.

• the relevant issue is it has no reference and you certainly could delete this even though on astrological grounds, I would agree with the statement. From memory, it was a fairly recent addition. This topic needs to be improved by having reasonably reliable sources for all statements etc. Terry Macro (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This page is extremely dubious, lacks references in many places, and includes more personal opinions than facts.

I agree. There are plenty of books that can provide reasonable insights in all the areas included in this topic. All statements etc should cite reliable sources with the understanding that reliable sources for this topic is not limited to academic sources due to the paucity of academic sources in many areas. Terry Macro (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

footnote missing text

There is a footnote with name=age that is missing text, resulting in "Cite error: The named reference age was invoked but never defined". Paul2520 (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Two bad entries here ...

References 21 and 22 have this: 21. Robert Hand is reputed to be one of the world's most famous and renowned astrologers, and received the Regulus Award for his life's work at the "United Astrology Conference" in Denver in 2008. 22. Robert Hand, Cardinal Points, 1997 The first doesn't belong for hopefully obvious reasons and the second doesn't seem to exist. Jimini Cricket72.253.70.70 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I removed the whole paragraph. I checked Google Scholar and Google Books and I cannot find anything that matches this citation. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This topic is plagued by Original Research

Just because astrology is classified as a pseudo science does not mean this topic is exempt from the standard Wiki rules. Too much content lacks references or citations, let alone to reliable sources. My suggestion is that editors should first focus on removing content without any kind of references or citations as the initial step in correcting this topic. I have started the ball rolling. Terry Macro (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Mayan connection is an interpretation and should be listed as such

The connection of the Mayans to the zodiac is not a well-documented historical fact, and therefore implying that the Mayans were using any form of this system is misleading. I've therefore altered mentions of the Mayans to clarify this. Wickedjacob (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

An astrological age is a time period in astrologic theology

The statement "An astrological age is a time period in astrologic theology" is incorrect as this would only be correct if only astrologers referred to them. Archeoastronomers and varying other academics refer to the astrological ages without being astrologers. Furthermore, the term "astrologic theology" is a term i have never seen before and is "astrologic" even a word? Perhaps the lede should commence with "An astrological age is a large time period based on the slow movement of the stars and constellations in a 26,000 years cycle divided into twelve ages based on astrological principles" Terry Macro (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astrological age. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GGwx3pXQ?url=http://www.aquarian-movie.com/ to http://www.aquarian-movie.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)