Jump to content

Talk:Aries (astrology)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comment 1

Resolved

This reads like a horoscope, and needs to be cleaned up. icydid 01:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added the tag --michael180 21:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment 2

Resolved

Aries are not prone to promiscuity, they are obsessive about honesty and therefore do not deceive unless something large has driven them to it.true.

I went ahead and cleaned out most of the speculative content that belongs in a newspaper horoscope column. — TheKMantalk 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable persons

Stale

(see discussion below)

In case you're wondering what's happened to the Notable persons section, it has been deleted in favor of the page Category:Subjects of the Sign of Aries. If you want to add a notable person go there. --Carmelita 21:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

ARIES ROCKS. One reference is available on the article.If any reference needed then please add {{fact}}. NAHID 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(I'm gonna cross-post this): there is absolutely no need to have a "notable persons" section. What about cuspers (people born between two signs), what would they be? If they went under both that'd take up more space. You can't list EVERY single person ever born under one sign. If you want to know what a famous person's zodiac sign or birthday is, just look up their separate article on Wikipedia. If they are famous, they should be on Wikipedia. So yeah, I'm taking out the notable persons section and I'm warning people not to readd it. 75.27.185.204 03:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment 3

Stale

The reference to 'the work of Doctor Acacandam dating from 1592' should presumably be to 'Doctor Arcandam' (Arcandam)? Kkjc5824 05:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

the zodiac sings normaly are used to predictions that are used whit willand won´t

what about what people under this sign are like? they usually have certain traits and i dont see that on these pages. should they be added?

71.167.94.59 17:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-additions

As User:67.163.136.120 points out, simply omitting some sort of characteristics section in the twelve zodiac articles can only be a temporary measure. In terms of re-adding the removed sections, I think the text here Astrological_signs#The_twelve_signs could legitimately be copied into the relevant articles (noting that such has been done to satisfy licensing) as it appears to be reasonably well sourced. Some kind of preamble identifying the astrological tradition to which this applies would also be needed. Contrary opinions welcome... CIreland 23:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


I'm the user who entered the text (mostly) on the signs that you refer to in astrological signs and I agree that that is probably the best option at the moment. I held back from copying it in before in the belief that a wider variety of sources would be better, but seeing as no-one seems to be interested in finding other sources, it is probably better to go with my stuff. To answer the concerns about sourcing raised, it is in fact possible to describe a central core of characteristics that the vast majority of Western astrologers would agree with (I hope I have at least partly done that). There are two difficulties however. The first is that astrology is not recognised as valid by modern scientists, so it is not possible to find sources who can verify astrological assertions to any scientifically acceptable standard. All that can be done is to accurately describe what astrologers believe.

This is possible, as there are informed astrological texts out there (Again I referenced the ones I am aware of). The second problem is that, as there is no agreed standard for astrology, anyone can write just about anything they like without fear of being contradicted. It is indeed possible to find contradictory material on all the zodiac signs if you look for it, especially on the internet. The textbooks I possess and have referenced go into the subject in some detail and are as accurate a statement of astrological belief as you are likely to find. I think that is about the best we can do at the moment. I would appeal to the users who appear to have access to other material and display their knowledge in great detail on various astrology talkpages, to contribute some more so that basic facts about astrological belief can be described with a greater level of certainty.Neelmack 16:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems reasonable as long as the information is sourced to a reliable source. I'm a bit unsure on how to handle the wide ranging opinions of what traits are associated with what, or how to make that clear in the text. Some sort of statement along the lines of "There is little agreement among astrologers as to the characteristics associated with a particular sign..." I will look around for a ref for it. Does the text you have specify if the traits apply to sidereal, tropical, or solar? Thanks, --TeaDrinker 07:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest something along the lines of 'there is broad agreement among astrologers that the following traits are characteristic of Aries' etc. If you are looking for a source I would recommend Linda Goodman, especially her book sun signs which can be found on the internet. I didn't use it in the article, but I have a copy and it is gives a good overall description of the traits of each sign. In fact there is enough material on each sign for several articles. It is written in a popular 'horoscope' style, but is accurate enough. Rightly or wrongly it has probably done more to shape the popular perception of each sign in English speaking countries in modern times, so you won't go far wrong using it as a basis.

Regarding the different zodiacs, as far as I am aware, it makes no difference to the characteristics which system is used. The vast majority of Western astrologers use the tropical zodiac, although a small minority began using the sidearal system in the 20th century. The sidearal zodiac is used by Indian astrologers, but they appear to have historically placed little emphasis on the signs except as a basis for setting out the houses of the horoscope (instead they use a system of lunar mansions called the nakshatra). What is confusing is that many modern Indian astrologers appear to have adopted the Western zodiac wholesale, citing all the Western characteristics of each sign but continuing to use the sidearal zodiac (see the discussion in Jyotish). It's better to steer clear of that controversy and focus on the Western tradition only.Neelmack 10:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Model text

I've added in some text which could serve as a model for all the twelve articles. There is a piece in the introduction laying out the astrological notion of a sign with a scientific disclaimer - to get that issue out of the way - , and then a brief piece on the characteristics of the sign. Neelmack 14:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Trimming

I just removed seveal sections which were both unreferenced, and written from the point of view of an astrological reading. There are several issues to address here: most notably is inclusion of traits as associated with the sign as fact, when only their assertion is fact (and that will require a reliable citation). Additional problems exist with the laundry-list style of presentation and unencyclopedic writing style. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 23:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And again. This version is slightly different, but the problem remains. --TeaDrinker 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
All twelve articles have this problem. I've been watching Scorpio (astrology) and the rate at which unsourced material is added is remarkable. There is a WikiProject (WP:Astrology) but it seems largely inactive.
My first instinct was to just remove all the unsourced claims on the basis that exceptional claims require exceptional sources (and the claim that date of birth determines character is clearly exceptional). The problem however is that for every claim made I could find a source. And I could also find a source that claimed the exact opposite. I might ask for assistance at the reliable sources noticeboard or the fringe theories noticeboard. CIreland 16:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Per discussion at villiage pump and WP:BOLD, I am going to make an attempt at centralizing the discussions here. I'll add a notice template to each of the twelve sign articles and remove the relevant text. I'll also go ahead and post a notice to the relevant project talk pages. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 00:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Removals

I have above provided the diffs of a conservative effort at removal (in my judgment). I believe there may be more material which can be called into question, but the above removals related to (i) Unverified, (ii) Non-neutral language and tone and (iii) Encyclopedic value. On (i) only one of the sections in one page had citations, and they were to websites which are a dime a dozen. I don't (at least from what I have read) found a consensus in the literature on the supposed traits (but rather most sources describe a laundry list of vague terms which could describe just about anyone). On (ii) the sections were uniformly written with the tone of presenting these traits as fact (occasionally inserting a bit of weasel wording to say "reportedly" etc.). On (iii) it is not clear that there is encyclopedic value to the purported "best occupations" (to take one example) for the sign. I am eager to hear other people's thoughts. --TeaDrinker 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with all the above edits.
I think we should also consider what kind of sourcing would be required for the content (or similar) to return. I think it depends upon the degree of generality that is asserted. For example, if one wished simply to assert that "people with the sign Aries tend to be impulsive" then that would be an exceptional claim and would require exceptional sourcing - from, for example, a widely recognised peer-reviewed journal. However, if one wished to assert that a particular culture/doctrine/subset of astrologers believed that people born under Aries had a particular character trait then noting the existence of that belief would not require quite such an exceptionally rigorous a source. CIreland 02:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like an IP added back the content I removed from the Leo article. Similar material was added to Sagittarius (astrology) but (quite rightly) removed as a copyvio. I left notes on both IP address talk pages asking for discussion here. My plan is to hold off on reverting for a day or two to allow for more discussion. Any thoughts? --TeaDrinker 19:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
In the absence of any attempt to discuss the content in question, for the time being I would favour occasionally re-removing unsourced or poorly sourced material. If no attempt to discuss is forthcoming and the content keeps returning (or, as I think is likely, returns under the auspices of dubious sources - which is already the case at Leo) a post at the reliable sources noticeboard or the fringe theories noticeboard may be the way to go. Normally I'd suggest request for comment or third opinion but those processes are somewhat predicated on the assumption that both 'sides' participate in the debate. CIreland 19:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I just saw the reverts, and I concur. I don't see a discussion forthcoming, despite making efforts to attract one. Thanks and good work! --TeaDrinker 23:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I came on here looking for information on what traits Western astrologers assign to people who are born under the various sun signs... and was disappointed. I understand that claiming that 'Taurans are stubborn' is a claim unsupported by evidence, but instead of deleting large swaths of information wholesale, it would be nice to perhaps just reformat it so that things are more clear. As it is, people looking for this information, which is commonly found on many other websites, will find nothing but gutted pages. I also noticed that many other pages on Wikipedia have unsourced content, which is left up but marked as unsourced, so that there is at least a starting point for further research (if not absolutely reliable). Despite the fact that you do not believe that the astrological descriptions are true, you should still respect that people would want to find this information. This wide deletion instead of a change in format and wording smacks a little of censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.136.120 (talk • contribs)
To reply. What is objected to are unsourced statements such as "Taureans are stubborn". What would be acceptable, in theory, would be a sourced statement such as "Western astrologers believe that Taureans are stubborn." In practice, "Western astrologers" is far too broad a classification and one would need to be more specific and the source needs to be something a little more credible than, for example, http://www.spelwerx.com. The issue of sourcing compared to the rest of Wikipedia is valid, but the reason for this is that most unsourced statements in Wikipedia are uncontroversial. This is not so for the statements in question - just look at the article history of any one of the twelve zodiac articles and you'll find the lists of characteristics were changed almost daily, often in contradiction with what went before. I don't disagree that the articles should have such information, and I would welcome well sourced additions on beliefs about characteristics - however, in the absence of such additions, it's better to have no section on characteristics than an arbitrary list copy/pasted from a random site.CIreland 22:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The diversity of astrological viewpoints is such that representing any one astrological viewpoint would be blatant POV. Trying to represent all viewpoints would be an exercise in futility. While "Tauruses are stubborn" may be a view held by some astrologers. It is not a view necessarily represented by all and there is no way to establish which astrological viewpoint is authoritative over any others. RoboJesus 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have updated the compatibility of Scorpio taken directly from a website listed in the Wikipedia links section of the (Scorpio) article itself. As well, this source is verifiable through Wikipedia itself.Scorpionfangs (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable people section

Resolved

This section should be alphabetized, any without articles removed and birthdates adding to decrease vandalism and add relevancy. Benjiboi 10:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've overhauled the section at Taurus (see Taurus_(astrology)#Some_Taureans_and_their_birthdates) so you can see what I mean, I ended up pulling three people, one because they have a different sign and two whose birthdates are unknown. Benjiboi 20:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. Benjiboi 02:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Hi me again. As well as Linda Goodman the following are good sources: http://www.nickcampion.com is the website of Nicholas Campion one of today's foremost astrologers. Anything that quotes from the following astrologers is also good: Margaret Hone, Jeff Mayo, Evangeline Adams, Alan Leo, Charles Carter. That should be enough to cover modern astrology. Ancient astrology begins with Ptolemy, but maybe that's for another day.Neelmack 14:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I had also considered looking into those who are used by major newspapers and seen as reputable as a way to start sourcing. Benjiboi 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable people who share this sign section

Myself and another editor disagree on whether this section's inclusion is worthy of wikipedia. I feel the section is fine and verifiable as long as the person listed is notable (in that they have an article) and their birth date is on the article. For people looking for such information it is relevant and an (albiet short) list is easily maintained and is more useful than a categorization search, which frankly I think lends to over-categorization. Benjiboi 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I will cross-post this to the other zodiac sign articles so we can have one discussion on it. Benjiboi 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I suggest we continue this on the Gemini talk page, where there has been a discussion against them since October 2006. I've already started a continuation there anyway. Pairadox (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Already cross-posted to all the other articles and I feel this is the appropriate venue per the precedent set above and that it's the first sign listed in the template. Since you bring up the October 2006 deletion though it brings up another point or two. One is that the issue hasn't been discussed since Oct 2006 but more correctly that an editor decreed (much like you're doing) that such a section should not exist and deleted it with no discussion which seems to have backfired. Guess what/ Dozens of editors felt they wanted it in. So that's my first additional point is that our readers want it and just like many astrology columns I see little harm in listing some notable examples, indeed this might inspire our readers to click on the people and dates listed and learn more about them and see what else wikipedia has to offer. My second additional point is that this is an organic wiki in that it grows and is added to and pruned every hour of every day. We should manage change not bully it into some box. I think we both agree that these article need a lot of work but we seem to disagree on how to affect positive change. My method was to wikify the material that was there in hopes that it would stem a lot of the nonsense and it mostly has until your section deletion. Vandalism was more easily spotted and when dealing with a mass of anon edits the first three articles were starting to improve. I hardly see the need to insist someone provides a reference for each characteristic listed when, in fact contradictory refd seem to support almost anything one would like to state. So I was shooting for article stabilization and incremental improvement. Benjiboi 02:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Those cross postings have been updated to Gemini since that is where you asked me to post[1], where I posted before you started your notification campaign[2] and where responses are already being seen[3]. Feel free to copy your post there, because that's where I'll be waiting. Pairadox (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting interpretation on diplomatic. How kind of you to not only delete material you're opposed to but also redirect an entire conversation away from the intended target. Benjiboi 02:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably just about as kind as asking for conversation in one place, ignoring the response there and directing everybody someplace else. Pairadox (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag

As a quick look at the history will show, data in this and other astrological articles is constantly being added to and changed without any citation. Involved editors, of which there are many, have ignored calls for discussion. In no way should this article be considered as anything more that a random collection of information subject to the whims of clashing belief systems. Pairadox (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm an atheist and a skeptic. I don't believe my sun sign, moon sign, ascendant, or anything else have shaped my life or determined any facet of my being. At the same time, I think most of the blame for this can be safely assigned to the people who share my beliefs. If you are reading this article or this talk page and feel compelled to save the world from ignorance, superstition, flawed philosophy, and the worship of inappropriate ideals and concepts, please head over to Ayn Rand or Religion or Psychiatry or Government or any of a thousand other articles about idiotic, scientifically invalid, and genuinely harmful subjects and bitch there. Who honestly gives a shit if people open up the newspaper and read the horoscopes? Is it really any more ridiculous than, say, making your stand for truth and enlightenment and human evolution on fucking Wikipedia?

65.189.207.206 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling?

Why isn't the astrological term spelled Ares? I believe it, I see that spelling in Oxford, but is there etymology? Seems odd to me. Pete St.John (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the astrological term comes from the Latin for "ram" and does not refer to the mythological human named Ares. You might as well ask why "bead" isn't spelled "Bede." 216.75.183.126 (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction?

I can't help but notice the "they suck" introductory text at the very beginning of the article. While I must command the sense of synthesis of the author that is nearing the quintescence of the aiku art, I think it may be resented by some as a personal opinion. I wasn't able to trace the author in the history. How can it be done? In the end, I propose to simply remove those two words. Wikidid (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ancient astrology begins with Ptolemy

Is this true? I'm interested because I've run into a lot of nonsense about Egyptian astrology, which so far as I know didn't exist until the Greeks conquered Egypt. It seems to come from one book mainly, and then got copied into other articles. I've already cut out the nonsense about 4200 bce star maps and Egyptian astrology the oldest (or whatever) in the world.Doug Weller (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Ptolemy in question lived after the Greek conquest. He wasn't one of the Ptolemaic dynasty of kings of Egypt. However, that dynasty was the one founded when the Greeks conquered Egypt - they were ethnically Greek and the first of them was one of Alexander the Great's generals - so they, too, postdate the Greek conquest. I'm not sure you're right about there having been no Egyptian astrology before the Greek conquest of Egypt, but Ptolemy being a founder of Western astrology doesn't contradict that assumption. 69.63.57.7 (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Traits section

I just reverted an edit by another IP address user that added "gay" to the traits section. Not sure if this qualifies as vandalism, (I mean no offence to the gay community!) but even if not it was completely unsourced/referenced 78.86.205.234 (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is in good etiquette here to request the addition of link (rather than just adding it) so others can agree if it is suitable to be placed on the page as well.

http://www.antiquus-astrology.com/Aries.html

It provides a listing of traditional astrological associations of the Sign of Aries, citing the authors from that period as well. If this link is appropriate for this page, please add it. 75.156.110.87 (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This kind of information can be integrated into the Wikipedia article, stating the original sources. There's really no need for a link there. The 3 books cited have had their copyrights long expired and thus their material is completely in the public domain, however some of their claims may be outdated. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't find the material stated on the website in John Gadbury's stated book, p.110 [4] Maybe I'm missing something? --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hair texture

Israeli astrologer Talia Stan describes Aries people as having smooth, straight dark hair with a reddish cast. I believe Scorpios have the thick, wiry hair.--jeanne (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Who cares, it comes from your genes..Someone963852 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Aries opposite

Aries opposite is Libre. The relationship would work with libra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.208.184 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Aries (Ram)

It is said that a Ram is in association with Lucifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.66.33 (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's more often said about goats, but either way it seems irrelevant to this article. 67.158.72.135 (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What the heck happened?

The articles for the twelve signs used to have way more information!

The editors involved with this page are under the misapprehension that reporting on a pseudo science must not include any information about said subject. With this attitude, it is a wonder that any information remains at all. I cannot promise anything, as I am busy in many places that are hard science, history, etc, and they take precedence. One option is just to let it get to its inevitable conclusion, to where these articles become nominated for deletion. It would make a very convincing case that the editors have been misreading the WP rules, were it to be brought to someone's attention that the zodiac signs were deleted.

On the other hand, if you or anyone else would like to make a start on adding more material, a good place is Google Books or Google Scholar. The ease with which information has been removed, I will concede, is directly related to the lack of durability of the cites that were used. However, it does show a scarcely credible lack of knowledge on the subject, to remove the main part of an article on a subject that represents three millenia of human observation. Anarchangel (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's pretty hard to write an encyclopedic article on utter bullshit. 202.58.240.18 (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Compatibilities

In the compatibilities section of Aries and the other main constellations there always appears this text: "There are many variables that determine compatibility in astrology, such as birth dates, birth months, personalities, birth years, position of a sign within the Sun, the Moon, Stars, planets, etc. The signs listed as compatible with Aries do not reflect an individual profile or individual reading as interpreted within astrology, but rather reflect a general guideline and reference to compatibility as dictated by variables such as Qualities and Elements within the Zodiac. The branch in astrology dealing with interpersonal compatibilities is called Synastry."

This information reads like an instruction manual and seems to go against WP:NOTHOW. At best this information can be included on the page about Synastry and need not be repeated in the article of each star sign. I will adapt this section accordingly, always using an internal link to the Synastry page. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

These comments may be long-winded, but no professional astrologers claim compatibility on this simple sun sign basis. Your edit needs to make this clear or preferably take this entire compatibility section out - otherwise the comments become misleading. Even in the classic title, Love Signs by Linda Goodman which has popularised this myth, states "Even between two individuals whose Sun and Moon Signs harmonize, there are always some planets in their mutual nativities which clash causing periodic friction and tension." Does anyone else have a view on this? Robert Currey talk 13:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not only that this comment was long winded, but it was repeated on each article of the zodiac signs. If this comment is at all needed, then why not put it in the article about Synastry, which is directly linked from the paragraph.
Many articles on WP require specialized knowledge to understand everything on the page. Normally you find that explained in the article about that topic. In a WP article about a star or planet there is plenty of specialized details, but not every of these facts and charactericistics is explained on each article about a star. If somebody who doesn't know synastry comes to this article, then he can look up what it is in Synastry. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not about specialist detail - even Linda Goodman can explain it. It is just plain wrong in the way you have left it. I too don't like the repetition or the wordiness, but if you cannot provide a balanced alternative description, then you should revert or delete the section. This is not an improvement. Maybe you could do something constructive like add an explanatory link to synastry. I know you say you were once an astrologer - did you make comments to clients along these lines? If you did, I would not blame you for becoming a sceptic. Astrology works, but not like this. Robert Currey talk 14:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
An article about Aries (astrology) cannot be the place to explain synastry in full details. If what is left behind now is useless without the instruction texts I removed, then you are right that it is better to remove the section. Then just put everything in the Synastry article, where it can be understood in context. I am not going to make any problem about that. Go ahead if you see room for improvement.
As for personal comments you can always visit my User Talk page. Just a reminder: to discuss an editor on Talk pages of articles is not considered civil WP:CIVIL MakeSense64 (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
First - fair point about my personal comments, though I was interested in your professional opinion on this. I propose that you or I (or anyone else) remove all these Compatibility sections in a day or so unless someone can present a well-worded alternative. I also feel that these pages on the 'Signs' could and should be expanded with superior cited content. Robert Currey talk 15:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your being interested, but we have to remember that editing WP is not about our professional opinion, but about reporting on what we can find about the given topic in quality sources. I will be out to the mountains from tomorrow morning, so you are not going to suffer me for several days. Just go ahead with your improvements. It can also be a good idea to contact editors that may have worked on the Synastry article a lot (check the history) and ask them for their ideas on how to deal with these compatibility sections.
For sure all the articles about 'signs' can be improved a lot afaics. If we don't try to explain the 'signs' in the synastry article, and if we don't try to explain synastry in the 'Signs' articles, then all articles will be better for it.
But if I had removed these compatibility sections in all zodiac sign articles right away, then I know somebody who would have complained that I was vandalizing the astrology articles. So it was better to make the small step. OK? MakeSense64 (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tried several times to get this boilerplate removed. There are almost no circumstances when it's good practice to repeat an identical chunk of text on twelve different pages; and it also reads as a disclaimer, specifically against Wikipedia policy. But Wikipedia policy is all out the window when we talk about astrology, because heaven forbid that representing extant views held by millions of people might make it sound like those views could be in any way legitimate or acceptable! I gave up trying to delete the boilerplate when I was threatened with banning for my "vandalism." 130.179.29.59 (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, looks like you did manage to get it removed. That's what I get for reading the talk and not the main pages. Good for you! 130.179.29.59 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I removed the boilerplate in the articles for all 12 signs, and then Robertcurrey came in arguing that it would be better to remove the entire "Compatibilities" section. He has done so here, but not (yet) in the other 11 signs. It would be better to harmonize the 12 star sign articles. Unfortunately, touching anything in astrology articles amounts to self-torture, so I happily let somebody else do it.MakeSense64 (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Rebuilding these sun-sign pages

The discussions above make sad reading. I am going to try to rebuild these pages based on well sourced information. I hope other editors will help out too, and also that there will be a little leeway in what I add since there is a lot of work to be done, and it may look like some sections of the articles are dispropotionate to begin with.

I am going to start by placing on each page an explanation of what a zodiac sign actually is, and why the tropical zodiac information differs from the sidereal zodiac information that is also given on the page. Although I believe it is a good idea to include some information on the sidereal system, it will prove confusing for readers to see two lists of dates for each zodiac sign. So I will place the emphasis of the page on the western zodiac system because this is the English-language version of Wikipedia and the tropical zodiac is the mainstream system which most readers will expect to see detailed. I will add the sidereal dates at the end of the article with some explanation of why they are not the same.

Next week I will start building up the information about the sign meanings. If anyone feels inclined to help please leave a note below/put a notice onto the Wiki:Astrology project discussion page or put a message to me on my talk page. -- Zac Δ talk! 06:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Zac, what you have written on the zodiac is fine. However, I have two thoughts.
The first is that "It begins its measurement from the Vernal equinox, where the Sun's path (ecliptic) crosses the equator in March each year, as the Sun rises in declination from south to north to announce the first day of spring in the northern hemisphere and the first day of winter in the southern hemisphere. " is 100% correct but IMO a little too technical for this page. This is the style for the Zodiac or specialist page. I think readers of this page want to know about the sign of Aries and what it means.
The second is that the theory that the zodiac is seasonal is one of many complementary and competing theories about the zodiac. There are factors like religious festivals, constellation shapes, navigation and even that there was a universal quality of time that was independent of local customs and climate. Also, the Zodiac evolved in at least three different climates (Mesopotamia, Egypt and Greece) even though it was predominantly Mesopotamian. Robert Currey talk 11:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Those who don't want the technical explanation don't have to read it Robert. It is 100% correct so it is there for those those who want to understand those points. As stated, I intend to develop the sign meanings over time but would welcome help with that. When the sign-meanings are developed, the technical information won't seem disproportinate. This is what I was explaining above and asking leeway for. At the moment the reliable information on these page in any respect is zilch, so no one is going to get anything they are hoping to find, yet.
With regard to the development of the zodiac. The western tropical zodiac, which is what we are talking about here, developed mainly in Mesopotamia, not Egypt or Greece. It was adopted by the Greeks. The ancient Egyptians had a very advanced knowledge of the constellations, but their involvement in the development of the tropical zodiac is not particularly significant. The zodiac incorporated some elements of Egyptian symbolism when there was a fusion of texts around the 3rd century BC, but most elements are well attested from Mesopotamia long before anything we can recognise as closely similar in Egypt. -- Zac Δ talk! 12:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that the technical emphasis will be diluted with additional content, but the argument that people don't have to read something could justify any content. I believe the Egyptian influence started well before 3rd century since there is evidence of contact between the cultures long before the wars with the Assyrians in 8th century BC. What evidence is there that the sign of Aries as the first sign of the Zodiac evolved in Mesopotamia as it was the Hired Hand in Mul-Apin? There was a huge amount of ovine symbolism in Egypt such as at Karnak and Mendes. Also, I believe that the myth of Jason originated in Greece long before before Aries and the epic story was depicted on Eudoxes' globe early in 4th century BC. But as you and I have said, the Zodiac is predominantly Mesopotamian (or even from an older civilization). My point is that the extent of the role played by the seasons in the zodiac is controversial and if it is to be stated here (and I don't believe it is the right place) - it might be better to outline the origins of Aries or balance the view with alternative theories. Robert Currey talk 13:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't want my comments to hold you back from editing the page as it badly needs good content. The technical points will be less of an issue if the rest of the page is easily accessible to a typical reader. Robert Currey talk 14:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a great improvement. Re "... historically by the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Persians and Islamic cultures" could be ... by the Babylonian, Hellenistic, Roman and Islamic cultures... which is to allow for the 'off-shore activities of the Greek ex-pats and colonists' in Alexandria, on the coast of Anatolia and Sicily/southern Italy. Also your sequence suggests a chronology which means the Persian culture would also have been Islamic. I have changed that. I was also wondering about "The sidereal zodiac, which is mainly used in Vedic astrology, is that used historically by Hindu cultures." What is the status of Vedic v Hindu astrology? I have always understood that Hindu was correct and Vedic was a recent term? Robert Currey talk 21:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Robert, thanks for the feedback. I wanted to do more than I managed on the content about the sign meaning, but it took much longer than I expected and I will struggle to find time to do more than gradual improvements when I can.
What I thought would be the best idea for the end content about the zodiac definition, would be to put it into a template, so that the content can go onto every page, but be updated / strimmed down / or changed as we please very easily, and kept consistent across all pages. So this is currently showing in the 'edit' version of the page as {{Zodsign1}} - to edit the content go to Template:Zodsign1 - then edit and save, and the content will be updated on the sign page. Feel free to edit yourself with any ideas you have. I am not particularly attached to this content - just want to get the ball running.
A couple of non-important answers to your questions. I was being intentional in placing the Persian influence before the Islamic influence. When the Arabians started up their translation project of Hellenistic texts at Baghdad they brought in Persians from Khorastan who were ahead of them, and I would argue they were a leading influence. But I would probably have to argue so, you are right, it's a reference best removed :)
Someone else will have to help out on the history of Vedic astrology. Your understanding is my understanding too. I tried to write the text in such as way that it did not imply that the 'Vedic system' was the historically attested Hindu/Indian system; that's why I separated them. I don't know the details of either system well enough to answer your question, but maybe the problem is the way the text reads - can you suggest how to make it clearer (or just go ahead and change?).
Just as a matter of interest, I recently added some sources to the page on Exaltation (astrology) because another editor considered that the north and south node should be included, since they are important in Indian astrology. Read the comment that I quote from Albiruni at the end of the first paragraph and the accompanying footnote 3. That came as a surprise to me. Albiruni travelled in India for 20 years so he should know. I really have no idea to what extent modern Vedic study differs from its historical roots in other ways though. -- Zac Δ talk! 22:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I would be inclined to refer to Hindu (or even Indian) astrology only and not refer to Vedic astrology until an expert can confirm the preferred terminology. I also had a look at what you are doing on the Exaltation page and will make a comment there. Robert Currey talk 07:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Colliding Dates

A general error considering the correct dates marking beginning and end of each sign seems to occur in all of the articles covering theese,so that there`s an overlapping date between every sign( or atleast some of them ).This is most likely not the case from a strict astrological point of view, and most confusing aswell as annoying, especially for those born on such a date.Look fx to Aries - Taurus - Gemini, I havent inspected further than so, but it strikes the eye immediately.Flight714 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Flight714 (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Flight714. The dates are confusing. The reality is that with leap years, the calendar year is not as consistent as the 'astrological year' - the path of the Sun. So the date on which the Sun moves into each sign (solar ingress) varies from year to year. IMO the most reliable way to express the Sun Sign start and end dates would be to take the earliest date (within 100 years) for the solar ingress in Hawaii (being as far west as possible) and the latest date in New Zealand. The dates could be expressed as a range. If you were born before the midpoint in the range, you would be more likely to be the previous sign and after the midway point, you would be increasingly likely to be the next sign. While this may be useful on general resources like Wikipedia, all of this is unnecessary on a personal level. Your Sun sign can always be worked out by a consultant astrologer or you can go to an astrological site on the web that enables you to calculate it for free by entering your data or you can look it up in an ephemeris [5] (a published book or on-line), but this may mean interpolating between two positions and allowing for your time zone at birth. Robert Currey talk 06:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant topics

The article about the sign of Aries contains 2 topics that have been included and dealt with, though of general explanatory character and not relevant as matters concerning the sign of Aries as such, namely the columns;[ What Is A Zodiac Sign? ] and [ The Sign In the Sidereal Zodiac ]I see no reason why they appear at this page specifically, though probably " informative " in some broader sense, but that be for main astrological considerations.Ought theese be either removed or harmonized with the articles on the other signs, thus adding it to those other 11 ? ( It appears as though somebody thinks this particular page functions as an entry or " frontpage " to the whole subject, which it is not.(though that would be in perfect sync with the supposedly " Arien " self-perception) ) Flight714 (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This topic was addressed in the preceding section, so I won't develop it further here. As noted there it will be included on all twelve pages as my time allows me to update the material on each page and harmonise the content so that there is some sense of consistency across the set - I have already done several and will do another next week. Would gladly welcome help of anyone else interested in offering reliable content that can be attributed to verifiable sources. (This topic is not really my "thing" - it's a bit of a chore than I'm trying to make time for, to get some kind of improvement initiated). -- Zac Δ talk! 10:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The use of this template is simply inappropriate. Not only is the information better presented in the main article on Astrology, but it shouldn't even be presented in each of the individual articles for being out-of-scope to each of those articles. I personally appreciate the effort, however, templates should not be used in this manner: the information should be presented in one article and one article alone.
On the other hand, I think the positive aspect I see in this template is the "In the sidereal zodiac". If verifiable information from each sign under the sidereal zodiac could be included, then there might be some standardization possible.
Also, headings are almost never ever on templates. They can be disorienting to the normal reader, and even normal editors can be thrown off by them, as the edit buttons bring a person to the template. --Izno (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Izno, I take your point that the template (generic comments What is a Zodiac Sign? and The Sidereal Zodiac) could be considered superfluous here when the comments are or should be fully addressed under Astrological Sign. However, I see the template as a clever solution to a problem. Any explanation of the astrological sign of Aries by the characteristics associated with people born when the Sun is in that zone or by compatibility with other signs without an explanation of a sign will be incomplete and arguably misleading. The sign part is integral here and I believe, cannot be skimped to a referral page.
As I am sure you know, there is widespread confusion about the nature of a sign. It is usually wrongly considered to be synonymous with a constellation - hence the misnomer 'star signs'. The confusion comes from the shared origins and the fact that each astrological sign shares their name with a constellation. This misunderstanding extends to the media and even some astronomers don't know the basis for this difference. As you will see from the explanation the word Sign in this context is a specific and technical term - which WP advises should be defined or at least alternative language provided, so that a non-technical reader can both learn the terms and understand how they are used. WP:TTD For this reason, I believe the first reference to the term sign should be in italic bold.
So I think there is a strong case for a full clarification of the commonly confused differences between a sign and a constellation and the sidereal zodiac versus the tropical zodiac included with each description of each Zodiac Sign. With 12 signs, this inevitably requires duplication. A template is much easier to monitor since these 12 astrological sign pages are frequently vandalised or often the subject of well-intentioned but inappropriate edits. However, I also believe that this template could be edited to be more concise, but I will leave that to someone else as the present explanation is accurate and thorough and superior to the Astrological Sign page. Robert Currey talk 09:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Any explanation of the astrological sign of Aries by the characteristics associated with people born when the Sun is in that zone or by compatibility with other signs without an explanation of a sign will be incomplete and arguably misleading.

Why?

The sign part is integral here and I believe, cannot be skimped to a referral page.

I disagree completely.

As I am sure you know, there is widespread confusion about the nature of a sign. [snip]

Yes, and that needn't be explained in such verbiage here. The two paragraphs here, or however much needed, should be and should already be presented in astrology or in astrological sign. If people can't do basic research, that's not Wikipedia's problem. Seeking to cure a wrong of the world is pointed...

As you will see from the explanation the word Sign in this context is a specific and technical term - which WP advises should be defined or at least alternative language provided, so that a non-technical reader can both learn the terms and understand how they are used.

Which does not justify four paragraphs in a subarticle to the main topic of astrology.

I believe the first reference to the term sign should be in italic bold.

Certainly not, and this violates the manual of style. TTD is certainly not the non-guideline you should be referencing here.

So I think there is a strong case for a full clarification of the commonly confused differences between a sign and a constellation and the sidereal zodiac versus the tropical zodiac included with each description of each Zodiac Sign.

I do not see it, and you did not even present an argument that it was necessary beyond "fix the laziness of the world"...

With 12 signs, this inevitably requires duplication.

This simply indicates that duplication is not the solution, whether via template or via inline text. An addendum: This perhaps indicate that the signs should not be presented individually, but instead in a list.

A template is much easier to monitor since these 12 astrological sign pages are frequently vandalised or often the subject of well-intentioned but inappropriate edits.

Which indicates that more people should be watching the individual articles.

the present explanation is accurate and thorough and superior to the Astrological Sign page.

Which indicates that improvement should be made to astrological sign or astrology, not here or any of the number of actual signs. That requires less work than attempting to maintain a template on the number of pages you're trying to do so on. --Izno (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Rather than trying to "fix the laziness of the world", my objectives were to clarify for the benefit of the ignorant. The point is that this page is about the zodiacal sign of Aries and an explanation should include the zodiacal sign. For example, if you look at Glastonbury Tor, there is a simple description of a tor even though it references a page on tors. A tor is very simple to describe compared to a sign. Without a description of what a sign is, how it differs from a constellation and the difference between a tropical and sidereal sign, the reader is left with a nebulous concept: Aries. Sure the most inquisitive can drill down for an explanation of this mystery, but what you might consider pandering to laziness, I would see as making the information user-friendly and comprehensive. A sceptic might even wonder if leaving an integral part of the description of the sign through the reliance on a link might not be some attempt to cover up the fact that the stars and the signs are out of alignment.
As I wrote before, I take on board your point that the wording could be less. Would you be able to propose an edited version here that covers what you feel to be the salient points? If you object to the principle of a template, would you assist in preventing your brief explanation replicated on 12 pages from the invading vandals? Robert Currey talk 23:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
You keep making this point of "The point is that this page is about the zodiacal sign of Aries and an explanation should include the zodiacal sign", which simply isn't true, nor is it helpful for the topic to split the information to a template or to duplicate it among 12 pages. 4 paragraphs simply isn't appropriate; even a single paragraph would be inappropriate unless it pertained specifically to this particular sign.
To be truthful, the information which has been thrown into the article could be phrased in a simple one or two sentence item in the lead; "Aries is in "this location" in the sidereal calendar, which differs from its location in the tropical calendar by "this many" degrees"", which is essentially what is said at the bottom of the templated section. Really, it does one no good to include the information here.
On the other hand, I'm increasingly liking this list idea. List of astrological signs (possibly List of western astrological signs or something like that; don't like to leave the Chinese out of it) could contain the information from every single individual sign page quite nicely (a la Characters of Final Fantasy XII). --Izno (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything irrelevant about explaining what a sign is, on a page about a sign. The information needs to be replicated across all twelve pages, because readers who, say, go to the Gemini page for information on Gemini will go to the Gemini page and not this one. The value of using a template is that one agreed change can be easily implemented across the 12 pages. The purpose of having a page dedicated to each sign is that each one can be developed to become an encyclopedic point of reference for that sign - we should be looking at ways to develop the information on the page, so that there is more substantiated factual content and historical information that will be of value to researchers. For more on this, see my post below. -- Zac Δ talk! 13:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Notable persons

I have reinstated the section on notable persons - again I am in the process of harmonsing across all 12 pages. I have suggested that a limit be set at 25 - the reason is that we need consistency across the pages and some kind of boundary to how many names to include. 25 is more than ample IMO - without a limit we are in danger of this section attracting endless new additions of someone's favourite pop star or semi-famous connections. If anyone sees a reason why the list should include more than 25 names please discuss here so we can develop an intelligent consensus on this. 10:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Do the articles really need a "Notable persons" section? Someone963852 (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
No, for being trivial. Quite simply, if the sign wasn't important to the person, that person shouldn't be included, and I'd like to think most of the people on that list didn't care. --Izno (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. It seems valid and relevant to point out a number of notable persons by which the proposed sign qualities can be judged appropriate (or not). I don't see the logic of the last comment - the qualities are supposedly observable, regardless of whether the person cared about astrology. In this way it is just a bit of neutral information of relevance to the topic of the page. Including a list does not imply veracity of the principle: these are merely examples that are easily recognisable to the public.
However, there does need to be a more generally agreed consensus for inclusion. For example, I think 25 names is more than generous and I'm not sure we need that many. Whatever number we have, there should be a distribution across various fields of notability: to include the arts, politics, royalty (or leaders), etc, and not just a trail of pop stars who have high profile public personas, but whose personal lives and character traits are not well known in detail. For various reasons it would save a lot of future hassle by not including living persons in the list; so that only historical characters are included. This would avoid the problem of IP editors trying to draw attention to their favourite actor. It would be good to have a fuller discussion on these principles to identify appropriate criteria. I would then suggest that each sign's list is agreed on the talk page, and not changed on the main page without previous discussion. Ideas?
I would also welcome discussion on what other sections could be added to the pages. For example, I would like to see coverage on what is known of the early origin of the signs, apart from the mythological associations. It would also be good to include historical references, from important literary works – quotes from Shakespeare, etc. At the moment I am trying to build up the other pages to bring a sense of consistency across the set, but do feel that there is much more yet to be added to give better encyclopaedic information. Again, would appreciate ideas an contributions on this point. -- Zac Δ talk! 13:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
"the qualities are supposedly observable, regardless of whether the person cared about astrology. In this way it is just a bit of neutral information of relevance to the topic of the page. " Except it's not relevant. It's just a meaningless list without commentary, which is important to neither "Aries" nor the so-called notable person himself. Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, nor is it a directory...
For various reasons, it would save future hassle to not include any notable persons. IPs and even many registered editors add people they think fit the bill of "notable people", regardless of how many have been arrange by people on the talk page. Excluding the section fixes the problem of both the needless editing and the problem of trivial content. We're an encyclopedia. Were you to compare our article to Encyclopedia Britannica's article, you'd see no such list, and for good reason.
If you can find history on the specific signs of each page, that would be great (etymology?)! Historical "references", on the other hand, end up falling into the pit of popular culture, which too often become trivial... --Izno (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I think a short list of notable individuals should be included as it important and relevant to the concept of each sign. There should be no commentary as it will lead to endless arguments as to whether so and so is typical of his or her sign or not and encourage original research by enthusiastic editors. In order to protect it from 'flavour of the month' celebrities being added, I believe that the list should reduced and limited to 20 names and should not include living people, as suggested above. One way to do this is to have a heading like "20 Notable People from History born when the Sun was in Aries" or create a heading that defines the section in each of the 12 astrological sign pages. This would give editors some criteria to undo unmerited insertions by 'impulse-editing' IPs and others promoting their favoured 'celebs'.
These pages have had a history of being reduced to a stub by editors who have made it clear that they find Sun Sign Astrology distasteful (and this includes both sceptics and astrologers). They have come up with reasons (sometimes justifiable and sometimes counter to NPOV) to cut out every section. This has been followed by a renaissance by other editors. Rather than repeat this fruitless cycle, I would like to see a set of pages that are designed to be neutral, informative and robust.
The Aries page is currently being viewed by around 4,000 people per day. This suggests to me that the zodiac sign pages should be considered important and that there should be more rather than less informed content explaining the nature of the sign both in terms of interpretation, how it manifests in practice (without judgement), what it is technically, how it is not just a Sun Sign, and addresses the issue of the Stars (sidereal v tropical) plus outlines the origin and history of the sign. Robert Currey talk 10:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Robert. A small discreet list, which focuses on historical persons, is relevant and of interest to the reader. Not including living persons will avoid the problems of IPs trying to add in their 'star of the moment'. I've been checking through a lot of books that explore these issues, and it is standard practice to feature example celebrities or historical characters - even in encyclopedic resources. For example: Man, myth & magic: an illustrated encyclopedia of the supernatural includes Brahms and Freud for Aries: two names missing from our list.

I'll make the change you have proposed. To ensure that the list only includes approved entries I will reproduce the list of each page that has been developed so far on that page's associated talk-page, which the request that changes are proposed on the talk page and not introduced straight into the article without discussion. It is taking me time to develop all of these pages, but when all 12 are in a better state I will request that they are semi-protected against IP edits. Unfortunately these pages do attract a lot of silly edits although I have noticed that most of the vandalism occurs on the pages that have barely any content (I suppose, looking so neglected, they are a magnet for scribbles). -- Zac Δ talk! 11:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

List of notable names now historical persons only: please discuss proposed additions or amendments here

Having removed the references to living persons the list of notable Ariens now includes:

Notable persons from history born when the Sun was in Aries include: Johann Sebastian Bach Marlon Brando Charles Baudelaire Casanova Butch Cassidy Catherine of Medici Charlie Chaplin Charlemagne Joan Crawford Bette Davis Francis Ford Coppola Vincent Van Gogh Harry Houdini Isabella I of Spain Thomas Jefferson Heath Ledger Marcel Marceau.

This selection now includes 17 'notables'. The main page has been commented to state that the list should not extend 20 entries. I am opening this section for discussion on suggestions for additions of replacements. -- Zac Δ talk! 12:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I think this section is ridiculous. 20 names? How do we choose who to put in this list? What does this list have to do with the sign itself? Its just a list of a few people someone picked with birthdays around the same time of year. I don't see any consensus to include something like this and I think it ought to go. --Daniel 00:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Should the January article include a list of famous people born in January?
I say go ahead and delete the Notable People section from the 12 signs. It adds nothing to the articles except worthless trivia. Someone963852 (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Does the January article include a list of character traits associated with January that have been historically recorded since ancient times? No. Neither is it the case that when coverage is given to 'January', books on that theme have a convention of listing famous persons born in that period for comparison. That is not the case with astrology. As can be seen above this has been discussed; the points have been answered, and other's have different views. The list has been reduced to take criticsms on board, but what is left is relevant to this page's theme.
Frankly, what I think is ridiculous, is the concern given to this, whilst there are pages like Cancer (astrology) that have little more than a few, mainly irrelevant, details of the myth that relates to the constellation (not the sign). I've noticed in the page histories that over the last few years these sun-sign pages have been systematically reduced to virtually no content - and what was left was not only trivia, but inaccurate and confusing in its details. This is still the case with many of the signs - I am trying to rectify, but if anyone here is concerned about what 'adds' to these articles, there is plenty of scope to contibute content to the pages in need of them. -- Zac Δ talk! 04:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Though the January article does not have this type of information, a list of famous people with their birth dates is included in Wikipedia by year e.g. 1950. While some editors may consider this type of information trivial, it is of value to historians, biographers and journalists etc and I have not seen a proposal to have them removed.
In the case of the articles on the signs of the zodiac, a list of people born when the Sun was in the sign is relevant and important as the only way of amplifying how the concept of the sign manifests. I personally find this type of astrology a bit too simplistic and superficial, but this popular format has become part of our culture. So until someone can come up with a suggestion of a better way to do this and to extend the articles, I suggest the lists remain in their present format and support Zac's attempts to improve these pages.
The main problem with these pages is that a lot of one-time editors listed only by their ISP trash them on a daily basis. When this list was unlimited, these individuals found the urge to add and promote their favourite living celebrity irresistible. Clearly removing sections of Wikipedia simply because they get vandalised is not acceptable, so these agreed criteria have been useful in keeping the content while easing the daily maintenance. Robert Currey talk 06:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Robertcurrey actually points out the problem. "a list of people born when the Sun was in the sign is relevant and important as the only way of amplifying how the concept of the sign manifests." To make a list of 20 "historical" names born during this time of year is original research and creates a non neutral situation by "amplifying" astrology's alleged predictive capability. You can make a sign have any kind of "manifestation" by picking the right people. What are the agreed upon criteria? --Daniel 19:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand your argument. However, my point was not that this information should demonstrate that astrology works, but how the concept of the sun sign applies in the real world i.e. by someone's birth date. It would be OR if the data introduced was not well supported like the inclusion of Jesus under Capricorn as his birth date is subject to debate or if someone was to comment that so and so was typical or atypical of their sign. I have only added a few names using fame as the main criterion, but as far as I can see the lists don't appear to support or undermine astrology. Since I have been watching these pages, the entries have not yet been questioned on this basis by any editor. If you can find names of famous people from history with a reliable date of birth who are clearly more notable than anyone currently listed, I will support your replacements. Robert Currey talk 00:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
"...how the concept of the sun sign applies in the real world i.e. by someone's birth date" that is an extremely simple concept and is clearly explained in the article. These problematic lists are entirely unneeded. We could spend all day arguing about whose more notable than who. Right now it is hugely biased towards Western figures, Heath Ledger? Give me a break. The fact is picking 20 names for this list is completely ridiculous original research. --Daniel 00:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The lists have not been problematic since they have been limited to exclude living persons, and restricted to a figure which ensures that those included will be amongst the most well known names to the general public. Daniel, the criteria has been made clear:

  1. Born in the relevant period (hence, here, defined as an ‘Arian’)
  2. Not living
  3. Notable (widely known amongst the broad range of people who use this English language edition of WP)

Being the English language edition, the list will, and should, incline towards western figures, but is not restricted to them. Popular culture is relevant and in that regard Heath Ledger currently fits that bill - not sure he will in decades to come; but then he would be replaced by someone more notable, so there’s nothing problematic there.

The only thing I see as problematic, is my inability to understand the motives behind criticisms that have now descended to the suggestion that bias has been applied to create a non-neutral situation based on original research. Every day, the main page of WP includes a list of things that happened or people who were born ‘on this day’. Total trivia, if you want to see it that way, by suggesting that there could be any connection between different historical events just because they happened on the same date of the year. Don’t you think I would look crazy if I went to the talk page there and started moaning about WP offering trivia points, or questioning whether it constituted original research or bias in the selection of which entries on the ‘date page’ get filtered through to the main page?

The fact that there are only 17 entries in this list, which calls for the addition of three more names to reach its suggested target, demonstrates that there is no underlying will to select particular names. Actually, I find the suggestion offensive, in questioning the motive behind my contribution to these pages. What I put onto this page (in an effort to try to rebuild a page that had become an embarrassment to WP) is the remains of an early version of the list, following the removal of living persons. Looking for it again today, I now see that in 2008 the page included a much more extensive list of around 100 names (see here), but these were mainly living biographies, and the list offered quantity but lacked the quality of this current list which features only well known names that are now a part of history. From that page, there are only three more names from the non-living biographies that seem significant to me so I’ll add them in. From hereon, editors are welcome to use good judgement and improve rather than extend the list of non-living Ariens. The only criteria of concern is easily realised: notability. (My additions are Billie Holiday, Joseph Pulitzer and Tenesse Williams) -- Zac Δ talk!


Personally I can't see why anyone should have a problem with a list of people born with the Sun in Aries, on a page about the Sun in Aries. A page about a month such as January is not the same thing. Neither can I see the reason for the dismissive comment about the late Academy award winner Heath Ledger. And yes, the criteria is that these people were born at the same time of the year. That is what Sun Sign Astrology is about. The list was informative, and it does not appear to be arguing in favour of the listees having common personality traits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minerva20 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that there are hundreds of people who meet your 3 criteria. Look at March 21 the first half of the births list are all eligible people and that is just the first day of the sign. We can argue about who is more notable than who, but that really doesn't get us anywhere. What we have here is a list compiled by someone with specific ideas about notability in relation to the sign. How can a neutral list of names be created? --Daniel 16:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I might suggest limiting the list to individuals whose affiliation with Aries has received significant coverage in a third-party reliable source, i.e. something beyond "Actor X is an Aries!" Obviously this coverage should be linked as well. Doniago (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I think these points have been answered sufficiently. It's down to common sense and consensus, whereby purely subjective notions are unlikely to last. If you want to propose alternatives Daniel based on what you would argue is better notability, feel free (as per the invitation made at the start). -- Zac Δ talk! 16:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see consensus here (seems like a pretty even split), and "common sense" obviously differs, so dismissing this issue like that is going to work. Again my issue is how are you determining "notability," by what criteria? This is different than WP:N which is just an inclusion guideline and isn't really applicable here. This is what is problematic to me and has yet to be answered. Your points about the main page are entirely inapplicable, yes it contains trivia, no it isn't an encyclopedia article. --Daniel 17:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirection of Western Zodiac signs

On 22 October 2012 the contents of the articles for the individual signs of the western zodiac (Pisces (astrology) etc.) were removed and replaced with redirects to Astrological sign#Western zodiac signs. These edits were made by User:Dominus Vobisdu with the edit summary: Unsourced and unsourceable cruft. No justification for stand-alone article. This did not seem to follow a community discussion.

Following concerns raised at the Reference Desk I will, after posting this, restore the articles to the form they were in immediately before their redirection. At least some of the articles seem to have been significantly reduced in size also prior to this redirection, however I have not reverted these changes.

Because I am sure editors may wish to discuss this (perhaps to reinstate the redirects, or make other changes to these articles), however a discussion spread among the talk pages twelve articles in question would be too dissipated, I suggest Talk:Astrological_sign#Redirection_of_Western_Zodiac_signs as a centralised discussion location. An editor with more experience than I in Wikipedia policies may wish to move this discussion to a better location. LukeSurl t c 15:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


Copyvio

Note that the text added here [6] is a copy and paste from [7]. [8]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


Insert of property

It seems to me that the zodiac wheel is mostly lacking in sustenance. I have a unique viewpoint on the subject and wish to share my opinions. Please don't hesitate to stop by my user page. I will update it more when I get the chance. Stuffed tiger (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about writing your opinions into an article. Original research is forbidden. We only add content that is reliably sourced and unoriginal. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


Corrections to dates, date and citation format in sign articles

I have created a module which encapulates values for the dates the Sun enters and exits the various signs; the data is taken from the U.S. Naval Observatory's Multiyear Interactive Computer Almanac and covers 2015 through most of 2050. The Template:Zodiac date produces some erroneous results, so I hope to implement the change this week.

It is only practical to implement one date and citation style for the module and infobox, so it would be helpful if we can agree on what format to use for the various sign articles. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology#Corrections to dates, date and citation format in sign articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A Thought Occurs

There used to be way more stuff on the zodiac here. About a year ago. I came back to see if it was still there, but it was gone. I'm not sure where the information came from, but I doubt it was well sourced either. I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying that when information is available, won't it always be around? Where did it go? Was it proven wrong? You tell me. Stuffed tiger (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems the information is not worth the proliferation, that is why it was removed... Why do you bother yourself while you doubted its rightness and lack of authenticity Abayomilaws (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

In this edit a website was added to the "Works cited" section. As explained at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout a "Works cited" section is for a list of works that were consulted while creating the article. Since this latest work was added but no changes were made to the article, it's apparent it wasn't used in writing the article. Thus, it would belong in the "External links" section. Anyone interested in adding it there should review the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links to see if that website qualifies for inclusion. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2021

I've never met an Aries with a temper. I've only EVER met a Taurus with Anger. All facts. 98.118.173.125 (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 4 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ckallday10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AKacou11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Aries

What power does Aries give? 207.148.176.145 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Characteristics and Mythology

The page was seriously lacking so I took it upon myself to add a section on the characteristics of an Aries based on the expertise of astrologers, not my personal opinions or experiences. I also added to the mythology section, which did not mention the God of War that the sign is named after, which seemed like a serious oversight to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbenejan (talk • contribs) 00:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: JRN 101 News Literacy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vbenejan (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by BrieBernier24 (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

More facts?

I feel like we should have facts about the characteristics and personality of all the Zodiac signs. I don’t see info like this in the articles on the Zodiac signs. I came here to learn that kind of stuff, so I can’t add any info. 98.97.112.26 (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:V, WP:IRS and Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
A number of historical alchemical sources from the early-modern period have pretty stable correspondences between signs and other systems [such as the mercury(/sulphur(/(salt)) system]. Presumably there are secondary academic sources which someone could find to add that information. Contrary to popular belief (and, it seems the consensus of wikipedia editors), the historical study of these subjects in terms of medieval and early-modern literature has become legit at reputable institutions over the past couple of decades. Of course, there's a great distance here and the stuff written by contemporary newspaper hacks and cents-per-word dating articles. The reason I've never had the confidence to actually go to the academic libraries and root such info out from the journals is that I'd end up under a dual assault from casual editors who want to fill it with trash and general emic stuff which would fail WP:V and WP:IRS and the wikerati who learnt in the cradle that any mention of astrology is per se illegitimate. It's kinda dispiritng to spend a couple of days in a University research library working on good secondary sources to have the work removed by a barn-star lawyer. The sefirot articles from Kaballah are in a similar mess. A useless mixture of unattested nonsense and confusion of different systems, folk arguing differently way on each of the sephirah over what traditions are legit. Oh well. 18:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Zaza9147 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
It might be possible to find reliable sources that say the consensus of medieval European sources agree with some claim about astrology. That's completely different from saying that the claim is actually true in the real world. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
This is true. It's generally known as the contrasting Scholarly and Emic approaches. The risk to the scholar, from past experience, is that most of this work is not easily available for free online, so it means things like using annual leave to go to a library, and so is a considerable personal expenditure at the risk of having to constantly monitor and defend the work from both casual deletion and crud accumulation in discussions like this. From other scholars in this area too, this is why pages on Western Astrology, Kabalah, etc, are in such a dismal state as it's not worth the candle. Zaza9147 on a device without my login details. 21:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)~ 92.40.201.58 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I see three posts in this thread that are similar enough that they might have been made by the same editor, but they all have different signatures. Users should be aware of WP:MULTIPLE where it is explained that editing with more than one user name is generally discouraged. (Oh, I see the statement that Zaza9147 and 92.40.201.58 are the same editor.) Jc3s5h (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. So one would look for sources by scholars who have read primary sources, such as medieval sources (or images or transcriptions of them) and found a consensus for certain claims, if the article was titled "European medieval view of the Aries astrological sign". Evaluation of medieval sources is aided by the fact that not many of them were written in the first place, and fewer still survived.
Evaluating modern sources about the Aries astrological sign, that is, sources that make assertions about current information about the sign, would evaluate the sources according to whether they are objectively true or not. Since the scientific studies that have been done show that astrology is no better than random guessing, the "unattested nonsense" in one book, the "confusion of different systems" in another, and a faithful description of how astrology was done in 1500 are all equally bad, if the books assert the claims are true. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
You need to distinguish between the medieval and early-modern periods where the printing press made a big difference to volume of primary sources. Typically these do not say things like Aires has a bad temper but, say, link it into the historically very important Paracelsian systems of alchemy and such like. I see no reason why such widespread and remarkably consistent associations of that period, when astrology was mainstream, shouldn't be covered as religion is on Wikipedia, that is clearly stating what was believed, bracketing that, not asserting it as true even, if you like, saying it is not! As you say, from compendium secondary sources. The reason it needs research library access is that most of the secondary source journals are paywalled and the books are prohibitively expensive to a working class scholar (look at the publisher Brill"s website some time). And good luck getting an IKK from the county system for those! Zaza9147 again. Sorry, will get the login sorted at the weekend. 92.40.201.213 (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aries_(astrology)/Archive_1&oldid=1262096634"