Talk:Aries (astrology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aries (astrology) article.
Article policies
This article is part of the Astrology WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the astrological content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. 2006 - present


Contents


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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)