Talk:Sun sign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.

With respect, it is perhaps a mistake to mix-up 'sun-signs' with 'sun-sign astrology'. These are two different topics, I suggest.

• 'Sun-signs' are used in almost all forms of Western astrology of every kind, depth and complexity, including horary.
• 'Sun-sign astrology' on the other hand, is a generalised form of astrology, invented in modern times to satisfy the demands of newspapers and magazines for an astrology-related column, and is therefore part astrology, part journalism. The sun-sign columnist has only the planetary aspects (mainly lunar) and perhaps turned houses (though Jonathan Cainer for one doesn't use them) to draw upon - a very limited palette compared to the rich seams of technique available to traditional astrologers.

MayoPaul5 16:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Most definitely. Clarity and differentiation needs to be of prime importance. Sam 23:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The dates of the signs are in some cases quite wrong - for example the Sun enters Aquarius on average 20th Jan, and Pisces 19th Feb. I'll alter it if I get round to it, unless anyone has a good reason for objection. MayoPaul5 17:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC) - Done MayoPaul5 06:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Samuella, I hope we won't get into an edit war here, but a couple of the paragraphs you altered were more accurate than the version you inserted, therefore and I have reverted these. For example, Jonathan Cainer told me that he uses all the planets (as do all the sun-sign astrologers I have spoken to), therefore to say they do not is clearly wrong. Also, not all horoscopic astrologers view sun-sign astrology as worthless - in fact only a small minority. In the late 90's when there was a formal debate on this subject at the APAI (all members are professional astrologers) a clear majority came out in favour of allowing reputable, qualified sun-sign astrologers to join the organisation. MayoPaul5 07:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. What I meant by that line was that sun-sign astrologers only use the position of the sun as a significator for the individual, rather than all of the planets. I don't know how the majority feel, but those I know view horoscope columns and the like one of the many things hindering traditional horoscopic astrology and society's knowledge of it. I certainly don't feel predicting an entire twelfth of the population's mood for a particular day using only the sun as a reference is doing traditional horoscopic astrology justice. For instance, if I was born when the sun was in Aries, then I would look at the Aries column in the newspaper. The sun-sign astrology may use the other planets, I'm sure, but that doesn't make it any more astroligically accurate because they're using the entire sign of Aries as a reference instead of the particular degree of the Sun in Aries. Thus, aspects would be out of orb for a lot of the population. I certainly do not intend to make anyone angry, and I hope you don't take my edits personally. I edited the article to conform more to Wikipedia's style guides and didn't do it out of spite or anything. Sam 12:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam, you're a lovely person and you certainly have not made me angry (or feel anything negative). However, I'm not surprised if I inadvertently gave that impression, as I had tMa-squ-rMC yesterday, and have tMe-squ-rMa tomorrow, so I'm in a bit of a cross-fire on some other pages (like on Astrology:talk/Superstition where I've been accused of trolling). I do understand exactly what you're saying, but just trying to keep thing as accurate as possible here - not too POV. Note that I left most of your edits in, as they were improvements on mine. You haven't commented on my first point, at the top of this page. MayoPaul5 13:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, MayoPaul. I completely understand where you're coming from and it's no problem. :) You added quite a bit of valuable information that wouldn't have been there otherwise. Sam 23:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)