![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
but my skepticism would mean I may cut more than required. The content could be retained under some sort of disclaimer, but I feel that a more neutral editor need consider this. I will keep an eye on these pages but will help with spelling and grammar once the course of action is decided. LessHeard vanU 23:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know enough about astrology to make any useful changes to this page at the time, but I altered a couple of the more egregious grammatical errors. Stuffed tiger ( talk) 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone please correct the following passage:
The dates that are given isn't correct. That's why if you met somebody who was supposedly born under the Scorpio constellion, but didn't exactly a Scorpio, but acted an Libra, well that's because their probably really a Libra. The dates given that were incorrect are the Conventional Sun Sign Dates, but the Real Sun Sign Dates. The real Solar Dates of an Scorpio is October 23 to November 29. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.204.36 ( talk) 13:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Due to ongoing vandalism from various IPs, which has risen to a noticable level here over the last few days, the article is semi-protected for the next week.
Please feel free to comment here or on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 00:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Astrology-online.com has already been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard and there has been agreement that the material cannot be considered reliable, as it does not associate it's claims with any known, notable astrologer. Furthermore, there are strong indications that some of the content is lifted off of elore.com, and thus probably violates copyright. To top that, the content it does originate often contradicts itself. If someone wishes to reopen the discussion, please do so on the reliable sources noticeboard. -- Nathanael Bar-Aur L. ( talk) 02:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
elore.com |
Astrology-online.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He has the right to. Nathanael, you are not an administrator. kashimjamed ( talk) 00:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
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 Scorpio. If you want to add a notable person, go there. -- Carmelita 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I got some famous people: Anne Hathaway, Winona Ryder, Mick Thomson (Slipknot), Cedric Bixler-Zavala (The Mars Volta), Gretchen Mol, Chris Jericho, Nick Lachey (lame), Vanessa Manillo (lame), Dermot Mulroney (sizzlin'), Eric Dane, Grace Kelly, Charles Manson, Neil Young, Megan Mullally, Pablo Picasso, Lisa Bonet, Martha Plimpton, Maria Shriver, Ethan Hawke, Thandie Newton,
and so many more... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.180.76 ( talk) 17:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Has it been done on purpose? I'm pretty sure they used to be longer and described associated traits and stuff. Simple English wiki has longer pages on the zodiac signs ( http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aries) Or have they just been moved or scattered around Wiki? Is there a reason? Not qualifying as 'knowledge'? Or too hazy?(Haha Cancer's talk page is way calmer than this one, hehehhe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.169.56 ( talk) 19:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
This needs to be updated to match the newest adjustments to the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.180.54 ( talk) 03:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure why but a recent edit modified the dates of Scorpio. According to all other websites I check Scorpio is November/October 87.9.204.56 ( talk) 23:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I have done a 3 day semi protect. There are a few too many anon IPs editing argumentatively lately. -- BozMo talk 13:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I have decide to complete blank the scorpio personal information since most of the info post are P.O.V (personal opinions)
Also i have noticed in the past that there are also some people making biased racist claims about this sign (examples like "Scorpio is the worse sign" ""Scorpio is the most problematic sign" etc etc). Some others they just give a citated opinion based of what 1 western famous astrologer says and believes (Not all astrologers agree with each other if you know what really is going on in the astrogolical community...)
Until there is some really neutral editing for this sign the text will stay mostly blank with only some basic info about it.
"Adoration POV characteristics" or the opposite "Hateful POV characteristics" or anything misleading about this sign will be deleted 91.138.238.198 ( talk) 14:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Now that Pluto is a "dwarf planet," will Scorpio go back to being ruled by Mars, or will it continue to be ruled by Pluto? -- Feidian 07:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree - rulership by Xena is ok with this scorpio.
I'm not so sure that things will change just because Pluto is now reclassified. After all, the Sun and Moon are classified as "planets" in astrological terms, and obviously those terms are completely wrong, scientifically. It's the astral bodies' influences that matter, not what people are calling them nowadays. I could be wrong, but that's just my two cents. Astroangie 03:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Were the astrological calculations based on the assumption that it was one large body, and hence inaccurate and should be corrected? Or were they amazingly accurate (like the Dogon with Sirius B) and we should not adjust astrology at all? Does anyone have a reliable resource for the origin of the original Mars->Pluto changeover in Scorpio rulership? (oh, she's called Eris now - Goddess of Discord? superb!) AndrewGenus 10:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Pluto, definitely. Pluto is a dark and cold planet, kind of like Scorpios. Yes, some astrologers beleive that Scorpio and Aries are a lot alike, but the astrologers who say that probably aren't Scorpios. So take it from a REAL Scorpio, the only thing that Aries and Scorpio have in common is their competitive drive, which makes them natural enemies. Sharing a planet with an enemy isin't a smart thing to do. I know this really doesn't have anything to do with science, but people today are more familiar with Pluto the DOG. And dogs, like Scorpios, are way more loveable than big-headed, quick-tempered, close-minded Aries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.186.213 ( talk) 03:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
You know, the Sun and the Moon aren't "planets" but yet they rule Leo and Cancer? So why is everyone freaking about Pluto? It's still the best "planet", whatever that is nowadays. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nm1119 (
talk •
contribs)
03:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
~I believe it is Scorpios who live in their ambitions and desires are ruled by the planet of Pluto. The eagles and Phoenixes who seek a path of spiritual transformation through suffering and strife fall under the rule of more bellicose planet of Mars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.143.82 ( talk) 04:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
why do some places, like the external sites, have scorpio (October 24 to November 22) and wikipedia (oct23 - nov22)? What's the deal?
-Well, they consider it a cusp date, along with 12 other dates, because sometimes people may add in an additional day because it's never exactly sure. However, most sources generally consider starting with the earlier dates (Oct.23rd- Nov.21) as opposed to (Oct.24- Nov.22) for example.
In response to the unqualified statement above about using Oct.23rd to Nov.21st, that actually only applies to a limited range of North American astrologers, and even the more reliable (reknowned) American ones still use an end date of Nov.22nd (check the links from the existing External Links on the wikipedia page, or Linda Goodman's books, or Astro Dienst [
[4]] for an example.
AndrewGenus
10:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Other sign's pages have a physical description of people under this sign, but this page doesn't! Could someone add it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.233.150 ( talk) 01:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
For the physical description a book is cited as the source. Unfortunately changes have been made which I think are not in the original work (the addition of 'curvy', the addition of a strange remark about blue eyes). These additions to me seem to be out of vanity; I have a sneaking suspicion people adapted the article to (better) describe themselves, but of course, I cannot prove this. Is there anyone who can tell with a bit more certainty what the characteristics of a Scorpio are, according to astrology, or who, even better, actually has the cited book at their disposal?
195.240.229.19 ( talk) 03:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
As a scorpio, i'd say that my eyes are my strongest eyes, since they're a very deep brown and even sometimes have a bit of green. The medium build sounds right for me, and even the broad shoulders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.157.253 ( talk) 23:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, not ALL physical traits will match up for ALL scorpios. I am a Scoprio and I have dark burnett, wavy/curly hair, blue-gray round eyes, thick eyebrows, my voice is a little on the high side but sometimes is comes out low, like a boys, even though i'm a girl, and I hate to admit it, but I'm on the short side. So some things, like my hair, eyebrows, voice and height is true, but my eyes are a different color. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm1119 ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I myself, as a Scorpio, posess deep penetrating eyes. My Face: I have brown wavy hair, brown eyes. My eyebrows are thick and dark (because I'm part Syrian) and have a pronounced arch. My face is a round, oval shape. My forehead is slightly flat, although not exaggerrated. My nose is slightly a Roman, with a lifted point (I give credit to my part Anglo-Saxon heritage.) My neck is strong, but it's not thick, neither too skinny. My Body: I have a medium build, medium-tall height (5' 6"--and yes, I'm a girl.) I am slightly muscular, well proportioned, hourglass-shaped and I have a sturdy frame. I do have to admit, my shoulders are slightly broad, but not signifficantly. My voice is not too high, not too deep--but I guess, shrill. Also, my biological organs work well--this corresponds to the Scorpio's role in medical astrology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.180.76 ( talk) 20:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
"Yeah, not only is the physical description lacking, but so is the signs it's supposedly compatible with. Someone please address this."
Response: Scorpio is a water sign. It is a forgone conclusion that a Scorpio will always gravitate towards another water sign. Cancer and Pisces are most compatible with Scorpio, as they are prominent water signs. Capricorn and Virgo are Earth signs and follow the water signs concerning compatibility with Scorpio. A Scorpio is also an excellent match with another Scorpio. Two Scorpios can have a very deep and complex understanding between them that only they can understand. As far as fire and air signs go, they are all a very poor match with Scorpio, encompassing squared compatibility at best (air signs), and incompatibility at worst (fire signs). There is great tension between a water sign and a fire sign, and an air sign compliments a fire sign the way an Earth sign compliments a water sign.
NO, NOT TURE! Why does everyone think that Water signs are most compatable with other Water Signs?!? Just because they have a lot in common doesn't mean that they are the best match. Astrology and compatabliliteis are like puzzle pieces. You have to find the match that fits, the one that has the sides that you don't have. You can't create a whole puzzle with just 2 equal pieces. Water signs may get bored with how emotional and senistive each other can be. They need someone to bring them down to EARTH, not make them get caught up in more sensitivity and endless emotions. I'm driving myself crazy just by thinking about it! And same with earth signs. Earth needs water to grow. Water + plant = pretty flower. It's simple kindergarten junk! Not a match you up with a person wo has the same things in common with you high school valentine's dance survey! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm1119 ( talk • contribs) 03:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
My best friend of nine years is a fellow Scorpio. We have a bond, never have gotten into a really bad fight. Our minds work the same way. We always agree on something. We have the same sense of humor, and we are both very intelligent. I've been great friends with a Pisces in the past. I am very influenced by Virgo. My mother, sister, ex-best friend, and crush are all Virgo. I work well with Virgos and am very familiar with them. In general, I'm just comfortable around them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.180.76 ( talk) 21:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
FISH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.106.170 ( talk) 18:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I came on to this topic too see the names of the stars which comprise Scorpio. Is this a valid heading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.64.219 ( talk) 22:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
(this counts for every sign article!)
First, I think the difference should be noted in these articles that signs are 'romantically compatible' with trine signs of their own element, while only 'complimentary' to those of 60 and 180 degree aspects.
Second, more emphasis should be placed on the potency of ninety degree square aspects. The pair of respective polar signs have the power to transform the individual of a given sign, depending on which diverging path he or she chooses to follow. Water/Fire and Air/Earth pairings represent mutual self-realization on the level of individual potential, while Air/Water and Fire/Earth pairings represent a potent cosmic alliance between two individuals who share the same unique power to reshape the universe.
There has been a major update on the compatability between the scorpion and other signs. I have done my best to be clear and concise though my grammer sometimes may be a little run of the mill. It was a bit of an undertaking though I believe the infromation provided is useful and may be translated into all of the other Zodiac relationships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christineadsherry ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think detailed discussion of the 8th house is off-topic for this article. What do you guys think? Maybe it should be moved? -- Nathanael Bar-Aur L. ( talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with Mr Nathanael is that loves to act like a self proclaimed Administrator here in wikipedia and deleting even reliable sources from other members that contradict his own personal beliefs (or his friends) from his picked sources and i am not talking only about deleting Astrology-online but other sources too that i citated and Mr Nathanael try to delete them with some unjustified cheap excuse....
Here is one example below of Mr Nathanael bossy behavior here in wikipedia from the Scorpio History page when i contributed a reliable source from Kelli Fox (A professional Astrologer as i clearly pointed him with a url of her homepage)
SCORPIO (ASTROLOGY) HISTORY PAGE:
|
FROM WHEN WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT ALLOW SOURCES FROM "NOT-ENOUGH" FAMOUS PROFESSIONALS as Mr Nathaniel stated to me in the Scorpio history page??
From when Mr Nathaniel became our boss and a judge here in wikipedia ??
--
SotosfromGreece (
talk)
18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are all of the same element "generally compatible"? That doesn't make any sense. Slowish guitar ( talk) 16:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Does this need to be updated in light of the new Zodiac sign dates, or is nobody in the Zodiac community taking those seriously? http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/13/horoscope-hang-up-earth-rotation-changes-zodiac-signs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Frederick ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Editors ItsmeJudith and Johnuniq have removed this material without justifying its removal. The objection seems to be based only on the fact that it uses templated information. However, the use of this template has been formerly discussed, so it shouldn't be removed again without proper discussion which establishes that it is in the interests of the article to remove it.
The information establishes the distinction between the tropical sign of the western zodiac and the sidereal sign of the Indian zodiac, and the constellation Scorpio. This information is directly relevant to the article and leads into the detail about the different dates, having explained why those differences exist, and the arguments that lie behind the sign differentiations.
Most readers will come to these pages to read about their own sign. We cannot give them two different sets of dates without explaining why there are different dates involved, and how alternative schemes offer different perspectives. So we need that information on each page because it is necessary for each sign. It is not the case that information presented on one page of WP cannot be presented again on another page where the same information is also relevant. We do template information, and we do aim for consistancy of approach across articles that are part of a connected series. Also, we should not direct them to the zodiac page for the information because that is necessarily detailed content, whereas what is presented here is summary information of zodiac issues that are relevant here (a see further link might be useful, however).
The reason for using a template is that if there is need to change the content presented, one agreed change is easily implemented across the 12 pages, whilst each is also showing the information on the dates that are specific to that sign. 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. This information is one step towards giving a little more than just what the sun-sign writers have to say -- Zac Δ talk! 00:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I've suggested we relax a little, because when things are 'tight' it's not easy to recognise the best solutions. So although I have some comments that I would like to make in response to that, I think it will be better to get this discussion going on the astrology project page and keep the issues together there. I'll come back and add a link to the discussion (it may not be immediately because I need to go out, but I'll do it as a priority). Perhaps I should add that I had it in mind to add some extra references, but for now I think that would be unwise. I'm sure we're all comfortable with the idea of developing or amending content in line with consensus generated to make sure the content is reliable and informative. Tensions arise when editors don't know the boundaries or understand the motives for content being added or deleted. So if we need to slow this down a little we should, because considered responses/content changes are usually more helpful in complex situations than immediate (possibly knee-jerk) reactions. -- Zac Δ talk!
I'm about to go on a Wikibreak, but the article is clearly written from an 'in-universe' perspective, ie most of it is written as though this is factual. That's clearly not NPOV. Please don't remove the tag again unless we get consensus that the article meets our NPOV policy. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
It is on every page Judith; as it needs to be (explained above). I suggest you make these quick checks in future before rushing to delete whole sections of page content. If you feel you are able to contribute to some of the sections that need text and references, please do -- Zac Δ talk! 17:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The information that was removed was all based on reliable sources. So why is related, explanatory content not relevant here? Does WP have a word limit which means these articles have to be blanked on a regular basis, until they present nothing of interest to anyone?
Easy way to see what the readers think is to look at the difference in page ratings. This is a fringe topic which many editors simply don't like. For the sake of time, let's assume that there will be no shortage editors approving the deletion of content. Unless an editor does something to demonstrate a real interest in improving or developing that article (ie - adding reliably sourced content to the article and not just blanking reliably sourced content from the article) reasons for suddenly coming to this page to add support for the removal of content are going to look odd to me. -- Zac Δ talk! 09:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
That could be a good approach, or a discussion on the RS noticeboard. The problem remains that no one has identified a reference that they consider unreliable. I've just taken a reference off the page to a book that listed no author. It wasn't necessary anyway because there was another good reference to the same point. I also removed the tag suggesting that the references were unreliable. This article needs work and the content here is pretty poor, but the references that are given are reliable sources to qualify the information that exists. If anyone disagrees they need to specify which point they consider to be controversial and not suffienctly supported by a verifiable reference. The sources given here are:
All the authors are well known and trusted. Although Sasha Fenton has a very good reputation I'm not sure if the Readers Digest gives coverage of the subject to a level that is sufficient to be used as a reliable source. An article published by a well known and influential astrologer in a good, reputable astrology magazine or journal should be fine, but I would rather not give reference to a popular magazine that does not have a established reputation for reliable astrological information. (Personally, I would be OK with her on the strength of her own reputation but only here because the point it is supporting is not a controversial one - it should be quite easy to replace that ref if someone wants to suggest that it is - in that case, actually, the onus is on the disputant to question the reliability of the content based on a source that is considered more reliable). -- Zac Δ talk! 10:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Everything is primary source material if you we quoting directly from the source. This only becomes an issue of definition if someone is composing a broad-perspective review on a matter that requires interpretation of meaning. If the question was "did Lilly influence the outcome of the English Civil War because of the charts he cast about it?", then WP would require us to report the views of scholars who have studied "the scientific/esoteric/religious/political thought of the English 1640s" because, as you say, that's a complex area of historical enquiry. Here we are only reporting what astrologers believe to be the correct sign associations. Most associations like this are consistently reported through all the main historical sources. Lilly's work is still widely available, and still influential, and trusted for recording reliable astrological principles. It is probably the standard reference for correlations such as this. So if anyone wants to know why this page presents an association between Scorpio and genitals, they can easily check that this reliably reports what astrologers believe by going to the page number of his text and reading it for themselves. (We could in fact use any number of reliable historical authors: Sahl, Bonatti, Raphael, Charles Carter - anyone whose work is still available and being used by contenporary astrologers as a source of reference and study into what astrologers teach and believe). -- Zac Δ talk! 12:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem you still have, Zac, is that you have not demonstrated that the statements of these authors are generally held, or even widely held, in the astrological community. What are your criteria for selecting these authors as representative, and not any of the myriad authors that say the complete opposite? The in-universe astrological literature is hopelessly inconsistent. Every one of these authors is first and foremost a self-promoter and presents themself (and is presented by their publishers) as an authoratative expert on the subject, if not THE most authoratative expert. Are you deducing "notability", "reputation" or "authority" from book covers and reviews? That would be a big mistake because they are essentially advertising, and thus we can assume that they are manipulative to the point of being useless. Forget about Google hits, too. If anything, significant coverage in third-party news outlets may be helpful as long as it is clearly not of a promotional nature. Book sales figures would be somewhat reliable, too, as long as they come from a source independent of the author or publisher. As for fanzines and pseudojournals, forget it. The fanzines are for entertainment purposes only, and the pseudojournals have a proven track record for dishonesty and are generally published by organizations that quite clearly state that they are eltist and most certainly NOT representative of the astronomcal community at large. In other words, we need SOME kind of verification from out-of-universe sources that these authors are notable or authoratative to fulfill the requirements for inclusion in WP. It's simply impossible to do this using only in-universe sources.
As for Manilius and Lilly, they are, as Judith said, primary sources and any interpretation of them has to come from reliable secondary sources, and not from in-universe sources or the interpretation of WP editors. I'd be EXTREMELY careful about quoting them.
Also, as Judith said, none of this material can be presented in WP's voice unless it comes from high-quality mainstream scholarly sources. Every single piece of information from in-universe sources has to be individually attributed in the body of the article, and it has to be made abundantly clear that they are the views of of the individual authors: "Astrologist Joanna Watters writes that....", "According to Astrologist Sasha Fenton,...", "Astrologist Deborah Houlding states that..." and so on. This is going to be stylistically clumsy in the table, but without clear and totally unambiguous attribution, there is no way to include any of this in WP.
Finally, your statement "the onus is on the disputant to question the reliability of the content based on a source that is considered more reliable" is vastly at odds with WP policy. Any material that is not backed up with reliable sources that comply with WP:RS can be remove by any WP editor with no obligation to do anything else, including finding better sourcing. The onus is solely on the editor who wishes to add or restore material. Further statements of this type will be considered a demonstration of bad faith, and could lead to a block or topic ban. Nobody has any responsibility for the material you want to add besides YOU. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 03:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Medieval, Hellenistic, and contemporary astrology are all objectively important subjects in Western culture. Like any such cultural tradition, it's going to have elements of continuity and elements that change. I do get the impression that some people would rather have every article on astrology insist that astrology is pseudoscience and superstition unworthy of your time. To take astrology is to write "in universe"; it is assumed that astrology is fiction and that astrological articles must conform to the rules of writing about fiction. This is offensive nonsense and
scientistic bias. -
Smerdis of Tlön -
killing the human spirit since 2003!
05:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
"The constellation was named by the ancient Greeks, as part of the mythology of Orion."
The constellation figure is well known in Babylonian sources. It wasn't named by the Greeks.
Also I removed the one comment on mythology earlier because it is unreferenced, is not very informative by itself - a little misrepresentative, in fact, for the editor earlier to remove all the ancient mythology references except that one, and rename this section so that it only refers to Greek mythology, as if the sign was not known and used by ancient Babylonians. Now that it has been replaced can we have a reference for it?
Also, for reference 9, can we have a page or section number? (Just referencing a book is not helpful for anyone who wants to get to the source of that information). -- Zac Δ talk! 17:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I have made a call for the WP Astrology project members to be aware of these discussions and begin the process of creating consensus-approved guidelines for the development of the series of all entries in the zodiac sign articles. The discussion is here. -- Zac Δ talk! 13:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I undid this IP's series of edits because they introduced a number of problems. Some points were made on the removal of content which were difficult to understand, and personal opinion was introduced into the Leo text, with rewrites that presented information as fact rather than astrological opinion. It also created innapropriate emphasis (for example, placing some words in full caps). It seemed simpler to undo back to a fairly non-problematic version. -- Zac Δ talk! 19:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
An excellent source is given for the scorpion-men myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh. I assume it has been correctly summarised. However, without a source explicitly linking this myth to the constellation Scorpio, it is off-topic for this article. The mention should stay out until this is found. I will make a quick search for such a source, but only quick because there are so many other issues in astrology-related articles demanding attention. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The following "in universe" text is written as if it is fact and not attributed to someone:
IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
There's something interesting about Scorpio and the Snake (zodiac), because they seem so mystifying and empowering, must be the lineage to Ophucius and the relationship about the center of the Milky Way.-- 74.34.66.148 ( talk) 18:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
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 15:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Why was the Scorpio infobox changed to the general astrology infobox while all the other western zodiac signs still remain the same? Is there some reason for this that I am missing out on? I have not found this on any talk pages. Catstorm 16:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalespeon ( talk • contribs)
Shouldn't this be included in the Scorpius page? If not, shouldn't the mythology portion go here additionally or instead of there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.98.8 ( talk) 02:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I haven't heard of barely any of these "famous" people before. WHO ARE THEY? They are all 200 years old. I'm taking them off and putting down real people. You should too.
I think the list has some value. It obviously can't be a fully representative sample - that is an impossible task. However, as an indication of the people that astrologers claim to have similar personalities I think it has a place, provided that a disclaimer is made. That is why I restored it with the intro that The list is indicative only and makes no claim to be a representative sample of all Scorpios. Neelmack 10:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I read on a website that Edgar Allan Poe was a scorpion, is that true? I can't match up his date so far with a chinese zodiac and convert to astrology, because the ones I find only go as far as early 1900's. If he is a scorpion, he would probably be a good person to add under the list, much more lastly famous than Julia Roberts, no offense to her. (I felt this didn't need a new topic made for it, so I put it here.) 70.16.152.167 ( talk) 02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It might be Wikipedially relevant to start listing notable persons who have themselves mentioned their own sign. This way we're not "outing" Scorpios, Virgos, Leos, etc. Besides, how else would we identify the sign of people on the cusp? Cybersecurityczar ( talk) 21:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
So, let me get this right: Since I was born on November 22, I'm both a Scorpio and a Sagitarius? Wikimichael22 ( talk) 15:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Wikimichael22
Or you could save a trip and just read the characteristics and see which one you are more like. You probably aren't a scorpio, they are logical enough to figure that out. No offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm1119 ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
that was hilarious!!!!!!!!! (coming from a scorpio) -jenn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.7.103 ( talk) 04:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
You're most likely Sagittarius in reality. Scorpio is Oct 22nd - Nov 20th... Since each sign is 30 days long in the autumn/winter hemisphere (30.87ish for spring/summer)... Libra starts on the equinox date "Sept 22nd" and would end on the 21st of Oct (as this is also 30 days.) Thereof Scorpio starts on the 22nd Oct. The only way you might be a scorpio is if you were born on Leap year (which is still a long shot especially without birth time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 03:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
1. Note; Routine calculations do not count as original research. 2. Other members on the other pages have rightfully pointed out we should measure from the 21st of March as we know the dates shift but disincluding the leap year fraction and precession variability presents itself as the best move. 3. From a scientific point of view, Scorpio is said to start at 207.5 degrees on this page. This is very early when atleast 30 days make up 30 degrees (365.25 est. / 360) and there are atleast 5 more days in summer. 4. Sources claim that the 22nd of October is a cusp day aswell as the 23rd and this is all dependent on year. 5. We can't really agree on what sources to use, this is all mostly a matter of different people's interpretations. 6. Scorpio dates and Sagittarius' are currently clashing by a day. 7. Lastly other members have said we should fit dates so that they do not clash. So I'm going to roll with the change and leave this here.
Based on these 7 points listed, I think it's only right to date scorpio at 22-oct - 20-nov to fit aside with sagittarius and maintain 30 days. If you happen to disagree with the figures, the sentence does state on average. Lastly; Considering Aries is starting on the 21st of March on it's page... This is well syncronised enough.
In conclusion, this is simply regarding taking a scientic approach vs a random interpretation which there are a few dates that can be selected and it gets out synced. I hope people reading this agree.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 21:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
If you did not verify that the site supports the dates you added, the verifiability policy requires that you find and cite a new source that supports your claims. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Rarely, facebook posts are allowed to be used but this facebook post denotes the exact figures stated and I'm also listing other links; you must also consider that the other figures collide with surrounding zodiac signs as previously mentioned; No links are carved in stone for giving figures as others have argued and agreed to on these pages since there are many; hence basic calculations come into the question.
https://www.facebook.com/ZodiacRdTable/posts/306540482820935
http://www.horoscopedates.com/real-dates/ - See Scorpio; Saint-Germain5 October 22 - November 20
http://www.totalbeauty.com/content/slideshows/beauty-horoscope/page8 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 23:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
AS previously mentioned, any source used is not a verifiable source as quoted by members of wikipedia to which I can agree. I haven't admitted to anything, you've inferred (without arguing a case) that the source is verifiable alone. We're not going to delete the page for lack of sources. The 2nd source I listed shows in great detail many different authors referencing different times for constellations if you would care to read them. As said to my case earlier, I took the calculous approach to settle the matter (towards a scientific basis where upon the sun would be transitting... Basic calculation not being OR as stated there within it's own policy) So no, I do not concur with respect to have been violating policy whether specific or not as there are no valid sources. We have yet to prove otherwise. 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 02:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
To all of that, I do not dispute, but a remaining question stands and hope you can analyse to reach a full agreement... what do we put inplace of all of this? Since something must be selected as we can't leave the content blank since anything put will be without consensus to a degree. I put the findings because they fit with all signs, the basic calculation simply was; The spring equinox generally starts on the 21st of march, the autumn equinox usually starts on the 22nd of september... I divided the autumn and winter signs by 6 (30 days each as the 21st of march - 22nd september backwards is 180 days) and did the same with the summer and spring signs (30.87 days in each sign but rounded to the closest day). There are currently no sources "scientifically" that give precise dates of the sun entering each constellation. This just seems the quickest and less complicated calculation available until someone can provide valid sources or an even quicker/reasoned calculation otherwise (I think anything otherwise just tends to a bias personally since an inequal distribution would be made appealing to personal belief on the matter). I request that you could give consensus to this calculation until perhaps a scientific article comes along giving more precise details. Also to note, this is all on "average" as stated in every article so room for error has been made clear. I hope you agree that I am attempting to make a pragmatic and honest approach to this. Your consent should fully resolve the issue until such sources exist. 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 20:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
hmm, you may also have to factor into consideration that for the "180 average" which was the goal division, every march 20th on a leap year still adds up to 180 days backwards to the 22nd september equinox. It's not easy to pin-point which to go on but you find that half the time currently it lands on the 21st of march and the other half the 20th. If you're going for the 180 days the best answer is the 21st considering that between equinox dates exactly and yearly (when say you do it from 2016 march backwards to 2015 september... There is on average 180 days "+ or -" 3 hours 47 minutes but I can't remember which. If the leap year day did start after febuary then we would see the estimates ranging to the 21st march and 22nd sept. I safely assume that this would be where the difference lies. The 21st of march and 22nd of september are 180 days for 3/4 of the years. We could set all these dates a day backwards but either way makes no difference is my guess. For an average, we do assume a small standard deviation sometimes I think would be fair to comment, we try to pinpoint the smallest though if possible I will add. In a sense, the 21st is more appropriate since "Year 1" of a leap year is the general starting point, and 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 00:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
My mistake, you are correct with the spring equinox being the 20th more on average. So it is a matter of which should be picked when they're seemly showing even results. As September 22nd would fit with the one current whereas March 20th fits with the alternative. I guess the fairest answer to this is examining sun-rise and sun-set times. Within the spring equinox period, an equal sun-rise is usually a day after an equinox (March 21st) whereas in autumn an equal sun-set is usually sept 22nd. There are articles on equinox's not actually determining half a day. I'll try and find it. 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 01:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Here; http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/equinox-not-equal.html 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 01:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
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) 21:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. It appears that the disambiguation page has already been edited as suggested by SnowFire. Dekimasu よ! 01:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Scorpio (astrology) →
Scorpio – The astrological sign is definitely the most common usage for "scorpio". The constellation is named
Scorpius, and all other usages are much more obscure.
Kaldari (
talk)
09:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I tried to add this: (♏) ( Greek: Σκορπιός Skorpios; Latin: Scorpius)
but I can't add it to the article because this warning "Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive.It is almost never appropriate to add emoji and other unicode icons (e.g. ♥, ☺, ☢, ☮) to Wikipedia articles. This is often an indicator of vandalism. If your edit is clearly vandalism, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.New and anonymous editors are prevented from adding such icons to Wikipedia articles. If this edit is constructive, you may report this erroneous warning or request that the edit be made at this article's talk page." comes up.
Does anyone know how to add the symbol? The other Zodiac articles have the symbols in them. I don't know why Wikipedia considers that vandalism. It's a Wikipedia error I'd say. it's falsely assuming this symbol is an emoji and or vandalism. Can someone help?-- 2601:340:4201:A8F1:20D4:D41F:112E:25F4 ( talk) 04:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The sun is actually in Libra for most of this time period. AMCKen ( talk) 02:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Numerous IP editors have been edit warring to add the sentence "Scorpio is associated with three different animals: the scorpion, the snake, and the eagle (or phoenix)." Some of the editors who reverted this complained that it lacks a reliable source. I searched the article history and found that the snake, eagle, and phoenix were first added in March 2018 by @ Kaldari: and mentions a source:
I do not have access to this source, so I can't check it. The publisher is Visible Ink Press which appears to be a reliable publisher. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
but my skepticism would mean I may cut more than required. The content could be retained under some sort of disclaimer, but I feel that a more neutral editor need consider this. I will keep an eye on these pages but will help with spelling and grammar once the course of action is decided. LessHeard vanU 23:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know enough about astrology to make any useful changes to this page at the time, but I altered a couple of the more egregious grammatical errors. Stuffed tiger ( talk) 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone please correct the following passage:
The dates that are given isn't correct. That's why if you met somebody who was supposedly born under the Scorpio constellion, but didn't exactly a Scorpio, but acted an Libra, well that's because their probably really a Libra. The dates given that were incorrect are the Conventional Sun Sign Dates, but the Real Sun Sign Dates. The real Solar Dates of an Scorpio is October 23 to November 29. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.204.36 ( talk) 13:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Due to ongoing vandalism from various IPs, which has risen to a noticable level here over the last few days, the article is semi-protected for the next week.
Please feel free to comment here or on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 00:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Astrology-online.com has already been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard and there has been agreement that the material cannot be considered reliable, as it does not associate it's claims with any known, notable astrologer. Furthermore, there are strong indications that some of the content is lifted off of elore.com, and thus probably violates copyright. To top that, the content it does originate often contradicts itself. If someone wishes to reopen the discussion, please do so on the reliable sources noticeboard. -- Nathanael Bar-Aur L. ( talk) 02:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
elore.com |
Astrology-online.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He has the right to. Nathanael, you are not an administrator. kashimjamed ( talk) 00:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
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 Scorpio. If you want to add a notable person, go there. -- Carmelita 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I got some famous people: Anne Hathaway, Winona Ryder, Mick Thomson (Slipknot), Cedric Bixler-Zavala (The Mars Volta), Gretchen Mol, Chris Jericho, Nick Lachey (lame), Vanessa Manillo (lame), Dermot Mulroney (sizzlin'), Eric Dane, Grace Kelly, Charles Manson, Neil Young, Megan Mullally, Pablo Picasso, Lisa Bonet, Martha Plimpton, Maria Shriver, Ethan Hawke, Thandie Newton,
and so many more... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.180.76 ( talk) 17:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Has it been done on purpose? I'm pretty sure they used to be longer and described associated traits and stuff. Simple English wiki has longer pages on the zodiac signs ( http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aries) Or have they just been moved or scattered around Wiki? Is there a reason? Not qualifying as 'knowledge'? Or too hazy?(Haha Cancer's talk page is way calmer than this one, hehehhe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.169.56 ( talk) 19:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
This needs to be updated to match the newest adjustments to the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.180.54 ( talk) 03:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure why but a recent edit modified the dates of Scorpio. According to all other websites I check Scorpio is November/October 87.9.204.56 ( talk) 23:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I have done a 3 day semi protect. There are a few too many anon IPs editing argumentatively lately. -- BozMo talk 13:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I have decide to complete blank the scorpio personal information since most of the info post are P.O.V (personal opinions)
Also i have noticed in the past that there are also some people making biased racist claims about this sign (examples like "Scorpio is the worse sign" ""Scorpio is the most problematic sign" etc etc). Some others they just give a citated opinion based of what 1 western famous astrologer says and believes (Not all astrologers agree with each other if you know what really is going on in the astrogolical community...)
Until there is some really neutral editing for this sign the text will stay mostly blank with only some basic info about it.
"Adoration POV characteristics" or the opposite "Hateful POV characteristics" or anything misleading about this sign will be deleted 91.138.238.198 ( talk) 14:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Now that Pluto is a "dwarf planet," will Scorpio go back to being ruled by Mars, or will it continue to be ruled by Pluto? -- Feidian 07:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree - rulership by Xena is ok with this scorpio.
I'm not so sure that things will change just because Pluto is now reclassified. After all, the Sun and Moon are classified as "planets" in astrological terms, and obviously those terms are completely wrong, scientifically. It's the astral bodies' influences that matter, not what people are calling them nowadays. I could be wrong, but that's just my two cents. Astroangie 03:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Were the astrological calculations based on the assumption that it was one large body, and hence inaccurate and should be corrected? Or were they amazingly accurate (like the Dogon with Sirius B) and we should not adjust astrology at all? Does anyone have a reliable resource for the origin of the original Mars->Pluto changeover in Scorpio rulership? (oh, she's called Eris now - Goddess of Discord? superb!) AndrewGenus 10:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Pluto, definitely. Pluto is a dark and cold planet, kind of like Scorpios. Yes, some astrologers beleive that Scorpio and Aries are a lot alike, but the astrologers who say that probably aren't Scorpios. So take it from a REAL Scorpio, the only thing that Aries and Scorpio have in common is their competitive drive, which makes them natural enemies. Sharing a planet with an enemy isin't a smart thing to do. I know this really doesn't have anything to do with science, but people today are more familiar with Pluto the DOG. And dogs, like Scorpios, are way more loveable than big-headed, quick-tempered, close-minded Aries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.186.213 ( talk) 03:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
You know, the Sun and the Moon aren't "planets" but yet they rule Leo and Cancer? So why is everyone freaking about Pluto? It's still the best "planet", whatever that is nowadays. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nm1119 (
talk •
contribs)
03:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
~I believe it is Scorpios who live in their ambitions and desires are ruled by the planet of Pluto. The eagles and Phoenixes who seek a path of spiritual transformation through suffering and strife fall under the rule of more bellicose planet of Mars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.143.82 ( talk) 04:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
why do some places, like the external sites, have scorpio (October 24 to November 22) and wikipedia (oct23 - nov22)? What's the deal?
-Well, they consider it a cusp date, along with 12 other dates, because sometimes people may add in an additional day because it's never exactly sure. However, most sources generally consider starting with the earlier dates (Oct.23rd- Nov.21) as opposed to (Oct.24- Nov.22) for example.
In response to the unqualified statement above about using Oct.23rd to Nov.21st, that actually only applies to a limited range of North American astrologers, and even the more reliable (reknowned) American ones still use an end date of Nov.22nd (check the links from the existing External Links on the wikipedia page, or Linda Goodman's books, or Astro Dienst [
[4]] for an example.
AndrewGenus
10:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Other sign's pages have a physical description of people under this sign, but this page doesn't! Could someone add it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.233.150 ( talk) 01:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
For the physical description a book is cited as the source. Unfortunately changes have been made which I think are not in the original work (the addition of 'curvy', the addition of a strange remark about blue eyes). These additions to me seem to be out of vanity; I have a sneaking suspicion people adapted the article to (better) describe themselves, but of course, I cannot prove this. Is there anyone who can tell with a bit more certainty what the characteristics of a Scorpio are, according to astrology, or who, even better, actually has the cited book at their disposal?
195.240.229.19 ( talk) 03:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
As a scorpio, i'd say that my eyes are my strongest eyes, since they're a very deep brown and even sometimes have a bit of green. The medium build sounds right for me, and even the broad shoulders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.157.253 ( talk) 23:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, not ALL physical traits will match up for ALL scorpios. I am a Scoprio and I have dark burnett, wavy/curly hair, blue-gray round eyes, thick eyebrows, my voice is a little on the high side but sometimes is comes out low, like a boys, even though i'm a girl, and I hate to admit it, but I'm on the short side. So some things, like my hair, eyebrows, voice and height is true, but my eyes are a different color. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm1119 ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I myself, as a Scorpio, posess deep penetrating eyes. My Face: I have brown wavy hair, brown eyes. My eyebrows are thick and dark (because I'm part Syrian) and have a pronounced arch. My face is a round, oval shape. My forehead is slightly flat, although not exaggerrated. My nose is slightly a Roman, with a lifted point (I give credit to my part Anglo-Saxon heritage.) My neck is strong, but it's not thick, neither too skinny. My Body: I have a medium build, medium-tall height (5' 6"--and yes, I'm a girl.) I am slightly muscular, well proportioned, hourglass-shaped and I have a sturdy frame. I do have to admit, my shoulders are slightly broad, but not signifficantly. My voice is not too high, not too deep--but I guess, shrill. Also, my biological organs work well--this corresponds to the Scorpio's role in medical astrology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.180.76 ( talk) 20:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
"Yeah, not only is the physical description lacking, but so is the signs it's supposedly compatible with. Someone please address this."
Response: Scorpio is a water sign. It is a forgone conclusion that a Scorpio will always gravitate towards another water sign. Cancer and Pisces are most compatible with Scorpio, as they are prominent water signs. Capricorn and Virgo are Earth signs and follow the water signs concerning compatibility with Scorpio. A Scorpio is also an excellent match with another Scorpio. Two Scorpios can have a very deep and complex understanding between them that only they can understand. As far as fire and air signs go, they are all a very poor match with Scorpio, encompassing squared compatibility at best (air signs), and incompatibility at worst (fire signs). There is great tension between a water sign and a fire sign, and an air sign compliments a fire sign the way an Earth sign compliments a water sign.
NO, NOT TURE! Why does everyone think that Water signs are most compatable with other Water Signs?!? Just because they have a lot in common doesn't mean that they are the best match. Astrology and compatabliliteis are like puzzle pieces. You have to find the match that fits, the one that has the sides that you don't have. You can't create a whole puzzle with just 2 equal pieces. Water signs may get bored with how emotional and senistive each other can be. They need someone to bring them down to EARTH, not make them get caught up in more sensitivity and endless emotions. I'm driving myself crazy just by thinking about it! And same with earth signs. Earth needs water to grow. Water + plant = pretty flower. It's simple kindergarten junk! Not a match you up with a person wo has the same things in common with you high school valentine's dance survey! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm1119 ( talk • contribs) 03:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
My best friend of nine years is a fellow Scorpio. We have a bond, never have gotten into a really bad fight. Our minds work the same way. We always agree on something. We have the same sense of humor, and we are both very intelligent. I've been great friends with a Pisces in the past. I am very influenced by Virgo. My mother, sister, ex-best friend, and crush are all Virgo. I work well with Virgos and am very familiar with them. In general, I'm just comfortable around them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.180.76 ( talk) 21:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
FISH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.106.170 ( talk) 18:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I came on to this topic too see the names of the stars which comprise Scorpio. Is this a valid heading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.64.219 ( talk) 22:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
(this counts for every sign article!)
First, I think the difference should be noted in these articles that signs are 'romantically compatible' with trine signs of their own element, while only 'complimentary' to those of 60 and 180 degree aspects.
Second, more emphasis should be placed on the potency of ninety degree square aspects. The pair of respective polar signs have the power to transform the individual of a given sign, depending on which diverging path he or she chooses to follow. Water/Fire and Air/Earth pairings represent mutual self-realization on the level of individual potential, while Air/Water and Fire/Earth pairings represent a potent cosmic alliance between two individuals who share the same unique power to reshape the universe.
There has been a major update on the compatability between the scorpion and other signs. I have done my best to be clear and concise though my grammer sometimes may be a little run of the mill. It was a bit of an undertaking though I believe the infromation provided is useful and may be translated into all of the other Zodiac relationships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christineadsherry ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think detailed discussion of the 8th house is off-topic for this article. What do you guys think? Maybe it should be moved? -- Nathanael Bar-Aur L. ( talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with Mr Nathanael is that loves to act like a self proclaimed Administrator here in wikipedia and deleting even reliable sources from other members that contradict his own personal beliefs (or his friends) from his picked sources and i am not talking only about deleting Astrology-online but other sources too that i citated and Mr Nathanael try to delete them with some unjustified cheap excuse....
Here is one example below of Mr Nathanael bossy behavior here in wikipedia from the Scorpio History page when i contributed a reliable source from Kelli Fox (A professional Astrologer as i clearly pointed him with a url of her homepage)
SCORPIO (ASTROLOGY) HISTORY PAGE:
|
FROM WHEN WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT ALLOW SOURCES FROM "NOT-ENOUGH" FAMOUS PROFESSIONALS as Mr Nathaniel stated to me in the Scorpio history page??
From when Mr Nathaniel became our boss and a judge here in wikipedia ??
--
SotosfromGreece (
talk)
18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are all of the same element "generally compatible"? That doesn't make any sense. Slowish guitar ( talk) 16:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Does this need to be updated in light of the new Zodiac sign dates, or is nobody in the Zodiac community taking those seriously? http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/13/horoscope-hang-up-earth-rotation-changes-zodiac-signs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Frederick ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Editors ItsmeJudith and Johnuniq have removed this material without justifying its removal. The objection seems to be based only on the fact that it uses templated information. However, the use of this template has been formerly discussed, so it shouldn't be removed again without proper discussion which establishes that it is in the interests of the article to remove it.
The information establishes the distinction between the tropical sign of the western zodiac and the sidereal sign of the Indian zodiac, and the constellation Scorpio. This information is directly relevant to the article and leads into the detail about the different dates, having explained why those differences exist, and the arguments that lie behind the sign differentiations.
Most readers will come to these pages to read about their own sign. We cannot give them two different sets of dates without explaining why there are different dates involved, and how alternative schemes offer different perspectives. So we need that information on each page because it is necessary for each sign. It is not the case that information presented on one page of WP cannot be presented again on another page where the same information is also relevant. We do template information, and we do aim for consistancy of approach across articles that are part of a connected series. Also, we should not direct them to the zodiac page for the information because that is necessarily detailed content, whereas what is presented here is summary information of zodiac issues that are relevant here (a see further link might be useful, however).
The reason for using a template is that if there is need to change the content presented, one agreed change is easily implemented across the 12 pages, whilst each is also showing the information on the dates that are specific to that sign. 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. This information is one step towards giving a little more than just what the sun-sign writers have to say -- Zac Δ talk! 00:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I've suggested we relax a little, because when things are 'tight' it's not easy to recognise the best solutions. So although I have some comments that I would like to make in response to that, I think it will be better to get this discussion going on the astrology project page and keep the issues together there. I'll come back and add a link to the discussion (it may not be immediately because I need to go out, but I'll do it as a priority). Perhaps I should add that I had it in mind to add some extra references, but for now I think that would be unwise. I'm sure we're all comfortable with the idea of developing or amending content in line with consensus generated to make sure the content is reliable and informative. Tensions arise when editors don't know the boundaries or understand the motives for content being added or deleted. So if we need to slow this down a little we should, because considered responses/content changes are usually more helpful in complex situations than immediate (possibly knee-jerk) reactions. -- Zac Δ talk!
I'm about to go on a Wikibreak, but the article is clearly written from an 'in-universe' perspective, ie most of it is written as though this is factual. That's clearly not NPOV. Please don't remove the tag again unless we get consensus that the article meets our NPOV policy. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
It is on every page Judith; as it needs to be (explained above). I suggest you make these quick checks in future before rushing to delete whole sections of page content. If you feel you are able to contribute to some of the sections that need text and references, please do -- Zac Δ talk! 17:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The information that was removed was all based on reliable sources. So why is related, explanatory content not relevant here? Does WP have a word limit which means these articles have to be blanked on a regular basis, until they present nothing of interest to anyone?
Easy way to see what the readers think is to look at the difference in page ratings. This is a fringe topic which many editors simply don't like. For the sake of time, let's assume that there will be no shortage editors approving the deletion of content. Unless an editor does something to demonstrate a real interest in improving or developing that article (ie - adding reliably sourced content to the article and not just blanking reliably sourced content from the article) reasons for suddenly coming to this page to add support for the removal of content are going to look odd to me. -- Zac Δ talk! 09:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
That could be a good approach, or a discussion on the RS noticeboard. The problem remains that no one has identified a reference that they consider unreliable. I've just taken a reference off the page to a book that listed no author. It wasn't necessary anyway because there was another good reference to the same point. I also removed the tag suggesting that the references were unreliable. This article needs work and the content here is pretty poor, but the references that are given are reliable sources to qualify the information that exists. If anyone disagrees they need to specify which point they consider to be controversial and not suffienctly supported by a verifiable reference. The sources given here are:
All the authors are well known and trusted. Although Sasha Fenton has a very good reputation I'm not sure if the Readers Digest gives coverage of the subject to a level that is sufficient to be used as a reliable source. An article published by a well known and influential astrologer in a good, reputable astrology magazine or journal should be fine, but I would rather not give reference to a popular magazine that does not have a established reputation for reliable astrological information. (Personally, I would be OK with her on the strength of her own reputation but only here because the point it is supporting is not a controversial one - it should be quite easy to replace that ref if someone wants to suggest that it is - in that case, actually, the onus is on the disputant to question the reliability of the content based on a source that is considered more reliable). -- Zac Δ talk! 10:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Everything is primary source material if you we quoting directly from the source. This only becomes an issue of definition if someone is composing a broad-perspective review on a matter that requires interpretation of meaning. If the question was "did Lilly influence the outcome of the English Civil War because of the charts he cast about it?", then WP would require us to report the views of scholars who have studied "the scientific/esoteric/religious/political thought of the English 1640s" because, as you say, that's a complex area of historical enquiry. Here we are only reporting what astrologers believe to be the correct sign associations. Most associations like this are consistently reported through all the main historical sources. Lilly's work is still widely available, and still influential, and trusted for recording reliable astrological principles. It is probably the standard reference for correlations such as this. So if anyone wants to know why this page presents an association between Scorpio and genitals, they can easily check that this reliably reports what astrologers believe by going to the page number of his text and reading it for themselves. (We could in fact use any number of reliable historical authors: Sahl, Bonatti, Raphael, Charles Carter - anyone whose work is still available and being used by contenporary astrologers as a source of reference and study into what astrologers teach and believe). -- Zac Δ talk! 12:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem you still have, Zac, is that you have not demonstrated that the statements of these authors are generally held, or even widely held, in the astrological community. What are your criteria for selecting these authors as representative, and not any of the myriad authors that say the complete opposite? The in-universe astrological literature is hopelessly inconsistent. Every one of these authors is first and foremost a self-promoter and presents themself (and is presented by their publishers) as an authoratative expert on the subject, if not THE most authoratative expert. Are you deducing "notability", "reputation" or "authority" from book covers and reviews? That would be a big mistake because they are essentially advertising, and thus we can assume that they are manipulative to the point of being useless. Forget about Google hits, too. If anything, significant coverage in third-party news outlets may be helpful as long as it is clearly not of a promotional nature. Book sales figures would be somewhat reliable, too, as long as they come from a source independent of the author or publisher. As for fanzines and pseudojournals, forget it. The fanzines are for entertainment purposes only, and the pseudojournals have a proven track record for dishonesty and are generally published by organizations that quite clearly state that they are eltist and most certainly NOT representative of the astronomcal community at large. In other words, we need SOME kind of verification from out-of-universe sources that these authors are notable or authoratative to fulfill the requirements for inclusion in WP. It's simply impossible to do this using only in-universe sources.
As for Manilius and Lilly, they are, as Judith said, primary sources and any interpretation of them has to come from reliable secondary sources, and not from in-universe sources or the interpretation of WP editors. I'd be EXTREMELY careful about quoting them.
Also, as Judith said, none of this material can be presented in WP's voice unless it comes from high-quality mainstream scholarly sources. Every single piece of information from in-universe sources has to be individually attributed in the body of the article, and it has to be made abundantly clear that they are the views of of the individual authors: "Astrologist Joanna Watters writes that....", "According to Astrologist Sasha Fenton,...", "Astrologist Deborah Houlding states that..." and so on. This is going to be stylistically clumsy in the table, but without clear and totally unambiguous attribution, there is no way to include any of this in WP.
Finally, your statement "the onus is on the disputant to question the reliability of the content based on a source that is considered more reliable" is vastly at odds with WP policy. Any material that is not backed up with reliable sources that comply with WP:RS can be remove by any WP editor with no obligation to do anything else, including finding better sourcing. The onus is solely on the editor who wishes to add or restore material. Further statements of this type will be considered a demonstration of bad faith, and could lead to a block or topic ban. Nobody has any responsibility for the material you want to add besides YOU. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 03:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Medieval, Hellenistic, and contemporary astrology are all objectively important subjects in Western culture. Like any such cultural tradition, it's going to have elements of continuity and elements that change. I do get the impression that some people would rather have every article on astrology insist that astrology is pseudoscience and superstition unworthy of your time. To take astrology is to write "in universe"; it is assumed that astrology is fiction and that astrological articles must conform to the rules of writing about fiction. This is offensive nonsense and
scientistic bias. -
Smerdis of Tlön -
killing the human spirit since 2003!
05:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
"The constellation was named by the ancient Greeks, as part of the mythology of Orion."
The constellation figure is well known in Babylonian sources. It wasn't named by the Greeks.
Also I removed the one comment on mythology earlier because it is unreferenced, is not very informative by itself - a little misrepresentative, in fact, for the editor earlier to remove all the ancient mythology references except that one, and rename this section so that it only refers to Greek mythology, as if the sign was not known and used by ancient Babylonians. Now that it has been replaced can we have a reference for it?
Also, for reference 9, can we have a page or section number? (Just referencing a book is not helpful for anyone who wants to get to the source of that information). -- Zac Δ talk! 17:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I have made a call for the WP Astrology project members to be aware of these discussions and begin the process of creating consensus-approved guidelines for the development of the series of all entries in the zodiac sign articles. The discussion is here. -- Zac Δ talk! 13:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I undid this IP's series of edits because they introduced a number of problems. Some points were made on the removal of content which were difficult to understand, and personal opinion was introduced into the Leo text, with rewrites that presented information as fact rather than astrological opinion. It also created innapropriate emphasis (for example, placing some words in full caps). It seemed simpler to undo back to a fairly non-problematic version. -- Zac Δ talk! 19:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
An excellent source is given for the scorpion-men myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh. I assume it has been correctly summarised. However, without a source explicitly linking this myth to the constellation Scorpio, it is off-topic for this article. The mention should stay out until this is found. I will make a quick search for such a source, but only quick because there are so many other issues in astrology-related articles demanding attention. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The following "in universe" text is written as if it is fact and not attributed to someone:
IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
There's something interesting about Scorpio and the Snake (zodiac), because they seem so mystifying and empowering, must be the lineage to Ophucius and the relationship about the center of the Milky Way.-- 74.34.66.148 ( talk) 18:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
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 15:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Why was the Scorpio infobox changed to the general astrology infobox while all the other western zodiac signs still remain the same? Is there some reason for this that I am missing out on? I have not found this on any talk pages. Catstorm 16:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalespeon ( talk • contribs)
Shouldn't this be included in the Scorpius page? If not, shouldn't the mythology portion go here additionally or instead of there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.98.8 ( talk) 02:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I haven't heard of barely any of these "famous" people before. WHO ARE THEY? They are all 200 years old. I'm taking them off and putting down real people. You should too.
I think the list has some value. It obviously can't be a fully representative sample - that is an impossible task. However, as an indication of the people that astrologers claim to have similar personalities I think it has a place, provided that a disclaimer is made. That is why I restored it with the intro that The list is indicative only and makes no claim to be a representative sample of all Scorpios. Neelmack 10:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I read on a website that Edgar Allan Poe was a scorpion, is that true? I can't match up his date so far with a chinese zodiac and convert to astrology, because the ones I find only go as far as early 1900's. If he is a scorpion, he would probably be a good person to add under the list, much more lastly famous than Julia Roberts, no offense to her. (I felt this didn't need a new topic made for it, so I put it here.) 70.16.152.167 ( talk) 02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It might be Wikipedially relevant to start listing notable persons who have themselves mentioned their own sign. This way we're not "outing" Scorpios, Virgos, Leos, etc. Besides, how else would we identify the sign of people on the cusp? Cybersecurityczar ( talk) 21:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
So, let me get this right: Since I was born on November 22, I'm both a Scorpio and a Sagitarius? Wikimichael22 ( talk) 15:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Wikimichael22
Or you could save a trip and just read the characteristics and see which one you are more like. You probably aren't a scorpio, they are logical enough to figure that out. No offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm1119 ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
that was hilarious!!!!!!!!! (coming from a scorpio) -jenn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.7.103 ( talk) 04:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
You're most likely Sagittarius in reality. Scorpio is Oct 22nd - Nov 20th... Since each sign is 30 days long in the autumn/winter hemisphere (30.87ish for spring/summer)... Libra starts on the equinox date "Sept 22nd" and would end on the 21st of Oct (as this is also 30 days.) Thereof Scorpio starts on the 22nd Oct. The only way you might be a scorpio is if you were born on Leap year (which is still a long shot especially without birth time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 03:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
1. Note; Routine calculations do not count as original research. 2. Other members on the other pages have rightfully pointed out we should measure from the 21st of March as we know the dates shift but disincluding the leap year fraction and precession variability presents itself as the best move. 3. From a scientific point of view, Scorpio is said to start at 207.5 degrees on this page. This is very early when atleast 30 days make up 30 degrees (365.25 est. / 360) and there are atleast 5 more days in summer. 4. Sources claim that the 22nd of October is a cusp day aswell as the 23rd and this is all dependent on year. 5. We can't really agree on what sources to use, this is all mostly a matter of different people's interpretations. 6. Scorpio dates and Sagittarius' are currently clashing by a day. 7. Lastly other members have said we should fit dates so that they do not clash. So I'm going to roll with the change and leave this here.
Based on these 7 points listed, I think it's only right to date scorpio at 22-oct - 20-nov to fit aside with sagittarius and maintain 30 days. If you happen to disagree with the figures, the sentence does state on average. Lastly; Considering Aries is starting on the 21st of March on it's page... This is well syncronised enough.
In conclusion, this is simply regarding taking a scientic approach vs a random interpretation which there are a few dates that can be selected and it gets out synced. I hope people reading this agree.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 21:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
If you did not verify that the site supports the dates you added, the verifiability policy requires that you find and cite a new source that supports your claims. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Rarely, facebook posts are allowed to be used but this facebook post denotes the exact figures stated and I'm also listing other links; you must also consider that the other figures collide with surrounding zodiac signs as previously mentioned; No links are carved in stone for giving figures as others have argued and agreed to on these pages since there are many; hence basic calculations come into the question.
https://www.facebook.com/ZodiacRdTable/posts/306540482820935
http://www.horoscopedates.com/real-dates/ - See Scorpio; Saint-Germain5 October 22 - November 20
http://www.totalbeauty.com/content/slideshows/beauty-horoscope/page8 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 23:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
AS previously mentioned, any source used is not a verifiable source as quoted by members of wikipedia to which I can agree. I haven't admitted to anything, you've inferred (without arguing a case) that the source is verifiable alone. We're not going to delete the page for lack of sources. The 2nd source I listed shows in great detail many different authors referencing different times for constellations if you would care to read them. As said to my case earlier, I took the calculous approach to settle the matter (towards a scientific basis where upon the sun would be transitting... Basic calculation not being OR as stated there within it's own policy) So no, I do not concur with respect to have been violating policy whether specific or not as there are no valid sources. We have yet to prove otherwise. 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 02:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
To all of that, I do not dispute, but a remaining question stands and hope you can analyse to reach a full agreement... what do we put inplace of all of this? Since something must be selected as we can't leave the content blank since anything put will be without consensus to a degree. I put the findings because they fit with all signs, the basic calculation simply was; The spring equinox generally starts on the 21st of march, the autumn equinox usually starts on the 22nd of september... I divided the autumn and winter signs by 6 (30 days each as the 21st of march - 22nd september backwards is 180 days) and did the same with the summer and spring signs (30.87 days in each sign but rounded to the closest day). There are currently no sources "scientifically" that give precise dates of the sun entering each constellation. This just seems the quickest and less complicated calculation available until someone can provide valid sources or an even quicker/reasoned calculation otherwise (I think anything otherwise just tends to a bias personally since an inequal distribution would be made appealing to personal belief on the matter). I request that you could give consensus to this calculation until perhaps a scientific article comes along giving more precise details. Also to note, this is all on "average" as stated in every article so room for error has been made clear. I hope you agree that I am attempting to make a pragmatic and honest approach to this. Your consent should fully resolve the issue until such sources exist. 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 20:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
hmm, you may also have to factor into consideration that for the "180 average" which was the goal division, every march 20th on a leap year still adds up to 180 days backwards to the 22nd september equinox. It's not easy to pin-point which to go on but you find that half the time currently it lands on the 21st of march and the other half the 20th. If you're going for the 180 days the best answer is the 21st considering that between equinox dates exactly and yearly (when say you do it from 2016 march backwards to 2015 september... There is on average 180 days "+ or -" 3 hours 47 minutes but I can't remember which. If the leap year day did start after febuary then we would see the estimates ranging to the 21st march and 22nd sept. I safely assume that this would be where the difference lies. The 21st of march and 22nd of september are 180 days for 3/4 of the years. We could set all these dates a day backwards but either way makes no difference is my guess. For an average, we do assume a small standard deviation sometimes I think would be fair to comment, we try to pinpoint the smallest though if possible I will add. In a sense, the 21st is more appropriate since "Year 1" of a leap year is the general starting point, and 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 00:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
My mistake, you are correct with the spring equinox being the 20th more on average. So it is a matter of which should be picked when they're seemly showing even results. As September 22nd would fit with the one current whereas March 20th fits with the alternative. I guess the fairest answer to this is examining sun-rise and sun-set times. Within the spring equinox period, an equal sun-rise is usually a day after an equinox (March 21st) whereas in autumn an equal sun-set is usually sept 22nd. There are articles on equinox's not actually determining half a day. I'll try and find it. 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 01:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Here; http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/equinox-not-equal.html 94.15.239.239 ( talk) 01:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
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) 21:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. It appears that the disambiguation page has already been edited as suggested by SnowFire. Dekimasu よ! 01:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Scorpio (astrology) →
Scorpio – The astrological sign is definitely the most common usage for "scorpio". The constellation is named
Scorpius, and all other usages are much more obscure.
Kaldari (
talk)
09:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I tried to add this: (♏) ( Greek: Σκορπιός Skorpios; Latin: Scorpius)
but I can't add it to the article because this warning "Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive.It is almost never appropriate to add emoji and other unicode icons (e.g. ♥, ☺, ☢, ☮) to Wikipedia articles. This is often an indicator of vandalism. If your edit is clearly vandalism, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.New and anonymous editors are prevented from adding such icons to Wikipedia articles. If this edit is constructive, you may report this erroneous warning or request that the edit be made at this article's talk page." comes up.
Does anyone know how to add the symbol? The other Zodiac articles have the symbols in them. I don't know why Wikipedia considers that vandalism. It's a Wikipedia error I'd say. it's falsely assuming this symbol is an emoji and or vandalism. Can someone help?-- 2601:340:4201:A8F1:20D4:D41F:112E:25F4 ( talk) 04:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The sun is actually in Libra for most of this time period. AMCKen ( talk) 02:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Numerous IP editors have been edit warring to add the sentence "Scorpio is associated with three different animals: the scorpion, the snake, and the eagle (or phoenix)." Some of the editors who reverted this complained that it lacks a reliable source. I searched the article history and found that the snake, eagle, and phoenix were first added in March 2018 by @ Kaldari: and mentions a source:
I do not have access to this source, so I can't check it. The publisher is Visible Ink Press which appears to be a reliable publisher. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)