Talk:Planets in astrology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astrology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Contradiction[edit]

According to the section "Other solar system bodies" it states that Ceres, Pallas, and Vesta are visible to the naked eye. According to the Ceres article, this is untrue (6.5 Apparent Magnitude is required to be visible to the naked eye under perfect conditions--remember, lower is brighter). Both Pallas and Vesta are right on the edge of the visible scale (and most of the time, are invisible-check the ranges of their apparent magnitude).... This is misleading. It should be changed. Chris b shanks (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The need to be NPOV towards astrology[edit]

The Holy Bible tells us astrology and other forms of fortunetelling are wrong. But since Wikipedia aims to be NPOV, and not religious, and astrology is an important part of culture, the astrological significance of each planet deserves to be in the individual article on each planet as much as its associations with Greek mythology and modern science fiction.

In the interest of NPOV, I would support deletion of this page provided that the corresponding paragraphs in the articles on individual planets be fleshed out to be informative on the cultural impact of astrological symbolism on literature and philosophy. Robert Happelberg 15:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are many different astrological traditions, and including only one of them would be a form of POV in itself. Furthermore, even within a single astrological tradition there are many different interpretations. Entire books have been written, and it is easy to foresee that this information on astrology could expand rapidly.
With planets, there is already a great deal of information to cover for astronomy and space probe exploration. Each planet page is already quite large. In the case of something which we can easily foresee will expand considerably (or could even be the subject of edit wars by disagreeing astrologers), it is best for it to have its own separate article (and in time there could be Mars in astrology, Jupiter in astrology, etc).
See for instance Mars in fiction, which was spun off into its own article because it is too large. -- Curps 16:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The "article is too large" argument might hold water for Mars (no pun intended) but it doesn't for some of the other planets. Yes, plenty of books have been written, but when I look to Wikipedia for an article on the planet, say, Neptune, I'm not looking for an in-depth treatise of what does it mean for a Capricorn's love life when Neptune is at 47 degrees. I'm looking for a broad sketch. In astrology, Venus has something to do with love, right? What's wrong with telling me that? Is there a tradition of astrology that says Venus is about financial planning? So the "there are many different astrological traditions" argument doesn't convince me either. ShutterBugTrekker 19:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The name "Venus" (goddess of love) is only associated with the planet in Western languages. In Chinese, for instance, it's "Gold Star" (and Mars is "Fire Star" and Mercury is "Water Star"). So planet Venus = love is Eurocentric POV.
There is also an issue of verifiability (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Even within Western astrology I suspect there will be differences of opinion and interpretation. Is there any authoritative international body for astrology equivalent to astronomy's International Astronomical Union? Can we be sure that what is written is not just one person's POV, but represents a broad consensus among most astrologers, and can you cite sources for this? The rest of the main Mars page strives to be as authoritative and exact as possible, so any astrology section within the page itself would need to be held to the same standard.
Giving planets in astrology its own article may be a bit pre-emptive
"May be a bit pre-emptive"? Gee, you think? When "Moons of Uranus" was given its own article, the main Uranus article still had a few sentences on the subtopic. When Urixhidur and you removed the astrology content you both grudgingly left only a link. What do you think this looks like to someone who likes astrology? Can you blame them for thinking that astrology is being marginalized? I don't like it when this kind of thing is done to topics I like (like Star Trek), and it would be hypocritical of me to let it happen to other topics. ShutterBugTrekker 16:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
since the existing entries were only a single paragraph, but it can reasonably be foreseen that a lot more can and will be added (given the large selection of astrological literature out there), and the main pages are already quite large. And each separate astrological tradition (Western, Chinese, etc) could be quite different and would probably need its own paragraph or so.
-- Curps 20:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Verifiability is not an issue, Curps. See how easily you verified ShutterBug's Venus-love comment in order to impeach him on POV? All the European and American traditions of astrology, in "a broad sketch", are all the same. You mentioned the only other real major astrology tradition, Chinese astrology. If there's Korean astrology, it's probably almost the same thing. There is nothing wrong with the article on the planet giving that "broad sketch" and the article on planets in astrology delving deeper.
The real issue is credibility. You seem to think that the mere mention of astrology will instantly and completely destroy the credibility of Wikipedia. If it was up to you, the articles on planets would not have any mention of astrology whatsoever. Giving a little link to a page which you and Urixhidur consider an "icky page", a place to try to hide away that icky pseudoscience stuff is the second best thing for which you will settle for, but not many people feel strongly enough about astrology to go into an edit war over it. It's not something I would like others to see in my list of contributions. How about deleting the page on Johannes Kepler while we're at it? Anton Mravcek 16:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. Verifying the meaning of Venus in Chinese is as simple as spending a few seconds looking it up in a dictionary (actually, I happened to know this factoid already). There's no room for interpretation, it's a simple dictionary definition. On the other hand, verifying that a given astrological interpretation is a widely accepted consensus among the astrological community would require a lot more research (for me, anyway... perhaps you are much more familiar with the subject). I wondered if there was indeed such a consensus, and what widely accepted sources could be used to verify it. Can you provide references (preferably online)?
Wikipedia has a large Astrology article, no one is clamoring for its removal.
As it currently stands, it's not just a "little link" in "See also", it has a section header with a "main article" link.
-- Curps 20:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So why are you unwilling to let someone who knows more about the subject write about it? Alan Leo's book What is a Horoscope? is considered fairly authoritative, and I wrote what I knew from it only to see it removed by you the very next minute. That was very annoying, and that's not an annoyance I'm going to put up with for something I don't even believe in. Robert Happelberg 21:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your motivation. In your original paragraph you wrote "the Holy Bible tells us astrology is wrong", yet here are saying that you are an expert on astrology although you don't believe in it and stating that you are the original anonymous-IP author of the section in question, which you did not disclose at the outset. I am not accusing you of trolling, but am a little mystified. Your text in any was preserved at planets in astrology.
The anonymous author's text was preserved, not Bob Happelberg's version which gives the very kind of sources that Urixhidur was pretending didn't exist. ShutterBugTrekker 16:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You didn't address the issue. Let me rephrase... if I read the horoscope of the day for a given astrological sign, two different astrologers can give very different horoscopes.
Venus trines Saturn. Two different astrologers in America might interpret it differently, but you can be damn sure they will both say something about love and something about old age (or maybe long-term planning). ShutterBugTrekker 16:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So I suspect that two different books by equally well-known astrologers might give different information about the astrological significance of the planet Mars. This is why I asked if there is a verifiable consensus, and asked for references. You mention Alan Leo... browsing through Amazon.com I noticed Edgar Cayce's Secrets of Astrology: Planets, Signs, Aspects and Sojourns, and various other books come up during a search on "astrology planets". Do most of these books all agree on the significance of each planet or are there broad differences, as there are for different horoscopes? This is what I meant by verifiability. -- Curps 22:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, I am not "the original anonymous-IP author of the section in question," though what he/she wrote pretty much agrees with the concensus of Western astrologers. You might notice that my spelling is a lot better, and I tried to oblige Urixhidur's request for sources by quoting Alan Leo.
And no, I'm not an astrology expert either, but I think the basics of astrology, which are derived from Greek mythology, are such basic knowledge items that Wikipedia should have them. I've not read Edgar Cayce's book, but I'm sure that if you generalize it enough, it will say pretty much the same things as Alan Leo's book, the same things as "the original anonymous-IP author" and the same things as Gustav Holst's orchestral suite The Planets.
It seems to me that such extremely basic knowledge items ought to be in the planet articles, but I'm not going to be the one to put them back in as I don't feel like getting into an edit war with you. I gotta be going to the synagogue now. Robert Happelberg 23:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I will restore these items and alert astrologers. ShutterBugTrekker 16:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's interesting that both you and Robert Happelberg say that you don't actually believe in astrology. And now I see from your contributions that you are posting to various talk pages, trying to recruit an army for an edit war. This is not exactly a good faith attempt at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In fact, it makes a compromise more difficult because nobody likes to give the appearance of backing down in the face of an implied threat. Nevertheless, I'd prefer to avoid such an edit war. -- Curps 22:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
One book (Alan Leo's) is not enough (and you need to put it in this page's refs, by the way). As the collected articles on this page show so far, the "planets in astrology" consists of broad, unsubstantiated statements. And I'm not talking about the scientific validity of astromancy (which is nil but is not the point here), I'm talking about the historical research. We need sources by historians, tracing the development of astrological ideas from their beginnings. I'd love to see bits about the astrology that the Ancient Egyptians practiced, for example --because their constellations were utterly different from the Graeco-Roman ones we now use.
To give a practical example, let's take « Mercury is the ruling planet of Gemini and Virgo ». Who decided this, and when? That's the kind of scholarship we need here.
Now, if some think that simply referring from the planet page to this page is "not enough" (it is in no way demeaning), a summary of this page's entry could and should appear in the planet page. But right now the content is too weak, in my opinion.
Urhixidur 02:05, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
So your opinion is enough to overrule the countless references that are available just by taking a walk down to a library or bookstore?
Thanks goodness Wikipedia has such wonderful Grand Self-Appointed Guardians! I think I will appoint myself a Grand Self-Appointed Guardian of Wikipedia right now!
My first act as a Grand Self-Appointed Guardian of Wikipedia will be remove all statements that the month of February hath 28 days. It's just not verifiable. There are so many different calendars, almanacs, encyclopedic dictionaries, books on astronomy, books on astrology and they all have different opinions on how many days February hath. Is it 28 or 29? They can't make up their minds!
That was extremely convincing. But just in case there is anyone out there who is not convinced, I have another argument. Saying that February hath 28 days is a POV that is offensive to anyone of Swedish ancestry. It doesn't matter that the rest of the world thinks February hath 28 or 29 days.
I probably won't be able to effect a complete removal. But I will settle for relegating all mention of this "icky" fact to a page I will call "Icky theories of Benjamin Franklin."
Anton Mravcek 19:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've learned something today. I had never heard of February 30 before. Thanks, Anton. Robert Happelberg 15:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's impossible to respond to your comments, because I can't figure out what you're trying to say. -- Curps 20:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps your knowledge of sarcasm is on par with your knowledge of astrology. Robert Happelberg 15:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that each planet should have its own page dedicated to its symbolic meaning. When the need arises (i.e. when there's enough material included in Wikipedia), this article can of course be separated in two or more (e.g. Venus (astrology), Venus (literary symbol), Venus (psychological symbol) etc.). However, for now I see no need to crumble the information in such a way. It is enough to have separate articles about symbolic meanings of different planets.

A sentence or two about the astrological meaning of each planet should also be preserved on this page, simply because this offers a very convenient way of finding information in Wikipedia. A line about symbolic meanings of planets can of course and should be included also in the "main" page about the planet. (e.g. For symbolic meaning of Venus see "Venus (symbolic meaning)").

As for the sources about astrology, I believe that as in other areas also there are high quality articles and those that are not worth reading. The information good enough to be included in a high quality encyclopedia (like we strive to make Wikipedia), can be gathered by cross-checking different authoritative sources. There are some links which may make this work easier:

Just take a look and decide what is worth to include in Wikipedia. Perhaps I should remind you that you can also google a little bit more or read a book or a journal about astrology (there are definitely many sources on this topic) or send an e-mail to an astrologist or do whatever you find useful. You know that. ;) Eleassar777 11:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "bible" of astrology, supposed POV of article[edit]

My source is the astronomy textbook Voyages Through The Universe, second edition, by Andrew Fraknoi, David Morrison & Sidney Wolff, ISBN 0-03-025983-5. Beginning at the end of page 27: "As famous for his astrology as for his astronomy, Ptolemy compiled the Tetrabiblos, a treatise on astrology that remains the "bible" of the subject. It is essentially this ancient religion, older than Christianity or Islam, that is still practiced by today's astrologers." The vast majority of astrologers of the Western world then follow Ptolemy in his interpretation of the planets known in his time.

From the discussion above, it appears that the only other really major tradition of astrology is Chinese astrology, and to cry POV just because it's shortchanged in an early draft of the article is a bit much. Later drafts will properly elaborate it, I'm sure. Dmetric 16:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Actually, the most vibrant and active tradition in astrology today is found in India, not China. The Hindu, or Vedic, astrology practiced there is called Jyotish, which means "Light". Most people in India (pop. over 1.1 billion) and in the Indian diaspora still lead their lives by it and would not dream of making any major decision without consulting their astrologer. There are many authoritative (and ancient) texts on the subject, mostly in Sanskrit, though some have been translated into English and other Western languages, as well as modern Indian tongues, such as Hindi. A notable example is Brhad Parasara Hora Sastra, by Parashara, reputedly the last of the Vedic sages. Traditionally, this treatise was written before 3102 BC. Alvahir (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Sun and the Moon are not planets[edit]

As the Sun and the Moon are not planets, I moved the article under a new heading: "Solar system in astrology". If this does not suffice, there are also other celestial bodies in our solar system that have astrological meanings in different cultures. --Eleassar777 09:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

That needs qualification; the Sun and Moon are not planets in modern astronomical parlance --but they were considered "planets" (wanderers) in ancient astronomy and, consequently, astrology.\
Urhixidur 15:25, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
And, I believe the opposite is true of the Earth. Georgia guy 15:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Astronomy and astrology aren't the same. It doesn't matter what they are astronomically, they are planets astrologically and always will be. Pluto also. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What about comets? --Eleassar777 09:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

They were thought to be atmospheric, hence non-astrological. In 1577, Tycho Brahe compared observations from different points on Earth and proved that the comet being observed lay well outside the atmosphere.
Urhixidur 13:57, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
broom-star, and that is a POV comment that is Western-centric. 132.205.44.128 03:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

More Conclusive[edit]

Umm, I like the article, I like the idea behind it, a few problems though. I don't like the constant refference to Alan Leo all the time, hes not exactly the best know astrologer or the most reliable. It would probably be wiser to go with someone older or more known in the field rather then just a random theosophist. Especialy since he is just repeating what was already said about astrology before, I always stress source material.

also you bring up Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, but then you never given another astrological refference of Ptolemy, Would be awesome to see that.

third, you give no refferences for your chinese astrology, Personaly, I find this a difficult topic to get information on without knowing chinese fluently. But i'm sure you can scourge something up

the non-classical planets are given mystical refferences without any real reason and is more then highly conjectural.

In conclusion, I like the idea, but needs some more work, keep it up. Jaynus _Izanagi 20:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Leo's book[edit]

Undue prominence is given to how a single book refers to various parts of the solar system. The book is not significant enough to warrent this, and so this constitutes POV and spam. 81.156.176.226 16:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I take it you have a better book. Then by all means use it! No one's stopping you. 141.217.84.93 23:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I have my own little system/essay/formula relating to rulership - does it belong here/

http://ephemeral.info/txt/variance.shtml

"Solar system"?[edit]

This may be a nitpick, but since astrology doesn't actually use the heliocentric model in its calculations, is it right to refer to the astrological system as "solar"?Serendipodous 18:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Not especially. I'd support a move back to Planets in astrology; the common, well-established terminology in astrology is "planets" for the Moon, Sun, etc., and the fact that it's inaccurate towards the scientific definition of "planets" is as irrelevant as if the botanical definition of a word differed from the theological one; both definitions apply equally, just in different fields of knowledge. Any support/opposition for a move back to Planets in astrology? -Silence 11:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, move it. The title just doesn't sound right. --Chris Brennan 17:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Modern planets in astrology[edit]

Leaving aside the growing diatribe above, It seems rather incongruous to me to see Uranus, Neptune, and especially Pluto included in a list of planets and their astrological meanings, without at least some nod to their recent discovery. For example, in the main astrology article we point out that astrology is a tradition extending back to ancient Babylonia -- but these outer planets were only discovered after the development of telescopes. Pluto wasn't discovered until the 1930s. Of course, one must then also address bodies like Quaoar, Sedna and the newly discovered 2003-UB131 / Xena -- and why bodies such as Vesta and Ceres are not included in most calculations. zowie 16:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Their are astrologers who use "bodies like Quaoar, Sedna and the newly discovered 2003-UB131 / Xena" in casting their horoscopes. But probably not commercial astrologers. Reading your horoscope in the papers, which one would you consider more reliable: the one that says "Mars trines Pluto" or the one that says "2004-654189435451 quincunxes 2005-5645218456"?
good question -- I don't think I'd consider any of them reliable, having actually carried out one of James Randi's experiments on the falsifiability of astrology. But given that the meanings of the planets are used to justify the predictions, it seems that the article itself probably ought to say something. I'll add a paragraph and see if people object... zowie 18:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

A Reference Problem[edit]

The entry for Mars has a reference to "Mangal", but there is no relevant article with that name.


Also: reference #26, pretty sure that "funkastrology.co.uk" does not meet the reqs for a wikipedia source guys.

"Ceres, as the Goddess who has control over nature's resources and cycles, may be known also in astrology as the planet of the Environment. Going back to mythology, an early environmental villain is the figure of Erysichthon, the tearer up of the earth, who cut down trees in a grove sacred to Ceres-Demeter, for which he was punished by the goddess with fearful hunger. In this sense Ceres became an emerging archetypal in the social response of becoming aware of the recent Climate Change, and is entering our collective consciousness as a need to take care of our natural and irreplaceable resources in the 21st Century. As an example, the 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill both ocurred during the conjunction of Ceres and Pluto.[26]"

Correlation is not causation. Especially when totally baseless and loaded with speculation. I'm sure 47000 people also spilled their milk those days. So what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.178.188 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger[edit]

Would anyone object to my merging all of the "planet (astrology)" articles into this article? Almost all of the information in this article and in the daughter articles is identical anyway, and what us relisting the same information twice will make both pages breeding grounds for ach of the planets had, say, a page or two of astrologicatubs, rarely more than a paragraph or two in length, with very, very little potential to expand much in the future, I thi all-around organized place to work on expanding the articles, and less worry about keeping track of a dozen random stubs. This would not, however, necessarily be a permanent merge: if, a few years down the line, say, theithout going crazy and also making sub-articles for, logy)", if it's still only a paragraph or two long. What do y'all think? Similar merges they all rely on parentheses to be distinguished from their main articles (Sun, etc.), are probably best served by simply merging them all into Solar system in astrology and linking to this page, rather than a distant stub, from Mercury (planet), etc. -Silence 10:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No objection in the short term , but in the long term I expect each section will grow to such size that they will need to be moved back. Most astrology articles linf to the article on the planet concerned , not the Sign. Work needs to be done to correct this. I would like to see the redirects left as place holders for the future. Lumos3 11:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, anything can happen in the long term. Eventualists like you and I will simply wait until the sections grow large enough to merit separate articles again (as I feel the "Moon" section already does). -Silence 21:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Seven Liberal Arts and Astrology[edit]

Dantes associations do not appear to be correct, according to this link. [1]

  • the Moon resembles Grammar
  • Mercury may be compared to Dialectics
  • Venus may be compared to Rhetoric
  • the Sun may be compared to Arithmetic
  • Mars may be compared to music
  • Jupiter may be compared to Geometry
  • Saturn may be compared to Astrology

I've shifted this back to "Planets in astrology"[edit]

The Sun and the Moon are indeed planets, if you use the term in its original astrological sense. Since astrology is geocentric, not heliocentric, the term "solar system" when applied to astrology is anachronistic. Serendipodous 10:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Now we just gotta fix all these double redirects ;) Sam
It is a misunderstanding that astrology is geocentric. There exists heliocentric astrology, as well. A Google search for the exact phrase turns up over 9,000 hits. See for example [2]. Aquirata 19:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
That very site you linked to made plain that there was no heliocentric tradition in astrology, and that the system was just an idea of the webmistress. Unless some longstanding tradition can be found of heliocentric astrology, I don't see why we need to make note of it.Serendipodous 19:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There has been a minority astrological practice of heliocentric astrology. In the 80's or 90's ACS published a heliocentric ephemeris - some astrologers such as Mary Downing wrote articles around that time (for NCGR) on the application of heliocentric positions to financial and mundane astrology. Also, I have a rare antique book from the turn of the 19th-20th century on Heliocentric astrology. Zeusnoos 16:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Symbol for Pluto and new planets?[edit]

How come there are 2 different symobls for Pluto in this article? Which one is used in which context?

Do the new planets like "Xena" or Ceres have a special symbol too?--Sonjaaa 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Some astrologers use PL, some use the other one. On the Pluto talk page, we were discussing a third symbol from the 1930's used in an astrological almanac. Ceres has an astrological symbol - it looks like a sickle. I have not encountered any astrological glyphs for Xena - perhaps because the name hasn't been officially decided upon. I wonder if astrologers think the name is frivolous? The meaning of (previously determined) asteroids in astrology was derived from mythology. Zeusnoos 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The PL is astronomical the Neptune-looking thing is astrological, I don't like the PL because it doesn't stand for Pluto, it's Percival Lowell's (the discoverer of Pluto's) monument to himself (pretty well symbolized by Pluto, a clutch for eternal power and memory, in a way achieving immortality). The same is true for the Uranus glyph with the curves connected to the cross, it's actually an H for William Herschel (I think the Sun+Mars astronomical version is truer to Uranus' nature). --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
FFHoE.gif
Hi there! The symbol for Eris (as it is now known) is currently under debate [3], but one of the possible symbols for Eris is the Five Fingered Hand of Eris, taken from the Principia Discordia, page 21. There is a petition to the IAU underway, and it would be interesting to find out what the 'meaning' of Eris in astrological charts [4] (there are some other possible versions or prototypes for the Eris glyph there) will be, as well. --Travlr23 01:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Eris-symbol.png ~- this one is used by polish astrologers. Anika 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Has the International Astronomers Union reclassification of Pluto, Eris, Haumea and Makemake as "dwarf planets" had any effect on astrology? One can imagine alternative articulations with just eight planets following Pluto's 'demotion', or with Eris, Haumea and Makemake recognized as additional 'planetary' bodies with their own 'influences' in this context. Do such alternative astrological perspectives exist?

203.114.146.141 (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)User Calibanu

Order of classical planets[edit]

I've changed the order of the classical planets back to Sun, moon, mercury, venus, mars, Jupiter, Saturn. This is the standard order given in astrology books. Sun and moon come first due to their added significance in astrology. If someone has a reason why it was changed to the reverse order of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars etc, they should explain it in a small section and leave the order as it now is, as that is the order accepted by the vast majority of astrologers.Neelmack 09:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reinstated the mythological images[edit]

Subbing all the images with planets is a bit misleading, since astrologically the classical planets are more closely tied to their mythic counterparts than they are to anything discovered by Galileo, Cassini or NASA. Since the modern planets are not as closely tied to their mythic namesakes as the classicals, I think their planet images can remain. Serendipodous 17:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Pluto.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Pluto.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs copyediting[edit]

Why are all the references to houses formatted as e.g. "1st" "8th" etc.? These should be changed to first, second, third, etc., namely ordinal numbers! At least the article is consistent as it stands, so I don't feel too compelled to change this all myself. But whoever is maintain this page - please be aware that your casual tone (using "=" signs included) and style is not winning you any admiration from your readers. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Written Like Astrology Website[edit]

I just skimmed over some of this article, and noticed some elements that make it seem less like an encyclopedia article, such as the use of 2nd-person pronouns to make it seem like it's talking to the reader, and at least one use of an exclamation point following some somewhat opinionated sentence structure. Should consider some rewriting? Daruqe (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree, I added a multiple issue template to the article to reflect this. This article provides a wealth of information but is not written in an encyclopedic style. I also added a innapropriate-person template to the section on Ceres.Tinss (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Pluto's symbol[edit]

The article asserts that Pluto's alchemy symbol was "chosen given the close association with Mars which has a similar symbol." But the symbol resembles the one for Venus, not Mars.--86.179.225.42 (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, how many alchemists were there in 1930, when Pluto was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh? Just sayin'... Tonybaldacci (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)