|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taurus (astrology) article.|
|WikiProject Astrology||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
The article states that the duration its from April 21 to May 20, but on the sign description it says its from 19 April to 20 May.. which one it is ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Another amazing and neutral wikipedia article *cough* *cough*...(yes it is an irony)
Another Zodiac article full of Npov issues and even misinterprations of the sources.Why...? Well because some people add to much negative traits or some others add way to much positive traits. There are even people that when they give a source they totally misinterpretate that source for their own personal agenta (i do not believe in coincidences in this site)
I'm just wondering if this article should be considered a stub? There is a wealth of information about each of the zodiac signs that hasn't been mentioned anywhere. --Growly 12:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC) why didin,t you mention enemies and friends of each sign
This article has the wrong dates! It's supposed to be April 20 to May 20. I wonder if someone intentionally left off April 20 due to an infamous birthday on that date?!?
Where is all the info on Taurus'? There is much mreinfo than that
Are the dates in this section right April 20 - may 20. All other material I have read has Taurus as April 21- May 21?
I was born on the 20th of April. From what I understand (I'm no Astrologer) the 20th is a day when Aries is Transitioning into Taurus, and to find your true sign, you have to look at your time of birth. Something I haven't bothered to do yet. If someone here with an actual Astrological background wishes to correct me, feel free.
I researched taurus dates using natal charts, natal charts are the most effective, if you must know April 19 means the sun is in aries not taurus. I researched taurus dates using natal charts, natal charts are the most effective, if you must know April 19 means the sun is in aries not taurus. The Aries taurus transition is confusing because there is somesort of effect mars has for its sidereal (Pleiades's position to the earth)--188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia articles were supposed to present a neutral viewpoint. Yet I don't see anything in this entry pointing out the fact that it is the opinion of science that everything in this particle article is complete rubbish. Surely to present a balanced viewpoint, it must be at least pointed out that most educated and informed people believe that this is the work of conmen and charlatans? - Gnomon 9-October-2007
What Is My Future
Sir, I was Born 07-07-1987 At Morning 7.30 Please tell me what my future is and about my life and my carrier What Is my Position In The Future Send To Me Mail Vengal.kandi_1987@rediff mail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
EXCUSE ME!, But i really don't think we should include compatibilities other than those that are part of the element... for example someone keeps adding cancer and pisces in Taurus... why not add ALL the signs! Taurus is widely thought to be compatible with its own elements i.e. capricorn and virgo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juerx (talk • contribs) 03:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well now that i've read verifiability.... i must say this site is bull 111!!!.. i'm going to publish Astrobull and i'll edit wikipedia according to what the book says seeing as how it is verifiability. Anyway no one died and made you boss! so if you keep re-adding, i'll report you by the law of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juerx (talk • contribs) 08:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Neutral point of view?
Libra is actually good looking and all signs and any sign can be beautiful. There is no real source saying that taurus is the most physically attractive sign.
taurus is the most beautiful of the signs, stunning actually not superficial, but natural and being in a tauraens presence should be an honour for it is the taurus that unlocks the inner beauty in everone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Your physical appearance is determined by your genes, not astrology, so I don't get why these Astro signs have a "Physical Appearance" section at all. -18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a source astrology-online.com that states that Taurus is not creative but unoriginal it it wrong to write they are creative. traditional yes but please don't add fake citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datagoal23 (talk • contribs)
elore doesnt have information on taurus being creative, because traditional and creative don't go together. astrolgyonline is the main source its the first one, im sure elore took everything from their. taurus being creative, i wouldnt have a problem with, but since i site many true things of other signs, they get taken off. taurus being creative has not a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloingo (talk • contribs) 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
None of these sources are "reliable" because they all rest on the absurd falsehood that astrology is valid. The comment above reflects the sort of illogical nonsense associated with astrology: since 1/12 of the Earth's population was born under each of the signs, of course one can identify creative people born under the sign of Taurus ... or any other sign. -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I heared someplace that the terms bull and bear market come from astrology. is that true? anyone with a authorative source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Exclusive physical descriptions on the Taurus page
To exclude men from the "physical traits" portion of the article is erroneous, since men can exhibit the same physical traits and auras as women, and often do. The article is thus misleading and prejudicial if the physical descriptions are gender-specific. Either the traits should change to include women and men, or they should be completely removed, with no gender-specific descriptions. It's only fair and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Neutral POV on Physical Traits.
There can be beautiful Taurus' -yeah- but there are sure ugly looking ones, too. So that, I removed all the "opinions" from the Taurus' Physical Traits.
Any serious astrologer will tell you that physical traits in astrology are the function of the ascendant AND it's aspects, NOT the Sun sign. Incidentally, Libra is considered to be the sign of beauty (like Taurus, it is ruled by Venus). This article seems to expound solely on the Sun placement, which is excusable given the difficulty in reaching consensus on that without adding other planetary placements. I definitely don't advocate for deleting traits wholesale from astrology sign pages though, as they are integral to the understanding of individual signs and astrology at large. In addition to being productive, determined and sensual, I acknowledge that as a first-decan Taurean, I can also be hypocritical, lazy and materialistic. These traits are all part of the sign, which is fine with me. I might not be perfect, but I'm always right. :)
As for genetic influence on physical traits, I'm sure there is a page for that somewhere on Wikipedia; this surely isn't the one. I'll (continue to) refrain from talking about astrology on scientific pages, if skeptics will kindly stop vandalizing astrology pages. Wikipedia is not the exclusive domain of scientists or skeptics, and for them to presume that they have a monopoly on "the truth" defeats the purpose of open-source anything. Sure, all of astrology is an opinion; then again, so is the big bang. HuntClubJoe (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The past 2 months or something, a lot of sections are removed here. Like the compatibilities and Associated traits. I think this article should be controlled properly. --sehzades (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Collapsing old discussions (pre 2010)
Compatibility section needs to go or be improved
Notable People from History born when the Sun was in Taurus
Please see the discussion on the Aries talk page regarding the suggestion that the list of notable persons should only include historical names (no living persons) and should not extend beyond 20 names. Currently the Taurean list has 17 entries:
Charlotte Brontë, Catherine the Great, Oliver Cromwell, Henry Fonda, Sigmund Freud, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Lenin, Daphne du Maurier, Karl Marx, Florence Nightingale, Eva Peron, Bertrand Russell, William Shakespeare, Peter Tchaikovsky, Leonardo da Vinci, and Orson Welles.
- Leonardo da Vinci - his name was removed with the edit summary: "da Vinci is clearly not Taurus and needs to be exluded from the list". I've restored it. The dates given for da Vinci on this site are using Old Style dates (have added notations to that effect in the da Vinci article). The reported 15th April equates to 23rd April by modern reckoning. Da Vinci's horoscope, with source info about his time of birth are published by Astro databank: http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Da_Vinci,_Leonardo. (One reason why it is better to discuss proposed edits to this list prior to publication).
How about Harry S. Truman, born May 8, 1884 Gregorian, died Dec. 26, 1972? It'd be nice to have some democratically-elected Taurean leaders to offset some of the dictators. Msramming (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Makes sense - I've added that so the list now has 18 entries. Thanks, -- Zac Δ talk! 04:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone fix the size of the Definitions table so it's a smaller width, it gets in front of the writing under the right-side sign and planet associations(more like the table on Aries, Gemini, i also noticed this to happen on a few other signs). 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The associated body part for Taurus should be the neck and shoulders, not genitalia.
Redirection of Western Zodiac signs
On 22 October 2012 the contents of the articles for the individual signs of the western zodiac (Pisces (astrology) etc.) were removed and replaced with redirects to Astrological sign#Western zodiac signs. These edits were made by User:Dominus Vobisdu with the edit summary: Unsourced and unsourceable cruft. No justification for stand-alone article. This did not seem to follow a community discussion.
Following concerns raised at the Reference Desk I will, after posting this, restore the articles to the form they were in immediately before their redirection. At least some of the articles seem to have been significantly reduced in size also prior to this redirection, however I have not reverted these changes.
Because I am sure editors may wish to discuss this (perhaps to reinstate the redirects, or make other changes to these articles), however a discussion spread among the talk pages twelve articles in question would be too dissipated, I suggest Talk:Astrological_sign#Redirection_of_Western_Zodiac_signs as a centralised discussion location. An editor with more experience than I in Wikipedia policies may wish to move this discussion to a better location. LukeSurl t c 15:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)