Talk:Pisces (astrology)

Major Additions in Collaborations for UofT Project

Template:WAP assignment

As part of a UofT assignment, we made some major overhauls to the page. ChantelCarr (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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} 15:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving some information to the "Astrology" article.

Hi there,

This article is getting pretty large! I've read through some of the information, and it seems to me that quite a lot of it is applicable to astrology in general (including all the other star signs), and not just relevant to pisces. I recommend moving all of the general astrological information to the astrology article.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to re-shuffle the remaining information so that all of the scientifically unproven stuff is all in one section, titled "Mythology", or "Traditional beliefs" or whatever. For instance "Pisces spans the 330° to 360° of the zodiac" is a scientific fact, whereas "Pisceans are perceptive, emotional, and reasonable" is not. On that topic, what would be the best name for the section? "Mythology"? "Traditional beliefs"? Is there a better more specific word to describe the non-scientific astrological ideas?

Anyway, given that I don't know a great deal about astrology, I'd like to nominate User:Starcartographer for the job : ) If he's too busy, I'll give it a go myself.

InternetMeme (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

How about "Superstition?" - s t a r c a r (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

With the information coming together, a reorganization is needed, but I am not certain on the best route. As an astrological topic there needs to be better distinction of parts. For example, should the information on its relation to the story of Christ be part of its history, its mythology, associations, in astrological age, the signs cultural influence? The truth is it could be any. Greek religious stories as myth, but not Christian myth? It is tough, but here's my thoughts:

"Background": constellation, astronomical information, early appearances.

"Mythology" brief intro

"In early mythology": Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman

"In modern mythology": Christian, Judeo

"Astronomical age": explain ages, expand on Christ

"Associations": simple classifications, when and why they were selected as such.

"Personality": what the associations imply

"Compatibility": what the associations imply

"Influence": brief intro

"In the arts": cite examples

"In the _____":

Any suggestions or input? Thank you in advance. - s t a r c a r (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Personality Section Is 100% Wrong, & Bias Is A Nono On Wikipedia

Pisces is the Sign of blindness, psychicness, dreaming, art, and martyrdom. It has NO ASSOCIATION WITH REASONING. Reasoning is a Virgo matter/trait, under the rule of the Planet Mercury. Pisces is the Opposite of Virgo, and is under rule of the Planet Neptune (which blinds us). Further, there is not supposed to be such obvious bias on a wikipedia article as saying "no scientific basis" when there is also no scientific disproof either. Wikipedia articles are supposed to focus on facts, and being free of bias. Spinning the page to call astrology nonsense is not free of bias, and is not about facts. (Anyone who has studied astrology knows it is not nonsense. - My guess is that it has to do with energy, gravity, or both influencing DNA, mood, etc. Whatever might some day be proven for why it's real, it is real. But, most people are only familiar with con-artists, and "horoscopes," which is not actual astrology.) If you mistakenly think astrology is a religious matter, then apply the reason you should, as a human being, have, and remember to be respectful to believers, instead of writing astrology articles from an Atheist-specific perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.213.171 (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Different astrologers have different opinions about the Zodiac. No one of them can be proven incorrect and all are equally valid because the claims are very vague, even though they are utterly contradictory with each other. I hate to burst your bubble, but there is scientific evidence of the falsity of Astrology. Where it has made specific claims it has been falsified. Your comment "about energy, gravity, or both influencing DNA" as a basis for astrology is laughable, perhaps you might want to read Astrology_and_science#Lack_of_mechanism. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You're not bursting anybody's bubble. Point to a real study falsifying astrology. The term "falsified" is thrown around a lot like a fetish. I've seen demonstrations but they're not very scientific. It's usually a self-professed skeptic getting a reading, then revealing at the end that he'd provided the wrong birthday, thereby exposing fraud, or something of this nature. Unscientific and only confirmatory for biased (aka unscientific) people.