Talk:Leo (astrology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astrology (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Neutrality issue[edit]

This article describes beliefs held by Jovonne's Book of What If's as if they were facts. Lurker your words/my deeds 16:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So are the beliefs in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Scientology, yet they do not fall under POV, for some reason. I believe this is called Faith. --Marvin Monroe 12:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You are kidding right ?? 91.138.238.198 (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont think it is about faith... faith is something personal and definitly, Leo was a character of much strength and ambition.

Your claim is clearly POV and not a fact 91.138.238.198 (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not faith ... it's nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.138.111 (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense and POV. I think i agree with you in that...91.138.238.198 (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

~For natives who follow a worldly path, the Lion is symbolic of strength of ambition and desire. The Sun, however, is the center and source of all life in our system. So in its higher form, Leo is symbolic of the will of God, or the greater spiritual force in this universe.

Can you backup that claim. Give a letigimate source please... 91.138.238.198 (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some elaboration on the page. So, if the disagreement could please be settled as soon as egotistically possible, I, and I'm sure others, would appreciate it. OutlaDwC (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Ahaha for laughing out loud these is ridiculous nonsense who in a right mind would say that the zodiac leo is the "will of God". Everyone can claim that he or she is an astrologer these days and write whatever nonsense come from his/her head 141.237.29.209 (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

~Warm, action-oriented and driven by the desire to be loved and admired, the Leo have an air of royalty about them. They love to be in the limelight, which is why many of them make a career in the performing arts. The personality of a Leo is made up of some positive as well as negative traits.

I marked this as a POV statement since it is written like factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violins77 (talkcontribs) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Introduction tone[edit]

I think the introduction's tone needs work. The last half of the first paragraph sounds too conversational: "They think they're Leos, but they're not". I'm pretty sure a more professional way to note that cuspers exist is possible (though I question the necessity, as it's a pretty well-known phenomenon; I knew about it, and I don't really know anything about the Zodiac). 68.102.179.108 (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs[edit]

It should read before the article that it is a matter of beliefs, but continue to talk as facts

Well, "beliefs" is putting it nicely. The zodiac, you might say, was born under the sign of the horse's tail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.138.111 (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Notable persons[edit]

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 Leo. If you want to add a notable person go there. --Carmelita 21:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

David Walliams (Little Britain) is a Leo...meeeeoooowww! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.180.76 (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Flowers, Birthstones, Fall...[edit]

These things either don't show up or they have brackets where the identified item should go (i.e. "Fall: {{{Fall}}}" instead of "Fall: None"

I don't know how to fix it or else I would. 74.129.182.66 00:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

-where did you get this information? its not cited and I cant find it anywhere on the net. if anything, its wrong, as the closest I could find is this http://www.ganeshaspeaks.com/horoscopes/leohoroscopes.jsp --108.204.5.49 (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Leo as king[edit]

There are some sites that refer to Leo as the "king of the zodiac," [1] but I'm not familiar with which are reliable sources for that type of claim. I removed it from the lead because it needs further research, as well as being shown to be significant enough be be included there. Might be good info to include in the body of the text. Also saw a site that says "Leo likes to think he's king of the zodiac" [2]...soo...;) Dreadlocke 00:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Leo certainly does like to think he's king of the zodiac...Sun is the ruler of Leo, and therefore he thinks the world revolves around him.
Your second citation is not claiming anything about Leo thinkging he is a king - it doesn't even talk about Leo or astrology in general. Overall, your second citation is not trustworthy or valid or anyhting. Mobeelex (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree with you Dreadlocke and you have done well to delete these nonsense about leo. These sites that you are talking about they are in the "lifestyle and gossip" category their info are not encyclopedic and are mostly unreliable. The paid pseudo-astrologists in these sites have twisted astrology for their own agenda. Classic astrology does not say anywhere that leo is the king of the zodiac this is surely modern nonsense 141.237.29.209 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ref link astro[edit]

I tracked it back to this edit [3], seems to have been broken since inception. I can only guess that it was really supposed to be "astrocom" instead of "astro", so I did this. Um, sorry for Jetsons reference there...;) Dreadlocke 03:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC) because you are not a leo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.191.13 (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Leo and Taurus - the best couple (or maybe Scorpio?)[edit]

I am Leo and used to lova a girl that was a Taurus, she was so peaceful and calm. I love calm confident people, and most Taureans are such. So why do you say that we're incompatible? 213.240.234.212 12:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Because Astrology isn't a science and isn't always accurate. 206.126.170.20 (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

...and even within the context of astrology, there's a Hell of a lot more to it than just your Sun signs. 69.63.56.54 (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

~Depending on what divergent life path a Leo takes, he or she will find a potential soul mate in either a Taurus or a Scorpio. The 90 degree aspect is the most difficult in astrology, even if the two individuals may feel at peace with one another, external factors will likely be instrumental tearing these two potential mates apart. I personally believe a Leo who follows a worldly path will find greatest fulfillment in a Taurus, while a spiritually inclined Leo will find the greatest happiness in a Scorpio. Scorpio in its higher form is embodied by the Phoenix, just as Leo is the Sun. The two shall feed and grow off their mutual creative desires if they follow the same path of spiritual transformation. hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.5.166.81 (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Characteristics and related sections, removal[edit]

Notice Relevant discussion of inclusion or removal of Characteristics, Compatibility, Sexuality, Exaltation and related sections is taking place on Talk:Aries_(astrology)#Trimming. Since this an issue which relates to all the astrological sign articles, please direct relevant comments there.

I removed a large section from Leo (astrology) because the sources for the claims made were either not reliable or were not given. I contend that the claim that one's star sign influences one's character is an exceptional claim and as such requires exceptional sources (see WP:SOURCES for the exact policy). These: [4], [5], [6], [7] are not even remotely reliable sources. An example of an appropriate source would be, say, a paper published in Nature. CIreland 21:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh hey thanks for making the Astrology pages completely bland and useless. Never mind the fact that Astrology isn't really much of a science but more of a novelty and therefore 'reliability' is a rather lose definition. It's hard not to commit ad hominen, especially after seriously echoing astrology's claims (e.g. holding astrology's claim as actual fact) and expecting someone to verify it, but seriously. In terms of utility you just shot it in the foot. Thanks for being the 'lawyers' that are destroying Wikipedia. Whoops, guess I did it in the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.227.86.10 (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
+1 Kleinburgerei (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why so many people beleive they can only love or have a relationship with certain people because astrology and many other things say so. When people read articles on star signs and who can have relationships with others they think "Oh, I'm not so compatible with them. Oh no, I'm not best friends with him, I guess it wouldn't work out..." *Hint* This is not completely true. Ever seen behind the scenes? I beleive that when things say those things they are giving a rough idea. And that rough idea isn't the whole story. I think it belongs to a lot of other rough idea's. I am a Leo, and when they say we are center of attention and at the top of the ranking - not all true. You see, I like to NOT be center of attention. I don't like to know what will happen if I mess up and I wonder what people are thinking. Besides - I do not like everyones heads turned to me. (I have asked people very close around me to make sure). You see? Not all things are true. There are all different types of people out there and nobody can put you into an exact group. So next time you read or hear something about you - don't take the negitives to heart - they are either beleiving what they heard or read somewhere and now think of all of your star sign or you may need to practise on something. Don't think of that as bad - everyone has to work on something. Trust me, I definitly do!

(Even if there lives seem perfect and you can't pinpoint something, do you know what's going on at home or in other parts of their lives? No one has it quite perfect!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.125.220 (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable people who share this sign section[edit]

Notice Relevant discussion of inclusion or removal of notable people who share this sign is taking place on Talk:Gemini_(astrology)#Notable people who share this sign section. Since this an issue which relates to all the astrological sign articles, please direct relevant comments there.

subtle vandalism?[edit]

someone wrote under "careers", "professional druggie".

hmmmm. Mail10 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The lists are constantly being revised, some of it well intended and some of it blatent vandalism, but virtually always without a source to back up the claims. Pairadox (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Someone has written under 'Likes': "sitting back relaxing watching television" and under dislikes "working hard". This information is false and uncited. Please fix this. --KL- 8:07p, November 12, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.10.213 (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Leo compatibility with Aquarius?[edit]

I think it's strange that in the article Aquarius is considered compatible with Leo when I've only read mixed things about the actual chemistry between the two -- most of it negative, because they're so opposite -- in a bad way. Would anyone care to elaborate on this? I'm just really curious, because I would consider the pair incompatible before compatible, and I think it's a bit of a long shot. I realise that opposites can attract, because something like Cancer (moon) seems to be very compatible with Leo (sun) from what I've researched. Personally I think Cancer should be included, not Aquarius, if anything.

24.98.252.13 (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Aquarius and Leo are oposite of each other so..

Someone963852 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC) I'm a Leo...I've had 2 long term relationships with Aquarius (one for 2 yrs, and another for 7). I'm now in a long term relationship with a Scorpio (3 yrs so far). With the Aquarius...I was always the dominant one and almost always got my way. As with my Scorpio...things are a little more challenging...but I wouldn't trade it for the world. I like a challenge! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.32.116 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll tell you who's a bad match: Leo and Scorpio. I'm a Scorpio and 1/3 of Leos I meet I can't stand. Here is an example: Leo is ruled by the sun and Scorpio is ruled by Pluto (as well as Mars.) The sun and Pluto are far apart, to the extremes, so the people ruled by these astral bodies have to be polar oppisites.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.4.113 (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Have to be polar opposites", you say, yet you describe that only in one out of three cases has that actually become relevant. (And that's the worst possible match?) If you want to offer information, make mention of what discrete behaviours drove you from eachother. 217.211.88.20 (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

~the two compliment each other, though aspect is not as strong or fulfilling as a ninety degree aspect with Scorpio or Taurus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.143.82 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

-I'm a double Leo. I've never got on very well with Capricorn, Aquarius, Taurus or Scorpio. My friends in the past have tended to be Aries/Gemini/Cancer/Leo/Virgo/Sagittarius. The Moon affects your emotions, so that too has a bearing on the kind of Leo you are. For every arrogant buffoon there's a sensitive ambivert like me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.7.142 (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism?[edit]

"Astrologers broadly agree that the following are the characteristics of leo: [6]


... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.212.70 (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Compatibilities[edit]

(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.


What is wrong with compatibilities? There are too many general statements made and not enough proof. Slowish guitar (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Leo's have excellent compatibles with gemini , scorpio , aries and Sagittarius. Leo's and Geminis shares a very romantic compatibility with each other. In addition, they have also a perfect match with scorpio. While they have very friendly and lovely compatible with

Aries and Sagittarius! Bold Hassan (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Dates[edit]

"The Sun is in Leo roughly from July 23 to August 23." Should it be noted more explicitly that "Leo" in this sentence does not refer to the actual constellation of stars? 217.211.88.20 (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Leo transits this is an average area between 22 july to 23 august. Bold Hassan (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The real date of leo star is 22 july - 23 august Bold Hassan (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bold Hassan: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, as explained in the "Verifiability" policy and the "Identifying reliable sources" guideline. So an editor just stating something as a fact without stating what reliable source the statement comes from doesn't carry any weight. Also, the grammar of the statements is confusing. It is the sun that transits the sign of Leo or the constellation of Leo. Leo isn't a star and neither the sign nor the constellation transits anything. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


[User talk:Jc3s5h ]] i want to explained u that sun transits this area on average between july 22 and august 22 each year plz change the status dates not time period — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bold Hassan (talkcontribs) 10:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If a statement in Wikipedia is challenged, the statement must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. This is required by the "Verifiability" policy. The dates the Sun transits the sign of Leo, on average, or approximately, has been challenged by both of us.
Currently the article says " the Sun transits this area approximately between July 23 and August 22" and there is a citation to the Leo article in Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is a reliable source. You have given two different date ranges, "22 july to 23 august" and "july 22 and august 22". Your values will not be put in the article unless you can cite a better source than Encyclopaedia Britannica. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


yes the sun tranisits this area approximately 22 july -22 august it[1] "famousbirthdays.com" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bold Hassan (talkcontribs) 20:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please sign your posts by entering ~~~~
Famousbirthdays.com is a less reliable source than Encyclopedia Britannica, so the values from Encyclopedia Britannica should be used. That said, the results are bound to vary from source, because the dates vary from year to year, and various sources will deal with this variability in different ways. Also, the moment that the Sun moves from one sign to another will be stated differently depending on which time zone one is in. For example, in 2017 the Sun moves into Leo at 3:15 PM July 22 Universal Time,[2] but that would be 1:24 AM July 23 local time in Guam. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC) modified 08:28 June 2017 UT.

References

  1. ^ is from
  2. ^ Astronomical Applications Department (2011). Multiyear Computer Interactive Almanac. 2.2.2. Washington DC: US Naval Observatory.  Longitude of Sun, apparent geocentric ecliptic of date, interpolated to find time of crossing 120°

Dubious[edit]

I have added {{Dubious}} templates to some of the claims in the article. A lot here is presented as fact without reference or attribution. Seeing as these matters are disputed by many, this article should not make judgements of fact, but rather should attribute these claims to individuals. 137.43.188.69 (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about astrology. There are very few words in this article that any reasonable person would consider "fact". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.56.202 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

From one Leo.[edit]

I am confused. Every other astrology page is simple and gets to the facts about each sign. Why is the Leo page 1.) so negative 2.) having a rampant discussion/argument over nothing? Open up an astrology book, list the basics as every other sign has listed, credit it, and if you want more information or want to have a debate, bring your egos over to an astrology website. Every astrological sign brings something to the table and in reality, I'd say Aries is the King of the Zodiac.

The End.

Love, a Leo who is sick of the battle of the egos and just wants to read about my freaking birth stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.110.165 (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirection of Western Zodiac signs[edit]

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)

Alright, can someone tell me[edit]

...who the hell wrote "oi pswnares tou zodiakou" (the airheads of the zodiac) next to "Sun"? Obviously someone here thinks they're being clever by writing stuff in Greek that no one understands. (didn't correct it so you can see it for yourselves. Given it's still there, of course) Ariana-hime (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Astrological Mumbo Jumbo stuff missing[edit]

I was looking for some information on what traits people of a particular star sign are supposed to have. I'm not a believer in that stuff, but it is a fact that some people believe, and so I wanted to find a reference of what's what, much like is seen on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leo_(astrology)&oldid=656008071#Leo_Traits

Now I buy the fact that it's not fact, but it is also relevant information. If the (astrology) pages aren't the right place to put/find that, can someone tell me where is. I've done the run around on wikipedia, and come back to where I started.

sibaz (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Duration Error[edit]

The current page says that the duration of the Leo is from March 20th to April 20th. The actual duration of the Leo is from July 23rd to August 22nd. I tried to edit the page to fix the error but it said the correct date in the edit section and the dates are only wrong on the actual page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencerhaber (talkcontribs) 04:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC) I concur. 72.143.118.75 (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Anonymous

The real date of leo star sign is starts from 22 july - 23 august.

Bold Hassan (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Corrections to dates, date and citation format in sign articles[edit]

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) 20:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Unbelievably bland[edit]

There is barely anything to this article, nothing about personality traits, compatability etc. in comparison to the other sun sign pages. It may as well not exist for all the use it is.

Agree. People remove anything about personality traits etc. because they think it is a load of nonsense. Yes, it is a load of nonsense, but that does not mean it should not be covered. Religions are a load of made-up nonsense in exactly the same way that astrology is. Should we delete all the nonsense from articles about religions too? 31.52.144.113 (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
For example, this is one comment in the edit history:
"Don't add nonsense about "personalities" etc without reliable sources. (Astrological sources are by definition unreliable, because astrology is a pseudoscience.)"
This is the sort of muddled thinking that pervades this topic. Astrology defines its own beliefs, and these beliefs are worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Obviously the sources for its beliefs will be "Astrological sources". These can be presented as "Astrologers believe ..." or similar wording. Let's take a look at the article for Jesus, which says "Christians believe Jesus is the awaited Messiah (or Christ, the Anointed One) of the Old Testament." See the similarity? 31.52.144.113 (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leo (astrology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)