Talk:Taurus (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.
Extended content

Contradictory dates[edit]

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 (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sort of related, there's a gap of about 2 weeks between the sidereal duration of Aries and Taurus for 2011 - I know there's been a lot of press about a 13th sign over the last few days, but I was under the impression that it was elsewhere in the Zodiac. Can anyone help clear this up? (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Another amazing and neutral wikipedia article *cough* *cough*...(yes it is an irony)[edit]

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)

Taurus is not a perfect zodiac. IT HAS GOOD BUT ALSO BAD QUALITIES just like every zodiac. Some people must get that into their arrogant heads and stay neutral when they contribute or some reports to the Administrator will start happening around here for Non-neutral point of view activity and vandalism. I am not a professional astrologer but i have enough astrological knowledge and i understand when someone is being neutral and contributes 100% exactly from what a source says and who is not doing that.

As the current situation goes in here i advice people not to trust reading the astrological signs from wikipedia.--SotosfromGreece (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: A great action from the administrationzz Black Kite for deleting the trait areas from all the astrological signs in Wikipedia. It is better this way since most traits were lies and just personal opinions. --SotosfromGreece (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WHY SUCK?[edit]

Who has added "They Suck" to the top of all signs? Please can anyone remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Headline text[edit]

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

Taurus dates[edit]

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)-- (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Viewpoint[edit]

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

It's enough for it to be on the main astrology article. 18:53, 3 November 2007 (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.

What Is My Future[edit]

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What?!?Orcahuman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball :-) Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2008 (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.


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 (talkcontribs) 03:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, look at the other signs in the capatabilies. There would always be Taurus this Taurus that even if they're not even compatitable. Someone would twist it up and say "complicated this complicated whatever" What's the point then? Why don't add all signs and their complexities with the others?

Keep the signs and compatibilites between their own elements. Someone963852 (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why stop there? Why not discuss the compatibility of Taurus with ALL of the signs? Why not discuss the positives and negatives of its relation with each sign? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and it seems appropriate to me if an editor will want to add it, considering it will be properly attributed. And please do not remove well-sourced material without reaching editor consensus on the talk page. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well i'm also and editor and i will edit what i can. We want to give our readers the MOST accurate descriptions and by adding signs that are 50 or 30% compatible is just not accurate. If they want to learn more they can research. Furthermore i can see you need to understand astrology seeing as how you want to, "discuss the positives and negatives of its relation with each sign". Like BIRTH CHARTS! 111!!! Anyway, if it causes too much trouble then we can just delete the signs and keep the passage underneath that I posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juerx (talkcontribs) 23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The Notability guideline does not object to adding this kind of compatibility examinations, granted that reliable sources can validate them. Note that repetitive removal of well-sourced material without appropriate consensus can lead to getting blocked. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 00:37, 18 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 (talkcontribs) 08:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a volunteer :-) I do not set standards. If you want to discuss policy you can visit the village pump. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
You want to revive the "discussion"?? All I see since you came on Wikipedia is that it is you who thinks he's the judge (not minding what the policies are on Wikipedia). --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?[edit]

Does "conservative" fit in the "positive" category under the Wikipedia Guidelines of Neutrality? Tezkag72 (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you. Making this kind of classification opens the door to all sorts of POV issues, especially as most scholars do not make such unequivocal distinctions. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

beautiful taurus[edit]

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.

I'm glad the Physical Traits are all gone. Phew. People can't go around saying one sign is beautiful because they haven't seen the different parts of the world and their people yet. For example, going to Europe and finding the "oh so beautiful and graceful Taureans" and then going to Africa and doing the same, then going to Asia, etc. You get my point. -Someone963852 (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

-- (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Most Taureans are all gorgeous

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. - (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Because a lot of people are stupid and ignorant. -- (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


There is a source 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 (talkcontribs) is not a reliable source per Wikipedia requirements. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

how is it not a reliable source, it is where most of the information is taken from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloingo (talkcontribs) 20:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Wikipedia requires attribution to trustworthy or authoritative authors. duplicates much of the copyrighted material off of, contradicts itself and more importantly does not associate the material with any mainstream astrology author. Please read up on the policy on reliable sources. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Taurus is an Earth sign ruled by Venus. Of course they are creative, especially in the fields of art, fashion, and architecture. One must remember that one of the most creative geniuses of all time-namely Leonardo Da Vinci was born under the sign of Taurus. (By the Julian calendar he was born 15 April, but by the rectified and accurate Gregorian calendar he was born 24 April, hence Taurus). Also many patrons of the arts such as Lucrezia Borgia and Catherine The Great were also Taurus.--jeanne (talk) 07:36, 23 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. -- (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Bull Market[edit]

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 (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well there's no bear sign, so market bulls and bears are probably not directly related to astrology. There is some information on Market trends#Bull market. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
You "heared" wrong. And this page is for improving the article, not for asking random questions vaguely related to the subject. -- (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Exclusive physical descriptions on the Taurus page[edit]

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 (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Professional astrologers and authors do often assign different physical traits based on sex, and Wikipedia relies on mainstream material. You can add descriptions for men of this sign if they are backed up by reliable sources, as required by Wikipedia. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral POV on Physical Traits.[edit]

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.

Someone963852 (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

All of this article is opinions. WP:NPOV does not ban opinions from articles granted they are properly attributed to leading figures in the field. Also, please do not use foul language in edit summaries, that goes against Wikipedia etiquette. If you believe the article has some POV issues you can take it up with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard first and try to establish consensus. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC

All of it? "Taurus is a fix sign" is NOT an opinion. By the way, do you really think the word "hypocrite" is a foul word? Someone963852 (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Telling the truth is not vandalism. The constellations are made up of unrelated astronomical bodies that only appear together due to our relative vantage point, and only grossly ignorant and illogical people believe that they have anything to do with someone's personal traits. The Big Bang is science's best inference from the evidence; the empirical findings of science are not "opinion", and WP's policies make that clear. -- (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Considering you're all about scientific facts, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with truth before you claim to represent it singularly. It's hardly scientific to say that there is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support the THEORY that celestial bodies have no effect on the Earth or it's inhabitants. The facts are known to those who must know: sailors have known the moon affects tides for millenia, broadcast engineers deal with RF interference when there are solar flares, and any beat cop/firefighter/cabbie/ER nurse will tell you how crazy it is on any full moon shift they work. But yes, at least you have the "truth" on your side.HuntClubJoe (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What's happening[edit]

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)

It is. That's why they're being removed. See WP:OR and WP:V. Black Kite 15:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing old discussions (pre 2010)


How do you define compatibility? Isn't that something anyone can have, instead of just certain few? Slowish guitar (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Compatibility section needs to go or be improved[edit]

Please see discussion on Aries Talk page Robert Currey talk 17:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC) [re-edited link Robert Currey talk 17:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)]

Notable People from History born when the Sun was in Taurus[edit]

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.

Please use this section to propose additions or amendments to the main article content. -- Zac Δ talk! 13:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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:,_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). (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Body part[edit]

The body parts associated with those born under the sign of Taurus are: the neck, the throat, vocal cords, ears, and the thyroid gland.


Consequently may great singers and public speakers are Taureans. Jimi Hendrix, Eminem, Adele, Janet Jackson, Eminem, Aaron Neville, Ella Fitzgerald, Iggy Pop, Brian Eno, Glen Campbell, and Buddy Holly are all Taureans.


Speakers, writers, and philosophers also rank high in the Taurean hierarchy. Indian Theosopist, Jiddu Krishnamurti, was a born a Taurus. Krishnamurti is considered one of the greatest writers, speakers and spiritual leaders of the 20th century. He was a noted singer as well, One of his works is entitled “Music”. [3]


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)

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) 20:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Fault in short footnote template[edit]

There is a fault in {{sfn}} such that when the correct abbreviation for a source that does not have a date, "n.d.", is used, there are two periods in the short footnote as it is presented to readers. I will report this to the appropriate template page, once I find it. In the mean time, the two periods must be tolerated, otherwise the link from the short footnote to the full citation is broken. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^  Missing or empty |title= (help); External link in |website= (help)
  2. ^ "Adele". 
  3. ^ Jiddu, Krishnamurti. "Taurus Speakers, Writers". Retrieved 06-22-16.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)