Talk:Sun sign

Untitled
With respect, it is perhaps a mistake to mix-up 'sun-signs' with 'sun-sign astrology'. These are two different topics, I suggest.

MayoPaul5 16:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Sun-signs' are used in almost all forms of Western astrology of every kind, depth and complexity, including horary.
 * 'Sun-sign astrology' on the other hand, is a generalised form of astrology, invented in modern times to satisfy the demands of newspapers and magazines for an astrology-related column, and is therefore part astrology, part journalism. The sun-sign columnist has only the planetary aspects (mainly lunar) and perhaps turned houses (though Jonathan Cainer for one doesn't use them) to draw upon - a very limited palette compared to the rich seams of technique available to traditional astrologers.
 * Most definitely. Clarity and differentiation needs to be of prime importance. Sam 23:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The dates of the signs are in some cases quite wrong - for example the Sun enters Aquarius on average 20th Jan, and Pisces 19th Feb. I'll alter it if I get round to it, unless anyone has a good reason for objection. MayoPaul5 17:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC) - Done MayoPaul5 06:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Samuella, I hope we won't get into an edit war here, but a couple of the paragraphs you altered were more accurate than the version you inserted, therefore and I have reverted these. For example, Jonathan Cainer told me that he uses all the planets (as do all the sun-sign astrologers I have spoken to), therefore to say they do not is clearly wrong. Also, not all horoscopic astrologers view sun-sign astrology as worthless - in fact only a small minority. In the late 90's when there was a formal debate on this subject at the APAI (all members are professional astrologers) a clear majority came out in favour of allowing reputable, qualified sun-sign astrologers to join the organisation. MayoPaul5 07:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. What I meant by that line was that sun-sign astrologers only use the position of the sun as a significator for the individual, rather than all of the planets. I don't know how the majority feel, but those I know view horoscope columns and the like one of the many things hindering traditional horoscopic astrology and society's knowledge of it. I certainly don't feel predicting an entire twelfth of the population's mood for a particular day using only the sun as a reference is doing traditional horoscopic astrology justice. For instance, if I was born when the sun was in Aries, then I would look at the Aries column in the newspaper. The sun-sign astrology may use the other planets, I'm sure, but that doesn't make it any more astroligically accurate because they're using the entire sign of Aries as a reference instead of the particular degree of the Sun in Aries. Thus, aspects would be out of orb for a lot of the population. I certainly do not intend to make anyone angry, and I hope you don't take my edits personally. I edited the article to conform more to Wikipedia's style guides and didn't do it out of spite or anything. Sam 12:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sam, you're a lovely person and you certainly have not made me angry (or feel anything negative). However, I'm not surprised if I inadvertently gave that impression, as I had tMa-squ-rMC yesterday, and have tMe-squ-rMa tomorrow, so I'm in a bit of a cross-fire on some other pages (like on Astrology:talk/Superstition where I've been accused of trolling). I do understand exactly what you're saying, but just trying to keep thing as accurate as possible here - not too POV. Note that I left most of your edits in, as they were improvements on mine. You haven't commented on my first point, at the top of this page. MayoPaul5 13:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, MayoPaul. I completely understand where you're coming from and it's no problem. :) You added quite a bit of valuable information that wouldn't have been there otherwise. Sam 23:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)