Talk:House (astrology)

message: I originally named this article astrological houses for consistency with astrological aspects and astrological sign. Mkweise reverted it to houses (astrological). I am not sure what best Wiki policy is here, but perhaps as long as the links and redirects are in place it doesn't matter. Shantavira 12:44, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule is for article titles to be in the singular form (please keep that in mind when creating future articles.) I could have moved astrological houses to astrological house, but chose house (astrology) instead because (as far as I've seen) they're called just houses in astrology. Mkweise 19:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: So, I put my references to Alan Leo back in the natural rulership part of the article.  I see no reason to take them out and because it is important to note that this planet=sign=house association only dates back to the early 20th century because it shows where and why there was a divergence on this issue in the tradition.  Also, I said that this assignment is "sometimes" called natural rulership, and the other is "sometimes" called accidental rulership because there is no widespread consensus on these terms and it appears to me that different authors use different names, if they even make the distinction at all.  I think that it is more important to present an objective overview of the established parts of the modern and ancient traditions, and not adhere to any one authors specific views unless they have indeed become mainstream.  Anyone have issues with this?  --Chris Brennan 15:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Natural rulership" 

message: Painting w/ a very broad, but initially handy expedient system, Zipporah Dobyn's used this system connecting the keywords of House = Zodiac Sign = "natural planetary ruler":
1 - Aries - Mars / 
2 - Taurus - Persephone (Transpluto) / 
3 - Gemini - Mercury / 
4 - Cancer - Moon / 
5 - Leo - Sun / 
6 - Virgo - Ceres, Vesta, Pallas, Juno / 
7 - Libra - Venus / 
8 - Scorpio - Pluto / 
9 - Sagittarius - Jupiter / 
10 - Capricorn - Saturn / 
11 - Aquarius - Uranus / 
12 - Pisces - Neptune.
I'm annoyed with the lumping together of the distinct keywords for the 1st house, Aries, and Mars;  but when your doing 2-3 chart readings per hour at the fundraising psychic fair of your favorite spiritualist church or at a Scripps Childrens Hospital fundraising fair, Zip's broad "number system" does have it's benefits.  Andrew Homer 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zip Dobyn's Number System

message: Searches on common misspellings of "succeed" encountered this spelling, which I assume to be correct in the context of astrology as it is in some calculus entries.  I am therefore leaving the spelling in place as-is, and entering this comment as a note to self and any others who may embark on a similar search & correct mission. Longshot14 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succedent 

message: I put the houses in individual headings in the hopes that the house meanings would be expanded upon and so a specific house could be linked to from another article through an anchor in the URL. It seems, though, that the layout now is rather clunky. Does anyone have any good ideas on how to solve this problem? Samuella 23:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken out the sub-headings for individual houses and put them in a list instead. I think the page layout is much less confusing this way.Sam 22:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: (moved from the main article)
I know of NO modern Astrologers who assign NO planetary "rulers" to a Zodiac Sign.  Cutting edge Astrologers I've known assign Persephone (Transpluto to the German Astrologers) as the "ruler" of Taurus (Joyce Wehrman, Valerie Vaughn) and the 1st 4 discovered asteroids (Ceres, Pallas Athene, Juno & Vesta) as the "ruler" of Virgo (Zip Dobyns, Lois Rodden).  Thus, leaving Mercury to Gemini and Venus to Libra.  Andrew Homer 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before discovery of "2003 UB313" (Proserpina) there were astrologers who hasn't used this fictious body you mention and they opted out for no ruler. Venus work exceedingly poorly sometimes (mean most of the time that's it :( ) as ruler of Taurus, but "2003 UB313" seems to make good fit. With Virgo there are at least three main asteroids - Ceres Pallas Vesta. And perhaps the fourth biggest - Hygiea - could make it in. But any one of them taken separately seems to work weaker than casual planet do (up to and including Pluto). So as using all four of them when they are in different signs can sometimes makes a lot of mess so there are cases where it is easer not use any - that's why no ruler used for Virgo. But very seldomly indeed. 195.205.221.99 11:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You mix inner belt (between Mars and Jupiter) with outer belt outside Neptune that could be divided further into so called Kuiper belt and scattered bodies. I've encountered view that Virgo is ruled by inner belt so far. Also sizes for outer belt and scattered bodies are usually known less precisely than for inner belt. For instance for Sedna we know only that it is sized somewhere between 250 km (lower limit by 100% albedo) and 1600 km (Spitzer sensibility limit at it's current distance). Preliminary estimates for 2003 UB313 were between 2300 km and 15000 km. After measurment by Spitzer it shrinked to 2300 km - 3200 km. After measurement by Hubble it settled as 2400 +- 100km. So as discovery of Pluto, Quouar, Varuna, Ixion, 2003 UB313, 2003 EL61 and many other objects in the region indicate there are two significant laws about their properties: 1. The bigger the body the bigger the albedo. 2. The farther the body from the sun the bigger the albedo. 83.24.229.163 14:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rulerships

message: I've been practicing astrology for a good while now.  Maybe I haven't found the right sources, or maybe I've missed something obvious, but I haven't so far been able to find out WHY the zodiac is divided into TWELVE signs and why the day is divided into TWELVE houses.  What is the special significance of twelve?  Does anyone know? Is there any specific reason for it?  Or is it basically arbitrary - or even just lost in the mists of time?? Punanimal 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Twelve Houses?

message: I've removed the section specifying meanings for the houses.  It violated copyright (taken almost verbatim from ) and was poorly written anyway.  Also removed "Further house interpretations" because it was so unclear as to be useless; I'd prefer to have clarified it but I honestly don't know what the author intended it to mean.  (Looks like possible OR, too.)  On the equal house system breaking up in high latitudes: that's nonsense, the equal house system is notable as one of the few that doesn't.  On purported history of house systems: I have for the most part left the factual claims intact, changing only the writing and removing a little bit of POV, but it is unsourced and (especially given the general unreliability of internal history in these kinds of traditions) it needs sources.  On the topocentric system: removed something that looked like an attempt to describe the technical details, but unclear enough to be confusing.  Since there's a reference to an explanation, I think it's better to lean on that.  Deleted rulerships of signs; this topic is not relevant to houses except in that some people equate houses with signs (as explained in the article).  Deleted link to Khaldea; looks like advertising, and has nothing to do with houses.  Tempted to delete both the other two external links, too, because they are about research astrology and not about houses in particular; but I left them, because houses are a significant topic for research astrology.67.158.77.195 00:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As to equal house system, it is generally considered in Germany, Poland and Sweden to deliver wrong results in these latitudes and not used. So if it fail even at these modest latitudes, why should it *not fail* after the arctic circle? This 'falling up' was reason that led to search for other house systems. But the english term "break up" is meant here only "to be computable beyond polar circles" and do not deliver the meaning if these cusps are right or wrong, so for the change I concur. As of the house systems already described on this page, quite a few od them do not break too, so it is not the sole property of this house system. This adjective "break-up" comes from Britain, where many astrologers endorse equal house system, and they use this 'argument' to (wrongly) scare up people into using it... and it works sometimes, especially with younger female astrologers. GrzegorzWu 10:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Topocentric is just different name for Placidus - only authors used "quick and dirty" trick that allowed them to speed up hand calculations, at the cost of overall error less than 1 degree (1/4 at most at 50 degree of latitude). GrzegorzWu 10:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing changes

message: :NCGR few years back has online well researched article on house systems by Michael Munkasey, but it is no longer available online on their site. So I think the link can be removed. GrzegorzWu 11:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Rob Hand and Rob Schmidt in their works pointed to the first source who desrcibed system later attributed to 'Porphyry' as Antochius of Athens (and passages from his work were later copied by Porphyry). Hand also points to Vettius Valens as the first who described what we call now as 'Equal House System'. To Chris: this revert does not mean I'm against your changes, just wiki rules are to source your changes when conflicting versions appear, like newer text where author (Rob Hand) changes his mind or someone else writes critical article where he/she put facts against thesis written by previous author. "Whole houses - the oldest house system" by Rob Hand where he put this thesis is now 7 years old, the progress can be quite rapid, and more, as he pointed out, the survived versions of many texts are sometimes quite unclear. GrzegorzWu 08:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't act like you are just following wikipedia policy here.  You undid ever single change that I made to the article simply because you are pushing your own POV.  Some of my edits are actually cited with actual sources, whereas none of your assertions are.  If you want to argue about certain things that Hand and Schmidt are saying then show me specific page citations.  Also, if you are going to cite Hand about certain issues regarding house division, then how are you going to ignore him when he says that  whole sign houses were invented in the Hellenistic period???  Aside from that, the statement about Antiochus of Athens is no longer accurate because the text that Hand and Schmidt originally published as Antiochus of Athens actually comes from Rhetorius, who is from the 7th century, so in actuality Antiochus is not the first to mention the so-called "Porphyry" house system.  Valens is.  Don't simply 'undo' all of my edits like that, especially when you are not fully familiar with the texts that you are talking about.  I have read Valens and Antiochus- you have not.   --Chris Brennan 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strange, Deb actually claims otherwise: "There’s no evidence that Ptolemy used a whole sign system and I am pretty sure that even Rob Hand would admit to that." see: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2519&sid=6762185f4928f477bdb6ee4664db5bfa 
83.24.187.105 19:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  And who described as first the "Equal house" system? GrzegorzWu 08:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GrzegorzWu, where are your references? If you can't provide any, then this revert war should stop right now. Samuel Grant 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The case is that here are conflicting views, and Chris Brennan as an advocate of Whole Sign House System tries to extend it's existence back in time, and hide different opinions. GrzegorzWu 08:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Read some more books on Hellenistic astrology man.  You are jumping to conclusions based solely on a lack of familiarity with the existing source texts. --Chris Brennan (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porphyry - Antochius vs. Valens 

message: I think the symbols for the signs ~ ♈︎ ♉︎ ♊︎ ♋︎ ♌︎ ♍︎ ♎︎ ♏︎ ♐︎ ♑︎ ♒︎ ♓︎ 
should be in the chart in the "The twelve houses" section, even if they won't show for some people. 
Astrological symbols or glyphs are to astrology what arabic numerals are to mathematics, (or suit signs ♠♣♥♦ are to cards), I think they need to be included one way or another.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.90.165 (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  symbols 

message: This is not grammatical English. At the very least, a which is missing. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:B45A:47C7:EA33:1B76 (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Every house system is also affiliated with a zodiac sign can be dependent on the rotational movement of Earth on its axis, " 

message: I am not comfortable with the use of the verb teach in a sentence that has a con artist for a subject. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:B45A:47C7:EA33:1B76 (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "which was first taught by Alan Leo in the early part of the 20th century" 

message: There are not enough reliable sources to show that this subject meets our notability criteria. Most of the sources attached to this article seem to from unreliable fringe publishers. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been 3.5 months since this proposal was started. There is no objection and we have waited enough. I am proceeding with the merge. There is hardly anything from reliable source so a redirect will suffice. Venkat TL (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Equal house system (Hindu astrology)]] into [[House (astrology)]] 

message: This has the right idea, the site is linkspam - but the old site was just the old name of the same site - also linkspam. I looked at the history. At first, there were no details about what astrologers believe about the houses. Then, there were details. Then, it had "citation needed". Then, it was cited to a linkspam site. Then, it was replaced by another one.
I think we need to go back to a much older version regarding that item. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam