Talk:Planets in astrology

message: According to the section "Other solar system bodies" it states that Ceres, Pallas, and Vesta are visible to the naked eye.  According to the Ceres article, this is untrue (6.5 Apparent Magnitude is required to be visible to the naked eye under perfect conditions--remember, lower is brighter).  Both Pallas and Vesta are right on the edge of the visible scale (and most of the time, are invisible-check the ranges of their apparent magnitude)....  This is misleading.  It should be changed.  Chris b shanks (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: My source is the astronomy textbook Voyages Through The Universe, second edition, by Andrew Fraknoi, David Morrison & Sidney Wolff, . Beginning at the end of page 27: "As famous for his astrology as for his astronomy, Ptolemy compiled the Tetrabiblos, a treatise on astrology that remains the "bible" of the subject. It is essentially this ancient religion, older than Christianity or Islam, that is still practiced by today's astrologers." The vast majority of astrologers of the Western world then follow Ptolemy in his interpretation of the planets known in his time.
From the discussion above, it appears that the only other really major tradition of astrology is Chinese astrology, and to cry POV just because it's shortchanged in an early draft of the article is a bit much. Later drafts will properly elaborate it, I'm sure. Dmetric 16:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "bible" of astrology, supposed POV of article 

message: Umm, I like the article, I like the idea behind it, a few problems though. I don't like the constant refference to Alan Leo all the time, hes not exactly the best know astrologer or the most reliable. It would probably be wiser to go with someone older or more known in the field rather then just a random theosophist. Especialy since he is just repeating what was already said about astrology before, I always stress source material.
also you bring up Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, but then you never given another astrological refference of Ptolemy, Would be awesome to see that.
third, you give no refferences for your chinese astrology, Personaly, I find this a difficult topic to get information on without knowing chinese fluently. But i'm sure you can scourge something up
the non-classical planets are given mystical refferences without any real reason and is more then highly conjectural.
In conclusion, I like the idea, but needs some more work, keep it up.
Jaynus _Izanagi 20:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Conclusive 

message: Undue prominence is given to how a single book refers to various parts of the solar system. The book is not significant enough to warrent this, and so this constitutes POV and spam. 81.156.176.226 16:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you have a better book. Then by all means use it! No one's stopping you. 141.217.84.93 23:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr Leo's book 

message: This may be a nitpick, but since astrology doesn't actually use the heliocentric model in its calculations, is it right to refer to the astrological system as "solar"?Serendipodous 18:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not especially. I'd support a move back to Planets in astrology; the common, well-established terminology in astrology is "planets" for the Moon, Sun, etc., and the fact that it's inaccurate towards the scientific definition of "planets" is as irrelevant as if the botanical definition of a word differed from the theological one; both definitions apply equally, just in different fields of knowledge. Any support/opposition for a move back to Planets in astrology? -Silence 11:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, move it.   The title just doesn't sound right.  --Chris Brennan 17:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Solar system"?

message: The entry for Mars has a reference to "Mangal", but there is no relevant article with that name.
Also: reference #26, pretty sure that "funkastrology.co.uk" does not meet the reqs for a wikipedia source guys.
"Ceres, as the Goddess who has control over nature's resources and cycles, may be known also in astrology as the planet of the Environment. Going back to mythology, an early environmental villain is the figure of Erysichthon, the tearer up of the earth, who cut down trees in a grove sacred to Ceres-Demeter, for which he was punished by the goddess with fearful hunger. In this sense Ceres became an emerging archetypal in the social response of becoming aware of the recent Climate Change, and is entering our collective consciousness as a need to take care of our natural and irreplaceable resources in the 21st Century. As an example, the 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill both ocurred during the conjunction of Ceres and Pluto.[26]"
Correlation is not causation. Especially when totally baseless and loaded with speculation. I'm sure 47000 people also spilled their milk those days. So what?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.178.188 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Reference Problem 

message: Would anyone object to my merging all of the "planet (astrology)" articles into this article? Almost all of the information in this article and in the daughter articles is identical anyway, and what us relisting the same information twice will make both pages breeding grounds for ach of the planets had, say, a page or two of astrologicatubs, rarely more than a paragraph or two in length, with very, very little potential to expand much in the future, I thi all-around organized place to work on expanding the articles, and less worry about keeping track of a dozen random stubs. This would not, however, necessarily be a permanent merge: if, a few years down the line, say, theithout going crazy and also making sub-articles for, logy)", if it's still only a paragraph or two long. What do y'all think? Similar merges  they all rely on parentheses to be distinguished from their main articles (Sun, etc.), are probably best served by simply merging them all into Solar system in astrology and linking to this page, rather than a distant stub, from Mercury (planet), etc. -Silence 10:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection in the short term , but in the long term I expect each section will grow to such size that they will need to be moved back. Most astrology articles linf to the article on the planet concerned , not the Sign. Work needs to be done to correct this. I would like to see the redirects left as place holders for the future. Lumos3 11:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, anything can happen in the long term. Eventualists like you and I will simply wait until the sections grow large enough to merit separate articles again (as I feel the "Moon" section already does). -Silence 21:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: How come there are 2 different symobls for Pluto in this article? Which one is used in which context? 
Do the new planets like "Xena" or Ceres have a special symbol too?--Sonjaaa 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some astrologers use PL, some use the other one. On the Pluto talk page, we were discussing a third symbol from the 1930's used in an astrological almanac.  Ceres has an astrological symbol - it looks like a sickle. I have not encountered any astrological glyphs for Xena - perhaps because the name hasn't been officially decided upon. I wonder if astrologers think the name is frivolous?  The meaning of (previously determined) asteroids in astrology was derived from mythology. Zeusnoos 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The PL is astronomical the Neptune-looking thing is astrological, I don't like the PL because it doesn't stand for Pluto, it's Percival Lowell's (the discoverer of Pluto's) monument to himself (pretty well symbolized by Pluto, a clutch for eternal power and memory, in a way achieving immortality). The same is true for the Uranus glyph with the curves connected to the cross, it's actually an H for William Herschel (I think the Sun+Mars astronomical version is truer to Uranus' nature). --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note on above - Percival Lowell did not discover Pluto, he died before it was found, so it cannot be his monument to himself.108.60.43.240 (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Hi there! The symbol for Eris (as it is now known) is currently under debate , but one of the possible symbols for Eris is the Five Fingered Hand of Eris, taken from the Principia Discordia, page 21. There is a petition to the IAU underway, and it would be interesting to find out what the 'meaning' of Eris in astrological charts  (there are some other possible versions or prototypes for the Eris glyph there) will be, as well. --Travlr23 01:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Has the International Astronomers Union reclassification of Pluto, Eris, Haumea and Makemake as "dwarf planets" had any effect on astrology? One can imagine alternative articulations with just eight planets following Pluto's 'demotion', or with Eris, Haumea and Makemake recognized as additional 'planetary' bodies with their own 'influences' in this context. Do such alternative astrological perspectives exist?
203.114.146.141 (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Symbol for Pluto and new planets?

message: I've changed the order of the classical planets back to Sun, moon, mercury, venus, mars, Jupiter, Saturn. This is the standard order given in astrology books. Sun and moon come first due to their added significance in astrology. If someone has a reason why it was changed to the reverse order of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars etc, they should explain it in a small section and leave the order as it now is, as that is the order accepted by the vast majority of astrologers.Neelmack 09:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of classical planets

message: Subbing all the images with planets is a bit misleading, since astrologically the classical planets are more closely tied to their mythic counterparts than they are to anything discovered by Galileo, Cassini or NASA. Since the modern planets are not as closely tied to their mythic namesakes as the classicals, I think their planet images can remain. Serendipodous 17:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I've reinstated the mythological images

message: The image :Image:Pluto.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Pluto.jpg

message: Why are all the references to houses formatted as e.g. "1st" "8th" etc.? These should be changed to first, second, third, etc., namely ordinal numbers! At least the article is consistent as it stands, so I don't feel too compelled to change this all myself. But whoever is maintain this page - please be aware that your casual tone (using "=" signs included) and style is not winning you any admiration from your readers. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs copyediting 

message: I just skimmed over some of this article, and noticed some elements that make it seem less like an encyclopedia article, such as the use of 2nd-person pronouns to make it seem like it's talking to the reader, and at least one use of an exclamation point following some somewhat opinionated sentence structure. Should consider some rewriting? Daruqe (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agree, I added a multiple issue template to the article to reflect this. This article provides a wealth of information but is not written in an encyclopedic style. I also added a innapropriate-person template to the section on Ceres.Tinss (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written Like Astrology Website 

message: The article asserts that Pluto's alchemy symbol was "chosen given the close association with Mars which has a similar symbol." But the symbol resembles the one for Venus, not Mars.--86.179.225.42 (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto's symbol 

message: "Pluto represents extreme power and corruption; the discovery of Pluto in 1930 coincided with the rise of fascism and Stalinism in Europe, leading to World War II. It also coincided with the Great Depression and the major proliferation of organized crime in the United States.[citation needed]"
The discover of Pluto actually reduced the power of Pluto & chaos ensues as a result, since SHADOW is the habitat of Pluto.
I know it's irregular for me to share that, but I think it should be corrected for the sake of those interested.
71.219.3.176 (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad interpretation of Pluto 

message: Unfortunately in modern astrology a new set of unproven planet rulerships were created. One being Pluto ruling Scorpio. Pluto is actually a binary of Chiron. Scorpio is the distant cousin of Aries. They are inconjunct and thus operate very differently. But they have the same goals in mind.
Astrologer Seth Morris (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mars is the ruler of Scorpio not Pluto 

message: Dear fellow editors interested in this article: I saw a number of edits in the last few days made by IPs, which may be problematic; unfortunately, I am not able to judge if they are legitimate or vandalism. Is there someone who could review them and validate or revert them? You may see a summary of the changes here. As far as I can tell, these changes seem arbitrary and if they are legitimate, then they at least should be accompanied by references to RS. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of recent changes 

message: All (except ceres and earth) have rules day, like sun in Sunday, mercury in Wednesday, etc.. and what about ceres and earth? they must have rules day too, but when..? 
And please, write earth in "Classical planets". Earth must be clarify on classical planets too.
- Kim Dong KyuSpeaking  11:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Ceres and Earth? 

message: The dwarf planet Eris is thought to have a rulership over Aquarius. Eris was discovered in 2003 and already being larger than Pluto, some astrologers began to view Eris as an important celestial object or "planet" in astrology. Eris might co-rule all air signs including Gemini and Libra. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eris' rulership over Aquarius debated 

message: It states, "Meanings have had to be assigned to them by modern astrologers, usually according to the major events that occurred in the world at the time of their discovery..". My question may or not be trivial, but if the answer is relevant I think it should be included in the section. Sorry for being long-winded but I have trouble putting this concisely. 
Is it a coincidence that the Greek names for new planets chosen by astronomers fit in so neatly with the mythological meanings that astrologers use? Is there some hidden reason why new planets are so named? Is it just a right-brained fantasy or is there an actual link? For instance, say, Neptune is discovered, but do astrologers then connect it to bitcoin, jelly beans, death by electrocution, or Darwin's Theory of Evolution? No they don't, they use the same archetypal mythology for Neptune/Poiseidon and reckon it works. 
So.. given the supposed correlation between Greek and Roman mythology with planets' names and their archetypal energies, is it an accident or a fluke that newly discovered bodies e.g. Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Chiron etc always fit so neatly with the  attributes astrologers ascribe them? It seems that astronomy names a planet, astrologers take the archetypal energies associated with that Greek god, apply it to their charts, and PRESTO! It works! 
We can easily understand how the Ancients connected mundane events with mythological gods and planets, and given that it was so long ago, there was plenty of time to work everything into a neat set of complexes. But how is it that any recently discovered planet (in the last few hundred years), given a rather random name chosen by an official Astronomical Society or Governing Body, a name with no apparent link to mythological powers, how can it so quickly fit in with the attributes assigned to it by modern astrologers? 
Let's take Pluto for example. Associated with Hades and the Underworld this symbolism was adopted and used by astrologers to represent the hidden parts of the psyche as indicated by the Twelfth House. Now I know many people will pooh-pooh astrologers (and who can blame them?) but astrologers swear it works, and they do the same thing, with the same 'successful readings' (they claim) with all the new heavenly bodies. 
Once I read a claim by a theosophist that "everything is connected" and that "Divine powers intervene and direct mundane affairs" so that the 'correct' name is attributed to any newly discovered heavenly body. Sounds pretty far-fetched to me. Some would argue that it can't get any more sillier, but if astrologers just make this stuff up as they go along wouldn't their jibber-jabber just get even more nonsensical? Wokepedian (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: the section 'Major planets discovered in the modern era'  

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Sun(astrology) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 22#Sun(astrology) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sun(astrology)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I tweaked the Introduction... In astrology, planets have a meaning different from the astronomical understanding of what a planet is. Before the age of telescopes, the night sky was thought to consist of two very similar components: fixed stars, which remained motionless in relation to each other, and moving objects/"wandering stars" (), which moved relative to the fixed stars over the course of the year(s).
To the Ancient Greeks who learned from the Babylonians - the earliest astronomers/astrologers - this group consisted of the five planets visible to the naked eye and excluded Earth, plus the Sun and Moon. Although the Greek term planet applied mostly to the five 'wandering stars', the Ancients included the Sun and Moon as the Sacred 7 Luminaires/7 Heavens (sometimes referred to as "Lights",Hone (1978), p.22) making a total of '7 Planets'. The ancient Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Romans and others thought of the 7 Classical Planets as gods and named their 7 days of the week after them. Astrologers retain this definition of the 7 Classical Planets today.
To ancient astrologers, the planets represented the will of the deities and their direct influence upon human affairs. To modern astrologers, the planets can represent basic drives or urges in the subconscious,Hone (1978) p. 19 or energy flow regulators representing dimensions of experience.Arroyo (1989) pp. 7, 27 They express themselves with different qualities in the 12 signs of the zodiac and in the 12 houses. The planets are also related to each other in the form of aspects.
Modern astrologers differ on the source of the correlations between planetary positions and configurations, on the one hand, and characteristics and destinies of the natives, on the other. Hone writes that the planets exert it directly through gravitation or another, unknown influence.Hone (1978), p.19 8th paragraph Others hold that the planets have no direct influence in themselves, but are mirrors of basic organizing principles in the universe. In other words, the basic patterns of the universe repeat themselves everywhere, in fractal-like fashion, and "As Above, So Below".Copenhaver, Brian P. (1992) Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius in a New English Translation with Notes and Introduction, Cambridge University Press: New York, NY. Therefore, the patterns that the planets make in the sky reflect the ebb and flow of basic human impulses. The planets are also associated, especially in the Chinese tradition, with the basic forces of nature.
Listed below are the specific meanings and domains associated with the astrological planets since ancient times, with the main focus on the Western astrological tradition. The planets in Hindu astrology are known as the Navagraha (literally "nine planets"), with the addition of two shadow bodies Rahu and Ketu. In Chinese astrology, the planets are associated with the life forces of Yin & Yang  and the five elements, which play an important role in the Chinese form of geomancy known as Feng Shui. Astrologers differ on the signs associated with each planet's exaltation. 50.253.143.113 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 Classical Planets in Ancient Astronomy/Astrology 

message: In Convivio II.xiii, Dante does not compare Mars to arithmetic, he compare Mars to music. 204.116.59.90 (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dante and Mars 

message: Only partially correct. Planets are considered to be in their Fall when in a particular Sign, (usually an opposite sign) not a House. For instance, Venus is considered to be in a fall in Scorpio, Mars is in a Fall when in Taurus, etc. There are also points called "detriments" as well, where a planet is in a sign that's bad for it's expression. I don't have the table in front of me, but it seems this section needs correcting, and expanding. 2603:8000:8903:74FC:C07:8AC6:5030:6CD1 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of planetary Exaltations, Falls