Talk:Pisces (astrology)/Archive 1

Archive 1

(random heading)

(inserted for readability ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 21:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Someone edited the page and put "they are the one " at the top.... I don't know if it's already fixed, but if it hasn't been can somebody do it for me please? It isn't fair to anyone that is a pisces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.201.40 (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

older entries

Hmmm, it looks like a large section of the article was taken out. The comment was that it read like a horoscope, which, while true, contains information about Pisces, that someone might be looking for. I would think that it would be better to add such information into the other articles, rather than removing it from this. Any thoughts? -Todd 06:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• If it's that table you're talking about, I think it should be removed - or fixed so it doesn't break the page. The same problem seems to be on a few other astrology pages, if not all of them. Sosei 18:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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 Pisces. If you want to add a notable person go there. --Carmelita 21:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Beginning Date?

I always knew the beginning date to be February 19th, not 20th...was there a change?--Tainted Drifter 10:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Pisces has always started on February 19th and still does. However, people often add an extra day because they're not exactly certain. Most official sources generally use the earlier dates (eg. Sept. 23rd-October 22nd) as opposed to the later dates (eg. Sept. 24th- Oct. 23rd). 81.98.160.254 12:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Pisces starts when sun enters the 330° degree of the ecliptic. That happens to vary between Feb 19 and 20 depending on how the start of the tropical year stands in relation to the calendar date. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I organized the article into different sections

--Alpha774 04:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable persons?

(I'm gonna cross-post this): there is absolutely no need to have a "notable persons" section. What about cuspers (people born between two signs), what would they be? If they went under both that'd take up more space. You can't list EVERY single person ever born under one sign. If you want to know what a famous person's zodiac sign or birthday is, just look up their separate article on Wikipedia. If they are famous, they should be on Wikipedia. So yeah, I'm taking out the notable persons section and I'm warning people not to readd it.

Also, I don't think it should say "this sign is compatible with ____, ____, and ___" because that's like bending NPOV. 75.27.185.204 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Then re-word it to say, "this sign is said to be compatible w/ ___ and ____. It really doesn't have anything to do with POV- compatablities are established just as much as traits are. I think this is a misunderstanding of NPOV in regards to this type of article.

208.53.104.68 (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)amyanda2000

Sign of the fish in Christianity

This article claims that early Christians used a Pisces symbol to identify themselves to each other, but this is not accurate. The symbol was indeed that of a fish, but it was the ichthys, which is discussed in this Wiki article in detail: [[1]]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.156.231.55 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

ok

Please, sign with ~~~~. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 21:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus' birthday was in March

Christmas was historically celebrated in March for a whole millennium until the holy day was shifted forward by papacy to December.

Please, sign with ~~~~. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 21:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Three pairs of dates: Solar?

On all Wikipedia's pages on astrological signs, there are three pairs of dates, with links under Tropical and Sidereal and nothing under Solar. Is Solar a whole other Zodiac? As regards calendars it seems to mean the same as Tropical, but obviously that may not apply to zodiacal systems. Further explanation would be much appreciated. (This comment applies to the other 11 pages too; I picked this one arbitrarily.) Boris B 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Chages I've noticed (through all the signs)

I was extremely unsure as to where to post this, but I've decided that since it relates to the signs and only the signs, I'd post it on the discussion for the last sign.

While going through the articles recently, I'd noticed that there were A LOT-and I mean A LOT-of changes from the last time I'd read them. I noticed this mostly in that a lot of trts were changed-for example, in this one, the "Pisces being the reatest friend" was removed, "small and dainty feet" was changed to "large albeit dainty feet", etc. Hoever, what I noticed most was that the places signs are linked to were exchanged for drastically different places, most of them being places I've never heard of before. Most of the stuff I'm reading that's been changed disagrees with what I've read, well, everywhere else. Can we see if this new stuff is what's actually considered correct? Such as citations, etc?

For our purposes, the person doing all this seems to be one person, "Slowishguitar". Ellethwen 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what?

I hate to nag, but what happened to all the...other information? Was there a reason most of the page was deleted? Some sort of new rule or whatever?

This hardly seems like a useful article now. Ellethwen 20:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I came here expecting something useful, but this article was rather useless --Reader of Wikipedia 76.175.139.132 07:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's back. No references though. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 ^Refill/lol 01:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dustbin of the Zodiac?

Uh...yeah...someone explain that one?--Tainted Drifter 00:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but as a Piscean myself, I find that a little offensive. I think a better wording is in order. Ellethwen 03:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really would like an explanation rather than an edit. Hmm, perhaps whomever wrote it had in mind our sign is the last of the zodiac...so it's placed at the bottom, so to speak. Or, despite being the best sign of the zodiac, we also have a tendency to be...saps? -- Sometimes, anyway.--Tainted Drifter 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it means, that since we (I'm saying we, as in I am a pisces myself) are the very end of the zodiac, we are the result of the all the other zodiac signs being mashed-up together. And, being the end of the zodiac, we also represent death (aries in turn represent birth), so we have a bit more spiritual quality in us.

I'm a Piscean and find it hilarious. We can be dustbins. Also I've heard that usage before, in a book, can't remember the title. The book's overall tone was sardonic by design however people should realize we all have a negative side. Pisceans as the last zodiac sign before a new cycle can very well be the dustbins. =P Jersey John (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh...

I don't know why...but how come the Pisces sign of the Chinese astrology is... the Rabbit? I'm an Ox myself, and a Pisces, but the Chinese astrology is by year, not by month, like the Western one. I would love to delete it myself, but I need to know if others agree with me. Then I could delete that part.--Fushy 7:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Might want to read the Chinese astrology page first. Also, I think we're talking in characteristics, not dates :-) Ellethwen (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Charateristics and related sections, removal

Relevant discussion of inclusion or removal of Charactistics, 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.

Strengths

Suitable occupations are where compassionate and intuitive qualities are needed; such as caring for the sick, needy and animals, religious, social workers, hospitals and institutions, poets, writers, actors, psychics.

Yeah "physics" fits right in there with social and hospital workers, actors, poets and writers. At least you found a way to fit Einstein in there, huh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.177.138 (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's PSYCHICS, not physics. They're very different. Please double-check the spelling of the word before pointing that sort of thing out. Ellethwen (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Other Famous People

What about melina perez wwe wrestler chingy or bowwow march 9 is pisces so y arnt tthey on there <---- how about they haven't given anything to the world. Einstein or WWE Wrestler Chingy...ummm ya!

Because we can't include every single famous Piscean, nor would it be a good idea to. Ellethwen (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions and such

I have several problems with this article.

There are no big problems until the section labelled 'Explaining House Astrology'. Is this section really necessary? And if so many sentences need to be restructured seeing that there are fragments and parts I can't decipher myself. ('People born under this house have the personality traits as an a natural Piscean'?)

There are contradictions in the Characteristics section. One example: The negative attributes section says that Pisces can sometimes be goal-less but one of the dislikes says that they dislike 'having no goals to move towards'. These characteristics are alien to me. I've researched the mysticism behind Pisces heavily (being one myself) and I expected Wikipedia to have something at least similar to what almost every other article on the sign had but this article is quite off the wall compared to the others.

I also agree that 'physics' doesn't quite fit in the suitable occupations list.

The physical traits section should be removed if it can't be cited. I've never heard of any kind of physical characteristics of any of the signs.

Anyone want to re-haul this article? It needs to be reworded and restructured quite a bit. I could do some changes but I wanted to consult before doing anything. My biggest problem is with the Characteristics section. The descriptive words are not the best and I think that many different sources should be used in this section to provide a more accurate portrait of the Pisces.

Rockerflutist1 (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's psychics, not physics. And yes, this article does need some work. However, there are so many different interpretations in astrology, it's difficult to pin down what exactly should be said here. (There's an article going on at the Aries talk page concerning this.) I think we really need to narrow down that famous Pisceans section, however. We don't need to point out every single famous Piscean. How about just the really really famous Pisceans? Ellethwen (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article is poorly written. Incomplete sentences. To me it does not matter so much what is said since astrology is very much open to personal interpretation, but I feel that it should at least follow the conventions of proper English. As an piscean I am very sensitive to these kinds of things. 24.22.59.213 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable people who share this sign section

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.

Major Overhaul

I did a pretty major overhaul of the article.
Hopefully no one will object since it was in dire need of some work, and I think that it's looking quite good.

I've only included two citations, but they're both excellent resources with extensive information on the subject matter. Also, I'm currently studying astrology and happen to be a Piscean myself... not that it matters or anything, but I figured it might be worth mentioning. :)

pixiequix (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could open you up for allegations of conflict of interest... :D

Seriously, though, I have to question some of the changes you made. Why did you remove a source from the lede, for example, or change the interwiki links from things like Mutable sign to Mutable, planets in astrology#classical planets#Jupiter to Jupiter and so forth? I also wonder if you personally checked all of the characteristics listed against their source, because as somebody who watches this article I can tell you things are added to and removed from that section all the time.[2] If you didn't, then the Checkcite template needs to be in place. Pairadox (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to remove any specific sources or interwiki links, I must've just overlooked them... Sorry about that.
And no, I didn't sort through the characteristics. Hmmm... I'll go back over some of this stuff if you haven't already.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention though, I appreciate it.

pixiequix (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still working up the courage to dig through the history to discover when the source was added for the characteristics. (I think it was around Nov 1 last year based on talk page comments at Talk:Aries (astrology).) I suspect that will provide the only clear, sourced version of them for the article. Anything without a specific citation that varies from that list will need to be cut. Pairadox (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, I totally know what you mean! I'm not feeling up to that task either.
Maybe I can piece together a new characteristics list, complete with citations. I"ll see what I can come up with.

pixiequix (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read all the comments but i just want to say that this article still needs ALOT pf work, not only in wikipedia standards but also because almost every single article is written better than this one. I mean come on guys we can't let the rest of the zodiacs show us up >.>. As a fellow Pisces I agree that yes we are the best, but in the future lets try to keep the article as neutral as possible. Even I can read the article and tell that some of the people who have been editing it have been self bragging on ourselves. Also there are multiple books printed that would be reliable sources for zodiac stuff. --Diaboli (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC) ps. also guys I KNOW we are lazy as fuck but come on we have to..well...stop being lazy! Get some work done XD --Diaboli (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Compatibility

So, if Pisces is supposed to be compatible with signs of its own element, it should go with Cancer and Scorpio, not Virgo and Libra which are an Earth and Air sign respectively, not Water signs. Then again I am AGAINST Compatibility sections as all signs are complex enough to be compatible with every other sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.131.133 (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Water signs are compatible with Earth signs. In astrology, Earth and Water do NOT create mud. Jersey John (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Indeed, they are more compatible than Water and Water, as that combination runs a higher risk of getting lost in each other, and not in a fun, healthy way. And Water and Air? Forget about it. Water and Fire is a maybe/maybe not.

No I'm not talking like this is absolute truth, only within the confines of an interest in astrology. Jersey John (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC) (though sometimes... hmmm...)

And by the way, Virgo and Pisces compliment well. They are opposites on the zodiac, and in astrology opposites do indeed attract. Pisces sees in Virgo all it wishes it could be, and vice versa. Generalizaion, it's deeper than that. Jersey John (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep the compatibilities between their own elements. Read the discussion on the Taurus Talk Page. kashimjamed (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

But why within just the same element? Jersey John (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Because different sources/websites will list different compatibilites. If someone wants to know who they're most compatible with, let them do the research on their own, it's not that hard. Someone963852 (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point.Jersey John (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved

This section moved from Pisces (constellation). B00P (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

hi im 12 and im wondering what it a pisces actually is as well as what it actually means. What are the qualities of a pisces and what are they good at.

P.S. any one who sees this please respond ASAP

I have a friend who's a pisces and I find hes geniunely nice and caring, also very gentle and innocent. Good sense of humor, selfless

I don't know when you posted this, but Pisces are very easy going, and are very artistic, but they can be selfish at times. Also are emotional at times, usually when something horrible, sad, or demeaing happens. I am a Cancerian and I get along with Pisces very well. 70.162.37.27 00:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

i don't know who said pisces can be rude. it's not at all true. only the person is rude.

I hear they get the hottest chicks. 156.63.162.7

No, that's for Libra and Aries. Remixed 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Err, astrology is considered pseudoscience. Ardric47 00:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the perfect match for the pisces? can you answer me that?

I WOULD HAVE TO SAY PISCES WITH ANOTHER PISCES

No.... i would say pisces and a taurus!!! there great together but need space from time to time... I say pisces and cancer they just click and are meant to be together. I LOVE MICHAEL OZGA! (L)

well what about a pisces and a virgo, would they work out to be a good match??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.101.181 (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From my experiences (as a pisces myself), no but there are so many variables I can't give you anything solid. It is often debated along with many others. If your looking at someone in particular who happens to be a Virgo, try it. What can it hurt? If this was no help at all go right ahead and say it. lol -Tom the techie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.12.214 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sign

Strange that ♋ looks more like two fish than the 'new symbol' which doesn't even have a unicode representation. The new symbol also looks more like a crab with two )-( claws, aye? Cancer, anyone? Seems like some bullshit historians made their way to Wikipedia, the propaganda machine.

1. please sign your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~,

2. the pisces symbol is encoded by U+2653 (♓),

3. as for propaganda machine, there is a nice neutral pedia that might be of interest to you, namely Conservapedia, which speaks truth, not the idiotic boring WP:CITE exercised in eternity ...

me myself is of the boring kind ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 22:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

General

Why are all of the same element considered compatible? Can someone tell me why that is? Slowish guitar (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's incorrect, but has been on this page for so long that it's not worth trying to rectify. I suggest you do not use this article for any real information on Pisces specifically or astrology in general. It's been a pretty bad article since day one. Jersey John (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent Deletions in 'Compatibilities' section

I disagree with the recent editing of the Compatibility section by MakeSense64 (please see comments in the Aries section). Robert Currey talk 13:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody stops you from reverting my changes. Remember the 'bold-revert-discuss' principle on WP. It would be a big waste of time if every edit always has to be discussed first. So editors are encouraged to edit boldy, but if somebody disagrees then he can revert, and then it has to be discussed until concensus is reached to make a change or not. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Major Additions in Collaborations for UofT Project

As part of a UofT assignment, we made some major overhauls to the page. ChantelCarr (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirection of Western Zodiac signs

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} 15:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving some information to the "Astrology" article.

Hi there,

This article is getting pretty large! I've read through some of the information, and it seems to me that quite a lot of it is applicable to astrology in general (including all the other star signs), and not just relevant to pisces. I recommend moving all of the general astrological information to the astrology article.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to re-shuffle the remaining information so that all of the scientifically unproven stuff is all in one section, titled "Mythology", or "Traditional beliefs" or whatever. For instance "Pisces spans the 330° to 360° of the zodiac" is a scientific fact, whereas "Pisceans are perceptive, emotional, and reasonable" is not. On that topic, what would be the best name for the section? "Mythology"? "Traditional beliefs"? Is there a better more specific word to describe the non-scientific astrological ideas?

Anyway, given that I don't know a great deal about astrology, I'd like to nominate User:Starcartographer for the job : ) If he's too busy, I'll give it a go myself.

InternetMeme (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

How about "Superstition?" - s t a r c a r (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

With the information coming together, a reorganization is needed, but I am not certain on the best route. As an astrological topic there needs to be better distinction of parts. For example, should the information on its relation to the story of Christ be part of its history, its mythology, associations, in astrological age, the signs cultural influence? The truth is it could be any. Greek religious stories as myth, but not Christian myth? It is tough, but here's my thoughts:

"Background": constellation, astronomical information, early appearances.

"Mythology" brief intro

"In early mythology": Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman

"In modern mythology": Christian, Judeo

"Astronomical age": explain ages, expand on Christ

"Associations": simple classifications, when and why they were selected as such.

"Personality": what the associations imply

"Compatibility": what the associations imply

"Influence": brief intro

"In the arts": cite examples

"In the _____":

Any suggestions or input? Thank you in advance. - s t a r c a r (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Personality Section Is 100% Wrong, & Bias Is A Nono On Wikipedia

Pisces is the Sign of blindness, psychicness, dreaming, art, and martyrdom. It has NO ASSOCIATION WITH REASONING. Reasoning is a Virgo matter/trait, under the rule of the Planet Mercury. Pisces is the Opposite of Virgo, and is under rule of the Planet Neptune (which blinds us). Further, there is not supposed to be such obvious bias on a wikipedia article as saying "no scientific basis" when there is also no scientific disproof either. Wikipedia articles are supposed to focus on facts, and being free of bias. Spinning the page to call astrology nonsense is not free of bias, and is not about facts. (Anyone who has studied astrology knows it is not nonsense. - My guess is that it has to do with energy, gravity, or both influencing DNA, mood, etc. Whatever might some day be proven for why it's real, it is real. But, most people are only familiar with con-artists, and "horoscopes," which is not actual astrology.) If you mistakenly think astrology is a religious matter, then apply the reason you should, as a human being, have, and remember to be respectful to believers, instead of writing astrology articles from an Atheist-specific perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.213.171 (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Different astrologers have different opinions about the Zodiac. No one of them can be proven incorrect and all are equally valid because the claims are very vague, even though they are utterly contradictory with each other. I hate to burst your bubble, but there is scientific evidence of the falsity of Astrology. Where it has made specific claims it has been falsified. Your comment "about energy, gravity, or both influencing DNA" as a basis for astrology is laughable, perhaps you might want to read Astrology_and_science#Lack_of_mechanism. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You're not bursting anybody's bubble. Point to a real study falsifying astrology. The term "falsified" is thrown around a lot like a fetish. I've seen demonstrations but they're not very scientific. It's usually a self-professed skeptic getting a reading, then revealing at the end that he'd provided the wrong birthday, thereby exposing fraud, or something of this nature. Unscientific and only confirmatory for biased (aka unscientific) people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.21 (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

" It's usually a self-professed skeptic ..." You didn't clink on the link then. Second Quantization (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Corrections to dates, date and citation format in sign articles

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) 20:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Birthday presents? wtf

In the 'Associations' section, the following: "Pisces are particularly annoying about opening birthday presents." What the hell does that mean, and shouldn't it be 'Pisceans'? Akld guy (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Content differences

Pisces has more than twice the amount of sections than the other signs. What's with the additions? Is Pisces more interesting or something? Not to mention Aquarius has no characteristics whatsoever and only talks about Ganymede. Gingerbud123 (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

George Harrison Pisces Fish

Hi, was wondering if we could add the song "Pisces Fish" by George Harrison, to the section on popular culture? It is from his album "Brainwashed" from 2002. Thejahbro (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC) from James dated 10/10/2020

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jennalawtonn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Quality of info in Astrological Age section

The source for most of the connections between Christ/Pisces seem to come from some fringe-y Christ myth theory book. I'm not sure on the reliability of the other sources, but I'm skeptical about this info being representative of a mainstream view in astrology or Christianity. CarringtonMist (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)