Talk:Astrology/Archive 3

message: Hey Lumos, is there any particular reason why you were trying to keep that Age of Aquarius song in the article?  --Chris Brennan 17:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a mistake , I was trying to remove it. Lumos3 13:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of Aquarius song 

message: I spotted this page on RfC yesterday, so here are my thoughts. 
The version to which Theo keeps reverting is far too pro-Astrology, and doesn't give the skeptical views on Astrology enough space. egs:
*Claiming that 'Astrology and astronomy were once the same discipline' is misleading. The neolithic people who built various stone circles clearly observed and measured the movements of celestial bodies, (ie practiced astronomy) and we simply don't know why they did so. Assuming that the reasons were astrological is a leap of faith. Similarly, all through history, astronomical measurements and observations have been used for navigation, rather than prediction, which makes that practice astronomy not astrology. It's fair to say that many people practiced both in the past, and it's also fair to say that very few (if any) practice both today.
:I am an avid proponent of both astrology and astronomy, and I know others who are as well.  So this << (if any) >> is quite wrong.  --64.12.117.8 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this respond to the claim that astrology and astronomy were not necesarrily the same science? Lundse 15:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theo, there's not even any proof that there was a "Great Flood", so claiming that a book (or even knowledge passed down unchanged from that time) can't be seriously claimed. 166.50.201.13 15:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What does this mean? Because the books exist that make the claim that Astrology was the basis for math, it must be? Sourcing a claim is not just finding some astrologer who believes it, it is finding a historical source for it - this Secrets... sounds like a candidate, though. Does it show how astrologers invented math? Lundse 15:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. And if N. predictions are taken to be vague enough not to be falsifiable, they are also incapable of being "true". Lundse 15:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreeing with most of the above.  There may be some things about the popular reception of astrology in the twentieth century that would be worth discussion in the article.  The most recent edit of that version of the article suffers from three weaknesses: POV, US-centrism, and lack of sources.  Durova 08:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Yes, I think that is an excellent idea Durova. I think a good rewrite by all interested editors with less U.S. centrism and adding sources is a good idea. If there are claims of "POV pushing" then suggest that sourcing is one of the best ways to proceed. The article I've edited has a source page, and more sources will be added. Would prefer this to avoid anyon's POV. Remember, Wikipedia is an encylopedia - therefore, adding sources helps the reader when reviewing the topic matter.Theo 13:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not astrology is factual, the social phenomenon that surrounds it is interesting and encyclopedic.  I'd like to see the article discuss more about that. Durova 02:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You appear to have a strong pro-astrology bias.  Take care to keep that from affecting the article page. Durova 17:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, Theo is doing the same as the "detractors" he's trying to "defend" this page against. He's allowing his "belief system" to interfere in having a useful entry being written. I am a "believer" in astrology, but I don't feel a need to rewrite this article at every turn. When I am, it's to remove over-zealous sections such as the suggestion that half of Greek mythoogy was stolen from the Hebrews.166.50.201.13 15:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If everyone proceeds in that spirit then this should become an excellent article.  Best wishes. Durova 21:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing Wikipedia Astrology Page 

message: The version that keeps being reverted continues as the only version that contains sources. As old as astrology is, there are many sources that can be cited that would end the so-called "revert wars" that I want no part of, and never did. I do not consider my additions, or edits to be a "final version" - however, I would prefer a balanced, version that is encyclopedic, informative, and allows the reader to obtain more than just website links. I have added published books, textbooks, etc., also as sources to back up the material on the Astrology Page. I will continue to cite sources, and to reference them in the article subject. It would help that others join in and help to improve the article, rather than engaging in personal accusations, attacks, revert wars, etc., but who have not sourced one book in the so-called "consensus" version. This is not a consensus, but POV, and I suggest sourcing as one fine example of following Wikipedia policy & standards to achieve the best NPOV possible for the subject matter. So, I will continue to cite published source material.Theo 17:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the "sources" that you cited are out of date, not to mention the fact that none of them back up your assertions.  Sources aren't just random books that you pulled out of your library Theo. They are supposed to support the arguments that you are trying to make. Unfortunately none of the "sources" that you cited do that, so basically you just have a few random book references added to your essay with no quotations.  For example, in your essay you are still trying to attribute sayings to Ptolemy that he did not say. I have already proven this, yet you sill keep trying to post it anyways. What about that, huh? --Chris Brennan 18:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems that your (Theo's) approach is not to provide sources that back up your claims, but to suggest that people 'read thousands and thousands of documents', which is what you said to me in the RFC section, or just 'you've got to be kidding' (in the 'positive discussion' section), where the person you were arguing with actually provided quotes on Ptolemy giving book and page ref. Why not support your claims properly, for example: Professor Foo says on p 64 of I look up and everything spins that 'insert relevant quote here'. If you are a professional, this is surely not beyond you. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here precisely because I am not interested in Astrology - I thought I might be able to help out if two sides of committed partisans were unable to cooperate. In fact, it is you, maintaining a one man revert war, and replying to all suggestions / criticism / comments with 'I'm an expert - read the subject', who is the problem. I am not going to re-appear on this talk page, I think the source of the problem is bleeding obvious. Good luck, all. (PS Prof. Foo is fictional, I was just trying to show you how you might convince other people that you have something useful to contribute by backing up your statements). Ta-ra, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Providing Sources & References for Wiki-Astrology Page 

message: I have removed this image as it does not fit well with the article. Its present in two other articles where its more important, Astrology and the classical elements and Classical element. Its leads into too much detail for the main astrology article and, worldwide, some systems of astrology have not used it. Lumos3 10:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  And actually, I had been wanting to talk about that Ptolemy picture...  Do we really need to have a 16th century picture of him up in an article that doesn't mention him?  --Chris Brennan 14:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I agree.   I removed it a few days ago, but it seems to have reappeared.  There are a lot of things that this article should cover and I don't really see any reason to feature one person's system that they came up with in the past few decades...  --Chris Brennan 02:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four classic elements image 

message: I have added a Jyotish chart image. This is Wikipedia's main astrology page and it needs to show a global view , not one with a western bias. If anyone has an image which can represent Chinese astrology that would be a nice addition. Lumos3 12:01, 20 January 2006
Yes, there's a vast difference between the Astrologies developed in greatly different cultures.  I've been amazed by Chinese Astrology, but I have yet to see anything to get excited about regarding Indian Astroogy.  I do think that each of the culturally different Astrologies be presented separtately.  My endorsements of "Western" Astrology and "Chinese" Astrology does NOT extend to Indian/Vedic/Jyotish Astrology.  StarHeart 08:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although there are many crossovers between the 'western' traditions (Hellenistic, Medieval, Renaissance, Modern, etc.) and Vedic, since they all developed largely from the Hellenistic construct.     Also, all of the above stated traditions, including several other asian astrological traditions (Chinese and Tibetan) were developed directly or indirectly out of the Babylonian tradition, so there will be crossovers there as well.  So, whatever we do will have to account for these interrelations.  I think that we are going to have to search out some wikipedians who have an intimate knowledge of the some of these traditions and I think that that may be difficult.  --Chris Brennan 21:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Western Bias

message: I don't see why Clark's "Sibling" book or Houck's "death" book belong on further reading.  They are both minor books about extremely specialized topics.  I don't think Clark's book is even in print anymore, and it's not an important work.  What is the point of giving these books in a section for people looking for a book to learn something about astrology?  Especially if it isn't in print?  These are second-tier books at best, and they for those who already are familiar with astrology.  This is not the place for them.  I think they should be removed.  If not, I'd list at least 50 more books that are better and more relevant to "Further Reading."  Any comment?
Also--the Society of the Golden Dawn doesn't belong in the same list of schools that contains Kepler College and the Sophia Center.  I don't even know if they teach astrology, but they're just a Theosophical offshoot, hardly astrological.  If you include them, you need to include a dozen others in the States which are a great deal better than they are and more up to date.  I think it should be removed.  Any comments?
Lastly, why is Cornelius a "reference" and removed from "Further Reading"?  They are all references, if you want to be strict about it.  A "Reference" section doesn't mean much when the book is listed right above it in several footnotes.  I think it should go back to "Further Reading."  Any comments?
NaySay 06:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved Cornelius's book from Further reading to References section because it is used as a reference. Further reading section normally contains materials that are not used as a direct reference but tells readers what to consult for further research. I altered the format to remove the redundancy you objected. As for the books in the Further reading section, feel free to prune. --BorgQueen 07:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I renamed the section as "Notes and references", as per Wikipedia:Citing sources. --BorgQueen 08:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References?

message: I've just been reading the page.  I find the continual comparisons to medicine deliberately deceptive.  Astrology is not a science and the constant allusions to it's supposed similarity to medicine are, to my eye, an attempt to foist credibility upon the reader.  I've edited accordingly, so that the text no longer directly alludes between the two fields.
There's a section which says "many new schools...under responsible leadership" followed by "passing an exam does not necessarily mean a student is competent".  If the school is reasonable, passing an exam INHERENTLY means the candidate is competent.  Accordingly, I've removed those because they form a non-sequitur.
I learned the basics of astrology in about six months, when I was much younger.  The comments about "it takes years to learn the most basic principles" are simply inaccurate; the author has I aver lapsed into romanticism.  I've removed them.
Toby Douglass 12:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... disregard that previous version by Theo.  He has been trying to post that for a while now and both astrologers and skeptics alike have repeatedly rejected it due to its inaccuracies.  View his talk page for more information.  Sorry to have wasted your time with the edits upon that version.  --Chris Brennan 12:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Theo - I am not a child.  Toby Douglass 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You’re a charlatan Theo.  The majority of the people here don't know enough about astrology to realize the full extent of this, and you are obviously in denial, but I know what you are.  Good riddance Theo.  --Chris Brennan 13:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review comments 

message: I reverted Theo in full and then went back and left the bulk and only reverted the intro to its previously established form. It's the only part I've worked on, so I didn't feel competent reverting everything. Having worked on it, including tracking down a source for the religious opposition, I'll only say that there is absolutely no way we are going to leave criticism in the intro as merely: "Detractors say there is no evidence for the claims that astrologers can predict the future and maintain that astrology is a "pseudo-science" at best." Marskell 13:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry to leap in... 

message: Is it just me, or is that the longest introduction to an article ever?!?!
Surely this should be more summarized? I'm quite sure most of that info can go into sections easily...am I wrong about this? Here's what I suggest:
Astrology (from Greek: αστρολογία = άστρον, astron, "star" + λόγος, logos, "word") refers to any of several traditions or beliefs in which knowledge of the apparent positions of celestial bodies is held to be useful in understanding, interpreting, and organizing knowledge about reality and human existence on earth.
(Maybe): All such traditions are based on the relative positions and movements of various real and construed celestial bodies as seen at the time and place of the birth or other event being studied. These are chiefly the Sun, Moon, planets, Ascendant & Midheaven axes, and the lunar nodes.
A practitioner of astrology is called an astrologer or an astrologist. Astromancy, the prediction of the future by the stars, is a slightly archaic synonym for astrology. An astrologer may sometimes be called or an astromancer (or the rather rarely used astromancist). The term astromancy is most often used when listing astrology among other, different forms of divination such as geomancy and necromancy.
Astrology is not considered to be a science, but is more appropriately an art, and is separate from astronomy, the scientific study of outer space. (maybe)There is as yet no accepted evidence that astrology has a falsifiable, scientific basis. Astrology has also been rejected on a religious basis by most Christian and Islamic groups, although it continues to be a tenet of others, such as Hinduism and forms of Buddhism.
Andrew Homer (StarHeart):  People show me where in the Gospel of Thomas (the ONLY gospel written when Jesus was breathing) that there's ANY criticism of Astrology.  Just because someone calls themself a Christian doesn't mean that they are.  How do you explain that it was the Arab world which maintained Astrology duting Europe's "dark ages"?  Why are you sweeping under the carpet the MANY astrological references in BOTH the Old Testament and the New Testament?
Note: the italicized parts aren't proposed to be italicized in the article, just to show what parts I'm not sure whether I think should be in the intro or within the following sections. I think the problem is that since this is a controversial article, both (or all if there's more than two) sides want to make sure the debate is done up front. I think the standard practice for the intro of any article is to briefly describe what the subject is, and then, if it is a subject that involves different views, put a brief introduction to any major detractors (and their reasons if it can be kept brief) and put the rest within the sections of the article. bcatt 10:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro length 

message: I agree with the above stated point (can't remember while writing this who left it) that this article leans very heavily towards representing Western astrology, and notice that two western astrology images are heading the article...is there an image perhaps that repesents astrology as a whole? If not already uploaded to wikipedia or commons, then perhaps a certain theme that I can try to look up on the internet? I thought maybe of using:
Or maybe an image can be made to represent the planets as seen from the earth, as this would be more appropriate to how astrology calculations are made...Any thoughts? bcatt 01:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Clarified the etymology section as it was a little bit misleading and not really complete. Although "word" in the logos sense really means "the word on..." (as in a text or oral speech), the previous representation made it appear as something much more simplistic. Besides, the logos article makes it clear that "word" is only one of the more common translations, not the translation. I chose to use other translations which more accurately represent what is meant by "word" in this sense and the rest of the translations. bcatt 01:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  --Chris Brennan 01:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology