Talk:Astrology/Archive 5

message: Can someone right a section that explains how astrology is not real so people don't get confused?
:Anonymous has a legitimate point. There is very little written here on astrology's lack of valid evidence. Jefffire 16:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a ton about it in the Validity of astrology article which is referenced in this article. This article is already quite large and devoting more space to a subject elaborated on in a lengthier article is simply unnecessary. Sam 17:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Partially agree, most information should go in validity of astrology. But the scientific consensus isn't given the weight it deserves in the main article. Jefffire 18:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It got deleted for being a POV fork without notable content and a mess of wiki policy violations. All traces of it have been purged from Wikipedia, but if you are lucky an editor may have saved it in their personal computer. Jefffire 12:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no clue what the contents were, but now we are left with an Astrology article which presents astrology in a misleading positive light, the last edit by Piper Almanac was even more biased and I was close to revert it, I rather have this discussed here first, but the scientific position should be made much more clear. Having an encyclopedia that basically presents astrology as a fact is ridiculous. --Lost Goblin 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not agree. There seems to be at least a hint at the absolute falseness of astrology in every portion of the article. This article is about the historical and modern tradition of astrology and there is a subsection on the modern empirical view and a link to a humongous article on its validity. Any more dogmatic rhetoric would be redundant. Sam 18:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In some cases the sections relating to science are worded to imply that there is some validity to astrology which of course there isn't. This concern should largely be allieviated with a few NPOV rewords. Jefffire 18:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Soapbox and Trolling, ignore. Jefffire 20:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Soapbox, rant and trolling, I'll try to ignore it... Lundse 08:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not true

message: Talk on :Twelve Holy Days- a category under astrology
Astrological significance of “ Twelve Holy Days “ requires further discussions & logical interpretation. Its usage in electional astrology has to be explored & as the information provided by this paper may guide the readers to perform holy activities in the said days.
First of all the logic put up that “ the Sun commences its journey from South to North “ during the night between 24th  & 25th December, is not corroborated with astronomical fact. For example : winter solstice in 2006 shall start on December, 22 at 00h 32m GMT. 
Further the Gregorian calendar has been modified a number of times to rectify errors. Like last time in 1952, Friday, October 5, 1952 was counted as Friday, October 15, 1952. Great Britain it was amended in September, 1952. If start of the said 12 Holy days is to coincide with winter solstice, we may have to change the dates every year accrodingly. Should we understand that for the 19 centuries the masses were following incorrect Holy days, or we are now doing the mistake since 1952. 
Further logic given that on December 25, the earth is swept by powerful solstice radiations – also needs corroboration with astrological & astrological observations. It coincides with the shortest day in northern hemisphere, and longest in the southern hemisphere. It can not have the same effects on both the hemispheres. The importance of winter solstice day is also reckoned in Hindu astrology, though they also celebrate the same on the day the Sun enters sidereal Capricorn. 
The Sun just ingresses tropical Capricorn sign on winter solstice time. It forms junctional point of two solstices, two signs, seasons etc. Such time is declared as one of the most prohibited time in astrology & especially electional astrology  by Hindu / Vedic  system of astrology. Accordngly, the auspicious electional activities are prohibited & only worshipping & donations etc. are prescribed during such junctional durations. For more details please refer to my blog on : "Astrological Junctional Points – Dreadful Periods in Electional Astrology" : Secrets of Vedic Electional Astrology - http://besttimeofelection.blogspot.com
Also the author may like to explain as to how reference to zodiacal sign Virgo has been referred to in connection with the journey of the Sun on December 25. The Sun has no connection with Virgo sign during the said period. 
A serious discussion is felt necessary to guide masses, who may have right for logical explanations with reference to Holy book, astronomy as well astrology. The dates may have to be changed to coincide the requirements of the dictums, about which I express my ignorance. Perhaps we require to follow constellation system or transit of the Sun on specific degrees of the zodiac. 
--shridharvk, May, 9, March 2006 (UTC)
:Not to put to fine a point on it but...what? Jefffire 09:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twelve Holy Days 

message: Is it really necessary to have so many images in this article? There are so many the images form more of a distraction rather than a complement to the text. On my system, some of the lower images throw the alignment of the text all out of whack and make it difficult to read to say the least. How about we keep only the most relevant and scrap the excess? Sam 04:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything we need MORE images on this page; we live in a visual world, where pictures are often more lauded than words/text.  You should put back any images recently taken out, too.  --152.163.100.202 05:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that images are an important supplement to the text, but currently there are quite a few images stacked on top of each other with no intelligent placement. The problem with so many images is the article is hardly dynamic and poses a problem for readers who become irritated at the difficulty of reading some of the areas in the article. I've been reading a lot on usability standards in the past couple of months and in the current state, some of the sections of this article fail considerably. Another factor to consider, of course, is the relevancy of the images. We need to determine if an image really complements the article or is just being used because it's available. I've put the image I removed because it was throwing off the alignment of the "see also" area back and I hope we can come to a decision. Sam 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are too many images in this article and they do need to be reduced.  I'm fine with any changes that you make.  --Chris Brennan 21:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image overload?

message: ... is a summary of the main article it refers to (OVA). This is not a place for a collection of various studies, and the recent addition by Siddharth srinivasan is, in my view, a step in the wrong direction. Don't takle me wrong: I don't have a problem with including this content, but I think it should be in the OVA article and not here. Aquirata 12:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern Aquirata, but it's my opinion that the views of the scientific community are essential to the subject of astrology to give a balanced view, as opposed to the view of the astrologers and the their theories. So according to me, it's vital that they are described here in the main article. The collection of studies are facts given to validate the claims. siddharth 07:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A single study has no place in a summary - it should be moved to the OVA article. We can start adding single studies for and against. What's the point? The presentation already heavily favoured the scientific view, there is no need to bolster it.  Aquirata 12:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this section should be 

message: I think it's important to include the criticism of astrology in the main introduction to give a balanced view, because the overwhelming majority of the scientific community dismisses astrology as a pseudoscience. siddharth 18:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks. Marskell 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add, partly on stylistic grounds, that we don't need a specific name as you have in your addition. A robust but general description of the criticisms would be good for an intro on a subject like this. Marskell 22:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of astrology in the introduction 

message: I'm going to avoid a long response to Samuella's point immediately above with this short one: a "good understanding" of astrology is not needed to analyze proposed mechanisms any more than Kepler needed a "good understanding" of the planet Venus to arrive at the laws of planetary motion. He needed the principle, the mathematics, and the method of deduction. 
Whew. The proposed new section 
*Cultural expression and impact
**Rejection of astrology
I don't want "rejection of" to sound too punishing. I just want a place for, for example, "the Catholic Church and Islamic doctrine consider it a superstition." I actually added that point once upon a time and it was removed (surprise). Marskell 21:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that this proposed new section is missing a positive subsection (in the interest of providing a balanced view). I would also call the negative subsection Objections to astrology to stay as much NPOV as possible. Aquirata 10:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed section

message: ... was moved to the OVA section, along with a 'fact' tag. This has been already explained over at the OVA article. Aquirata 23:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this for a compromise: "Astrology is often defined as a form of divination by astrologers and as a pseudoscience by much of the scientific community." Both statements will need to be sourced properly. Aquirata 10:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it's reasonably well organized now, OK by me. Doovinator 11:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: OK by me (or something like it), I do think that it should be "most" of the scientific community or just "the scientific community" (unless someone can find a scientist or two who does not think it is). Lundse 19:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument in introduction