Talk:Astrology/Archive 12

message: After discovering a citation requested by other editors and discussing it with Doc , it was agreed to to reinsert the disputed sentence and recall request for 3rd opinions and comment. Ramayan 11:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Issue not resolved.  It may be a true statement, and relevant for the article, but it makes no sense at its current position in the opening.  I doubt it should even be in the opening, where astrology is discussed in much more general terms.  Whatever "vedic astrology" is supposedly replacing hasn't even been mentioned yet!  It certainly has no place in the paragraph discussing scientific viewpoints on astrology.--128.100.216.206 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue resolved 

message: Why is the opening of this article entirely devoted to the perception of astrology as seen by people who aren't astrologers?  It's not as though mainstream science doesn't get enough opportunities to devalue astrology.  It would be a refreshing change of pace to portray how astrology is defined by the people who actually (gasp) practice it.  
pixiequix 09:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I relate to your concern, but the way the lead is now is fair in my opinion. There is a good balance between differing viewpoints. That's not to say the lead is perfect (it could use a little cleanup, e.g., move refs to body text), but it doesn't give any undue weight as I see it. — Sam 12:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia policy clearly says that,  the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. IMO, there's no "bias" in the article's introduction. It simply describes how the scientific community considers astrology as a pseudoscience, and entirely conforms to NPOV.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 08:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once upon a time, didn't the majority believe the world was flat?  Doesn't "science" mean common knowledge for the common?  Historically, haven't most cutting edge researchers been considered crack pots?  It appears those who can't make a contribution to science pretend they're making a contribution by harassing Astrologers.  Since Jungian psychologists and the research of financial astrology validates Astrology - it's the Astrology debunkers who clutter these pages who are the psuedscientists here.  67.0.231.136 04:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say its history and traditions are defining subjects. I'm not suggesting an entire paragraph or anything, just a sentence or two. As far as refs go: yes, it's likely to be challenged, but if its sourced once in the body text, why would it need to be sourced again in the lead? The bits about pseudoscience, for example, could easily be integrated and sourced in the Astrology and science section (if such wording is not already there, that is). There is similar sentiment on the featured article critique: "The lead doesn't provide the broad sweep that is required. Compare it with the ToC", and "Awkward prose, dictionaries make bad references, the lead shouldn't have footnotes since everything stated there should be elaborated and supported by the body". Just some things to consider. — Sam 13:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree. The use of "despite" trips up the tone of the sentence, implying that unless something is validated by science, it is not valid. I will try to rework the text if no one has any objections. — Sam 13:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Improvements for the Opening Paragraph 

message: I think the previous way the traditions were handled was much cleaner than the new approach. Further, not all of the previously termed "Esoteric" traditions are Medieval or "early modern" in their history.  And what exactly does Renaissance magic got to do with anything? These edits were justified in saying they should be chronologically ordered, but they already were. Please provide some further reasoning. — Sam 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit my change was rather hurried and  I apologize for this. I have no objection to keeping a separate discussion of "esoteric traditions". However, all the things listed in the "esoteric" section seemed to refer to medieval to early modern western astrology, and a historical treatment of that era was missing. My concern is that the historical development of these things become apparent, instead of "esoteric" stuff somehow floating around as if they were timeless. The solution to this is simple, keep a "history" section including a "medieval/renaissance" subsection, and still give "esoteric traditions" a separate summary. Renaissance magic has everything to do with this, since the classification of astronomy among the "magical arts" was a hotly debated topic at the time. dab (𒁳) 20:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the historical information to parentheses in the interest of text aesthetics. I am also renaming the section title to "Esoteric" as it was before, as lumping all of these topics into one single time period is bound to have some inaccuracies. Alchemy, for example,, existed before the Middle Ages (dated all the way back to 5,000 BCE according to the alchemy article). Divinatory tarot is dated to after this period. "Esoteric" is the best descriptor for these topics as a whole. — Sam 02:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Esoteric astrology" is a tradition within itself, yes, but this section is concerned with the intermingling of astrology and other esoteric disciplines like tarot, alchemy, and so on. — Sam 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditions reorganization 

message: As noted in the talk page header, Category:Astrological factors is being considered for deletion. Comments are welcome at the nomination page. — Sam 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus was to delete. Those interested in discussion can add their comments to Wikiproject Astrology's talk page. — Sam 03:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have brought up a discussion on the WikiProject talk page. Comments are welcome. — Sam 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Astrological factors 

message: Wasn't there a revelation sometime in the late 1990s that astrologers had been using the wrong calendar or something?  What is the deal with this, and why is it not in the article?  I remember this made big headlines back then. -Rolypolyman 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the wrong zodiac? There is an ongoing argument against tropical astrologies (those used in the West) that it is invalid because it's based on a zodiac that no longer corresponds to the actual star positions. Perhaps that suddenly grabbed the press's attention? Or is it something else? — Sam 04:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive astrology errors 

message: :Astrology (from Greek: αστήρ, αστέρος (astér, astéros)
is wrong. The correct form is "αστήρ, αστρός (astér, astrós)", period.
signed: KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.28.18 05:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An anonymous user recently changed it. I've reverted it to the correct version. Thanks for pointing it out. — Sam 06:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone should have studied Classical Greek harder! 

message: The paragraph is full of unverifed, unsourced statements that did not conform to WP:V. Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 08:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Critical appraisal of traditional astrology 

message: The information is relevant in this section, with a NPOV it can stay. This section was depending too heavily on the work of Michel Gauquelin. Linking to the work of more researchers will only improve its value as a reference in this subject. To the guy that erased it because it doesn't have credibility: IT DOESN'T MATTER. Wikipedia is not about truth. Read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight: the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. Tarnas' work satisfies this criteria, to the point of having his own Wikipedia article. And it's relevant to the subject discussed. For me, that's enough to have the link. As long as it's written in such a way that it doesn't endorses, nor denies the validity of his claims. Diego (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war in the Research section 

message: So, if it isn't already clear to everyone involved, it appears that one of the astrologers who has recently contested one of the opening paragraphs on the page is engaging in creating sock puppets in order to 'win' the revert war and sidestep the 3RR rule.  Since User:Rumbird was the guy who originally seems to have started the edit war on that paragraph, and he was already warned once recently for violating the 3RR rule, he is the prime suspect, although it seems that User:Budfin is getting in on it now as well, so he could also be the culprit.  Whoever it is, I think that it is ridiculous and disgraceful.  Actually it is more embarrassing than anything else, because I'm an astrologer as well, and this is the type of stuff that makes the rest of us look bad- or, worse I should say.  The current sock puppets appear to be User:Ali the Munificent, User:Random-chess, and User:SciFiApostle.  Their edit histories make this apparent.  If anyone knows any high level admins could you please ask them to do an IP check and ban this guy?  --Chris Brennan (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, yes, it is a banable offense to create alternate accounts simply for the sake of stacking the cards in your favor in an edit war.  It isn't just the so-called 'science buffs' who you are engaging in the revert war against.  You have reverted other astrologers as well.  So, at this point you really are just pushing your own POV on everyone else, skeptics and astrologers alike, in a way that is not constructive at all.  You aren't the first though.  Every few months the astrology articles on Wikipedia get hit by the same sort of nonsense by some astrologer who thinks that they are being persecuted, or who thinks that their opinion is right no matter what anyone else either inside or outside of their community thinks.  What you none of you guys seem to realize or care about though is that you are doing more harm to the subject that you supposedly advocate than good.    --Chris Brennan (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take note of Wikipedia:Sock#Alternate account identification.  It would be very helpful for you to clearly identify each of the accounts you have used as being alternates of whatever is your main account.  --MediaMangler (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock puppetry on the astrology page 

message: This is simply to supply the full name of this person - and to avoid a mix-up with John Dewey. --rpd (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph John Dewey, born in 1945 

message: The graphic illustrating the astrological symbols for the plants still lists Pluto as a planet. Does anyone have a more updated graphic illustrating the symbols sans Pluto?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.203.130 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: About Pluto – afaik, astrologers haven't discarded it as signficant body, although in astronomy its planetary status was changed. For that matter, the moon signifies as does the sun and neither are planets. Is there any update on this? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Julia is right.  Astrologers still treat Pluto as a 'planet' in the same broad way that the Sun and Moon are treated as 'planets'.  The current astronomical status of Pluto has little relevance here, as the distinction is considered to be more or less arbitrary by the astrological community.  Unless we plan on updating the main Wikipedia pages on all of the planets to include some astrological information, which is currently kept separate at this point, then we should keep the two domains of study separate from each other in this area as well.  --Chris Brennan (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core Beliefs suggestion 

message: Can we find a way to edit in how some astrologers find the research methods of the scientists questionable?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.228.86 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dennis Rawlins article has been addressed and refuted by Philiph J Klass. See the aptly titled article, crybaby . 59.92.59.31 (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gauquelin was not an astrologer, has not become one, and he never will. As for the self-entitled "skeptic", all of them are just raw materialists and narrow-minded petits-bourgeoises. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research methods 

message: I was quite surprised to see no mention of Biblical references to astrology here, as I'm sure that these would be of interest to many people. Has there been a past consensus to exclude these? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical references 

message: What's the deal with this novelty? I don't think most astrologers are hermetics. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hermeticism?? 

message: I suggest that the entire segment "(From Greek: etc)" must be removed and remain absent until it can be written by someone who knows
for example the meaning of "nominative" and "genitive", or the differences between Ancient Greek and Modern Greek. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Etymological references should always be in the nominative. Wouldn't have taken too much to fix that, right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.175.182.25 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed --- or at least I think so. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubtful etymology 

message: Is there someone who can give a convincing reason why the Hermetism template should be on this astrology article? If no explanation is forthcoming, I may soon remove that template. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't any reason for the template, and it only applies to a small fraction of the traditions discussed in the article.  I took the liberty of removing it.  --Chris Brennan (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hermetism template 

message: Those who have edited in related areas within WP might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion 

message: Here is a question: Suppose one day our civilization expands to encompass multiple star systems, or equally, that one day we encounter an alien civilization. The question then is, what validity could astrology have, since it inherently assumes the configuration of our own star system?
Suppose humans establish a colony on a planet orbiting another star. Does our astrology still apply to them, or do we need to devise some new astrology, based on the planets that exist in their star system? Does every star system have its own system of astrology? Is there some formula we can use to construct the astrological interpretation of an arbitrary star system, or are such interpretations purely arbitrary? Suppose we were to adopt such an interpretation -- what if we encountered an alien civilization which had devised a system of astrological interpretations which could not be made to conform to our generic model?
Let us suppose I am born in this star system. I therefore have a natal chart. The assumption being, that my continued presence in this star system, causes the positions of the planets at the time of my birth to have a continued influence. Now, suppose I then move, by means of interstellar travel, to another star system. Am I then governed by that star system's planets or by the planets of the original star system? Do I need to redraw a natal chart by the new star system, or do I keep my original natal chart?
More troubling for adherents of astrology -- since the theories of relativity deny the existence of simultaneity, I cannot necessarily identify times between distant locations, e.g. multiple star systems. So, if I was born at time X in star system A, I cannot necessarily find a unique corresponding time Y in star system B, such that X and Y are simultaneous. Equally, if right now is time X in star system A, I cannot necessarily find a unique corresponding time Y in star system B, such that X and Y are simultaneous. The result is, that, it appears, astrological influences cannot pass between systems.
And, while I am on an interstellar spaceship, between the two systems -- how does astrology govern my life then?
In terms of the future evolution of our civilization, interstellar travel is probably a long way off -- and the question of when and/or if verifiable contact with extraterrestrial civilizations will occur is essentially unanswerable. But lunar or Martian colonies are probably much closer. If I am on a lunar or Martian colony, how does astrology effect my life? It would seem obvious that, if there is any validity to astrology at all, that Earth-bound astrology cannot apply while on the moon or Mars or in space. And yet, if it cannot apply, what should apply in its stead? When the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon, or were in transit to or from it, what astrological influences applied to them? --SJK (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're starting from a false assumption, however this isn't a forum for astrologers in space :) Verbal chat 10:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: SJK, this talk page is only for discussion related to the writing of the article, and is not an astrology  discussion forum. If you want to discuss your ideas with others who share your interests, you might consider joining one of these Yahoo groups . (3750 astrology groups are listed, although many are probably inactive.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interstellar travel 

message: Was this correct, or does "them" refer to the astrologers themselves? Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous pronoun 

message: And this is an unnecessary flourish. While not explicitly false (yes, astrology's adherents do believe this), its presence is implying something, and to me it suggests that non-adherents might believe something other than what is being asserted in the article. I fail to see, however, what the alternative to that proposition, as exactly worded, might be. The wording that I am advocating is the following: "Astrology...is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs, according to which knowledge about the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details aids in the understanding, interpretation, and organization of information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters." Not even the most hard-core skeptic would deny that, according to this "group of systems, traditions, and beliefs," celestial knowledge aids in psycho-social understanding and interpretation. For the sake of comparison, if I say, "According to a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, the universe was created in six 24-hour days," I don't think I'm saying anything too controversial. The fact that I, personally, do not subscribe to such an interpretation might motivate me to attribute it to an outgroup: to "them," "the other guy," or, if I'm feeling formal, "adherents." But if I follow through with this and say, "According to a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, claim the adherents of such an interpretation, the universe was created in six 24-hour days," then at best I'm suggesting, not that there are alternative interpretations to the literal interpretation of Genesis, but rather that there are alternative understandings of what it means to have a literal interpretation of Genesis. So if we call astrology a system of beliefs, and then qualify that with a phrase like "according to adherents," we're suggesting (if we are indeed editing without bias toward alternatives to astrology as a whole) that there is an internal debate about what astrological beliefs entail. Put differently, saying that "astrology is a system of beliefs according to which X and Y are true" is enough to allow for the existence of those who do not share those beliefs; but saying that "astrology is a system of beliefs in which adherents believe X and Y" makes room for the possibility that astrology is a system of beliefs in which someone else believes Z and A. There is no discussion in the article about such an internal debate, in which someone actually contests the lead's attribution of a celestial-terrestrial link to the astrological "group of systems, traditions, and beliefs." So there's no need to define astrology in terms of its (e.g., conflicting) adherents or in terms of any other people. It is a concept, an abstraction, relative to which X and Y are true. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: TLDR. I think you're an adherent of astrology, and as such are unqualified to make unqualified assertions about neutrality. That's just a guess, based on my observation of your apparent inability to be reasonable and find compromise with two editors (I and Verbal) acting in good faith. But I'm not the judge here. Let's talk to the good folks on WP:AN3 and maybe IRC, too. I have a feeling this isn't your first run-in with NPOV. -Stevertigo 19:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Way to WP:AGF. FYI, I have an academic background in science from a mainstream American university. You will have a very hard time pinning an agendum on someone who both A) works to reduce bias toward scientific approaches and B) comes to the defense of User:ScienceApologist. But good luck all the same. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi CL, I know you're a good editor but this isn't working. We've put up alternatives and you keep taking them down, but some form of attribution of these beliefs is, I believe, required. I hope we can come to an agreement. All the best, Verbal chat 20:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My main issue at this point is that it seems difficult to make attributions in the lead sentence without saying something to the effect of, "astrology is a system of beliefs in which believers believe..." One might toss around synonyms, substituting "adherents" for "believers" or "claim" for "believe"; but when it's made clear from the beginning that astrology is a system of beliefs, it should go without saying that those who subscribe to this system of beliefs are the ones who maintain that these beliefs are true. I don't think I would object if the attribution introduced new information (e.g., "according to its 500,000 adherents"--a statistic I just made up, attesting again to my lack of expertise in astrology); my problem lies with the reiteration of already-implicit information, which raises the question of why this information is being reiterated and could therefore lead to the assumption that the editors are somehow trying to editorialize (e.g., does "according to [them]" mean "not according to us"?). But if the purpose of the reiteration is clear (e.g., to introduce the fact that X many people subscribe to the beliefs), then the aura of POV can be avoided. Anyway, I'll be going to bed momentarily, so if I don't respond for a while, that's why. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well now its three to one in favor of adding some "unnecessary flourish" to the lede: me, verbal (both added "are claimed to") verbal (more involved version), and Nunh-huh, who asserted something more simple, "which hold that" which is fine, but not as clear as "are claimed to." "Hold" is a word that simply means "claim," but "uncessecarily" (and obviously) avoids it. Astrologists do "claim" that astrology does such and such, don't they? They haven't proven such, have they? Since its not a matter of proof, its a matter of claim - its really that simple. -Stevertigo 00:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Maintain" would be yet another alternative to "hold" or "claim". -Nunh-huh 02:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Stevertigo: As for "three to one," I can count, believe it or not. But this isn't a WP:VOTE, so let's stick to the arguments, shall we? On that note, of course astrologers have not "proven" their arguments. Proof is not their aim; subjective validation is their aim. Scientists, too, do not aim to "prove" anything; they strive to provide objective evidence in support of, and even against, various hypotheses and theories, all the while realizing that (if they follow Karl Popper), insofar as their assertions remain scientific, they can be falsified at any time. Astrology, as a form of hermeneutic investigation, hinges on subjective evidence, whereas science, as a form of empirical investigation, seeks objective evidence. In either case, evidence either does or does not provide support of pertinent theories. "Proof" is best reserved for mathematics. "Science" and "objectivity" are not synonyms for "truth"; they are just vehicles among other vehicles through which truth can be pursued. There are plenty of synonyms, however, for "adherents," "claim," etc., but I have yet to hear an argument for why any of them should be used in a manner that is ultimately redundant. I think I put it well above: "When it's made clear from the beginning that astrology is a system of beliefs, it should go without saying that those who subscribe to this system of beliefs are the ones who maintain that these beliefs are true." Of course it is astrology's adherents who adhere to astrology's tenets. What I don't understand is why this redundant point needs to be made. As I also said, however, it could be entirely reasonable to attribute astrology's adherence in a non-redundant fashion, e.g., by pointing out how many adherents it has. Obviously "a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs" has adherents and non-adherents. Do we really need to be told that it is the adherents, rather than the non-adherents, who adhere to these systems, traditions, and beliefs? I think not. But we could gain something by learning how many people qualify as adherents, or by learning some other new fact about them. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed Nunh-huh's revision and am completely fine with it. It's direct, succinct, non-redundant, and reasonably neutral. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, when one has a content dispute with an editor who is not blatantly trolling, it is often best to WP:AGF and keep one's WP:COOL. Rather than introducing oneself to this editor by referring to him in the third-person and becoming confrontational before slandering him hither and thither, one might consider engaging with him in a civil manner on a talk page or, failing that, seeking community input at WP:RFC or at a relevant WP:WIKIPROJECT. Just a thought. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the current phrasing too. I think we can all learn something from this - for me it's not to edit while actually too tired to talk, and that it's better to suggest compromises on the talk page rather than trying them out all the time. Personally I prefer shorter comments with discussion rather than some of the long comments we've had here, which can actually have a negative effect (I didn't have the time to write a long reply, but didn't want to seem to be dismissive). Best, Verbal chat 17:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: According to adherents

message: "From the classical period through the scientific revolution, astrological training played a critical role in advancing astronomical, mathematical, medical and psychological knowledge. Astrological influences included the observation and long-term tracking of celestial objects. It was astrologers who provided the first systematic documentation of the movements of the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars. The differentiation between astronomy and astrology varied from place to place; they were indistinguishable in ancient Babylonia and medieval Europe, but separated to an extent in the Hellenistic world."
:"separated to an extent in the Hellenistic world"? where did you get this from?  Citation, please.  I'm afraid this is stretching it to a considerable degree.  To me, there seems to be modern anachronistic thinking in this statement.  I'm wondering if you mean that Ptolemy isolated the divination elements into Tetrabiblos?  That's the only example I can think of that you might be referring to, and what evidence is there that he did that for any other reason than because it was a separate topic?  Ptolemy was of a very scientific temperament (and I use this in the modern sense) and he really held his nose when confronted with what he considered "numerology"--meaning the so-called "lots."  But when it came to astronomical observation and speculation, he himself apparently did not make a clear distinction, except as an intellectual category.  Nothing else can be proved.  Without the religious and divinatory impulse, people would have been much less impelled to record the position of the objects in the sky.  In Ptolemy's world, there was no separation between the philosophical (encompassing the religious) and the scientific, although undoubtedly among the intellectuals one finds individuals whose predilections were mathematical or engineering ore astronomical or scientific or religious.  -Nadine Harris NaySay (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But a lot of it is true- much of early astronomy was only researched in the first place for astrological purposes.216.252.84.20 (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But the opposite is even more true: much of the current astrology was formed from a degeneration of scientific astronomic theories, that had reached a very high scientific level in the Hellenistic period, and that came lost during the subsequent centuries of decline. This is very well demonstrated in Lucio Russo's book, "The forgotten Revolution" --79.38.22.37 (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the opposite is even more true: much of the current astrology was formed from a degeneration of scientific astronomic theories, that had reached a very high scientific level in the Hellenistic period, and that came lost during the subsequent centuries of decline. You really have no idea of what you're talking about. Astrology never has had a thing to do with "scientific astronomic theories", and for the ancient civilizations, the astronomic knowledge would be considered useless outside of its astrologic applications. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.226.185.104 (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree.  The section makes some very big claims, for which no supporting evidence is provided.  Furthermore the use of the term "astrology" to describe pre-modern study is highly ambiguous.  Even if "systematic documentation of the movements of the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars" was done for mystical reasons, it doesn't imply that the work had anything to do with astrology as currently practised.  — Hyperdeath(Talk) 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, sounds more like you just have an axe to grind against astrology, period. Truth is early on astrology was a driving force behind astronomy, indeed served to give real astronomical study a jumpstart. Truth hurts, deal with it. No one is saying "astrology is your new god and is always correct!" But th truth can not be denied that astrology jumpstarted astronomy. Sorry. Jersey John (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You use the word "truth" three times, and yet you provide no references to back up these "truths".  Stop making projection-laden accusations of tendentious editing, and start providing respectable sources to support your claims. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there any citations for this babble??