Talk:Hindu astrology

message: This author doesn't meet our criteria as a reliable source. His article has been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravinder Kumar Soni. Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ravinder Kumar Soni 

message: I'd like to propose the following external link: "Vedic Astrology -- critically examinied" for addition to the article.--Other Choices (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an unreliable source, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed external link: "Vedic Astrology -- critically examined" 

message: I added "Rather astrologers generally prefer to only predict generic complementary things to specific individuals", the source says "the golden rule seems to be “predict only those things which please the listener’s ego." IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have two problems with the proposed sentence.  First of all, the use of the word "generic" contradicts the source's earlier statement that Hindu astrologers make SPECIFIC predictions about outer-world events (which should be easily amenable to scientific testing).  Secondly, the source uses the phrase SEEMS TO BE.  By attempting to insert what follows that all-important qualifier into the article -- without also inserting the qualifier -- you transform a statement of subjective personal impression into a statement of fact.  In other words, the deleted sentence isn't true to the source.--Other Choices (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complements only 

message: I agree that this article, and "external links", is not the place for a list of commercial astrologers, but it seems to me that it would be appropriate to link to the professional organization: "All India Federation of Astrologers' Societies"
http://www.aifas.com/federation/about-aifas   Also at footnote 31 reference is made to the "Indian Astrologers Federation" (circa 1982), which because AIFAS was founded in 2001, must be a different organization, but which if it has an explanatory web page should also deserve a link. --Bejnar (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Having laid this before the editors of this article for two weeks, and no objections having been stated, I will go forward and add the external link, not because of any personal belief in astrology, I agree that it is a pseudo-science at best, but because the linked website is evidence of Indian belief or, to take a negative approach, evidence of chicanery in this area. --Bejnar (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed external link - AIFAS 

message: The section on "Status of astrology" is not about whether or not astrology is a science, there is a separate section "Science" for that discussion.  The section is about how astrology is regarded, particularly among Hindus.  On 23 March 2014, editor Jim1138 reverted an edit to this section stating the Times of India is not RS on what is or is not science. Neither is the Supreme Court.  I agree with that statement, but the The Times of India was not used as a citation for the fact that astrology is a science, but for the statement that some  held the belief that it was a "science" (scare quotes).  In other words, that in India some hold a belief that astrology is a "science".  While the edit was restored, the current version, in an effort to avoid insinuations that astrology is a science does not clarify the extent of such belief in India.  I would call upon neutral editors, such as Other Choices, to rectify this omission.  I should note that this belief is not unique to India, see, e.g., "More and More Americans Think Astrology Is Science" (February 2014) citing an NSF survey. --Bejnar (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of astrology 

message: Reading this article seems like Hinduism is limited within India only.
But Hinduism is one of the main religion in Nepal also. 
Here indian astrology and Hinduism are used as analogy
And is  Modern India suitable in this article? 
AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think it OK. To avoid the article being "India-centric", it would be best to have other countries included. You could add a "Modern Nepal" section. It would need to be wp:sourced, of course. Any other countries that should be included? This would seem to be pertinent: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion between hinduism and India 

message: ,  have removed a lot content that was added much before to this article. It is related with the subject. Regarding its removal, I would like to hear more from User:Amrit Ghimire Ranjit. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know how the context of Modern India is related with the topic of Astrology .
It is just making the article India-centric when demography shows Nepal contain more percentage of Hindus than in India but even This article is totally concentrating on India as if Hinduism is of India only. User:Bladesmulti AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nepal contain more percentage of Hindus". Eh? There are about 20 million hindus in Nepal, but nearly 1 billion in India. Clearly there are vastly more hindus in India, Second Quantization (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am talking of percentage not of number. Next minority doesnot mean their absence Hinduism is not of India only.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really any good reason to remove those long term changes. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

text: But making a religion nation centric must be either edited or removed and I am doing the same. Why are u undoing it repeatedly? I hope it will be cleaned. User:Bladesmulti  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talk • contribs) 10:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware that you picked percentages as a measure, it's a rather silly measurement of importance for Hinduism. Anyway, the criteria on wikipedia is reliable sources (WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT), and it's sourced content you appear to be removing. Second Quantization (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean any India related sourced information can be added to a page of religion? 
I am not using percentage for importance but I am using it to indicate that Hinduism is not only in India AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge removal of content 

message: :Category:Pseudoscience as redundant, on the grounds that both the article Astrology and :Category:Astrology are placed in :Category:Pseudoscience. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed 

message: "Following a judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2001, which favoured astrology, some Indian universities offer advanced degrees in astrology"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passingon (talk • contribs) 08:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Please substantiate

message: Once upon a time this was a pretty good, comprehensive article, but now it's obvious that a whole bunch of stuff was removed at some point.  For example see Hindu_astrology#Elements, where vargas are mentioned and then it just cuts off.  Going back through the history, one finds these deletions from three years ago, which can be viewed as this big diff.  The deletions are in fact some very basic tenets of Jyotish that belong in a good online encyclopedia — it's not as if we lack the space for those additional bytes of text.  If the article becomes too long then new articles can simply be spun off.  Anyway, it may take some time to repair the damage but it's totally doable.  --I A Huasca (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: you can add whatever you find to be relevant, any of us can check afterwards. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic material to restore

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hindu astrology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628004005/http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl1812/18120970.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl1812/18120970.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/allahabad/Set-up-Vedic-university-to-promote-astrology/articleshow/18411238.cms
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hindu astrology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312031320/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hindu_Chronology to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hindu_Chronology
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm relatively new to editing, but the "Science" section in this article seems a bit exhaustive, I could understand a short sentence noting that there is no scientific evidence for claims made by Hindu astrologers, but an entire section attempting to debunk astrology as a whole in what should be an informative article on a specific sect of astrology?  It seems irrelevant & unnecessary, especially with the "Status of astrology" section already linking to the Astrology and Science article.  Cota-b (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording leaves much to be desired, but an accounting of the failures of astrologers to make good on their claims seems to be a recurrent theme in reliable sources on this subject. Removal of the section would be wrong. Renaming it to something like, "Unsubstantiated claims and failed predictions" might be better. jps (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Science" section - does it even belong in this article? 

message: Heavily Grecro centric assertions are worthy of discussion but cannot be considerd as facts. Greek Astrology had influence over Indian Jyotisha but cannot be said to be its Mother due to significant Astronomical data found in Vedic age literature and heavily different styles of computing and interpreting Birth Horoscopes one such example is Dasha which is very important in Jyotisha but isnt found in Greek.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4043:2099:17C5:AD61:AC3:EC02:82A0 (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:RS and WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Greece influences

message: Merge tag added by User:Dbachmann.
* Support merger into Hindu astrology. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism by James G. Lochtefeld equates Jyotisha and astrology. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  17:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Jyotisha]] 

message: The sources cited at the end give the impression that they link to sources concerning "protest from the scientific community" regarding "a judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2001". None of the sources provide such information. They only provide information on why scientists consider "astrology" - not even considering variations in astrology, which is important for a clarify article like this - to be a pseudo-science. 
Hindu astrology status as "pseudo-science" may or may not be established, regardless, this paragraph misleads the reader into thinking that the "protest from the scientific community that astrology is a pseudoscience" regarding "a judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2001" is being cited, instead it is unrelated articles. None of the articles mention the Andhra Pradesh ruling and especially the scientific communities' response to THAT event. 
MrOllie stated in changed Title is literally "Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience". I would like to again point to the fact NONE OF THE CITED ARTICLES 1) point to the Andhra Pradesh judgement itself this remains unsourced. There is no sources that the Andhra Pradesh ruling was protested by the scientific community, or protest against advanced degrees in Hindu Astrology. All the sources say is that Astrology is a pseudo-science.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygxqaxqorgkernthlk (talk • contribs) 03:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading use of sources in intro 

message: Deliberate misspelling of Vedanga Jyotisa as ‘Jyotishya’ aimed at making it look like VJ is about Astrology. And second paragraph in the Lead look like a total mess. ChandlerMinh (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deliberate misspelling/Lead cleanup 

message: Was reading Le discours du destin: La pratique de l’astrologie à Bénarès —keeping me occupied for the last few days— and wonder, if this article is worth salvaging. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A 
new
 book 

message: Sources are meant to back up and reflect the claims being made. SpruceyWind (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, Hindu astrology is a subset of astrology, and statements about astrology as a whole clearly include it - there is nothing in Hindu astrology that makes it unique. Secondly, the last source cited in the lede explicitly discussed Hindu astrology as a pseudoscience (I haven't looked further, other sources may well do to). And lastly, given attempts by the Indian government to portray 'Vedic astrology' as science, in direct opposition to overwhelming scientific consensus, there is no question that the description is entirely accurate for contemporary Hindu astrology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations reviewing Western astrology and proclaiming it a psuedoscience are not relevant to a page about Hindu astrology.