Talk:Natal chart

message: Seems to me like people just want to attack astrology who are attacking the article. The point of this article is not to be scientifically accurate. The point of this article is to record what current beliefs about the subject are, and if you hamper a person who believes in it from responding with what they believe in then it won't be recorded accurately. If you want to start an article that disputes the legitimacy of astrology then it should be made on a separate page. Your views on the subject are very ethnocentric and people who use science to attack astrology are much like closed minded religious people who attack everyone who does not believe in what they believe in. I believe the point of science was never to attack any belief system, but to broaden the mind and our horizons in a very neutral and logical way. To focus on why a flower blooms and not how it wasn't made by God. In short it doesn't seem like you are making a point of how this article is not neutral, but at the incorrectness of astrology in the first place and the criticism of anyone who would believe in it. Well it exists, people still believe in it, and its not for you to say what people to believe in.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.83.253 (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "The natal/astrological chart is the basis of legitimate astrology..." ...what is legitimate astrology? 24.107.41.65 06:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my comment when I wasn't signed in. Ardric47 06:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed! I don't know anything about astrology, though, so I'm flagging the article so that someone might notice it. Ardric47 06:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, but the article should explain that. In any case, that entire paragraph contains overly defensive language that is not NPOV. It would be nice if there were an article about the "professional licenses," but again, I don't know anything about the subject. Ardric47 23:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legitimate astrology

message: Okay, for one thing, I suggest we deep-six the whole "legitimate" astrology vs. "Sun-sign" astrology paragraph.  That's interesting for astrologers to argue about, but I don't see its relevance to an article on the natal chart.  Firstly, it's a leap, and does not help define the natal chart.  Someone looking for an explanation of the concept of the "natal chart" needs to see an article clearly defining it, not an argument about sun-signs.  Secondly, it's argumentative, and as Ardric47 quite rightly points out, why indulge in defensive language in this context?  I do think a separate article on "Sun-sign astrology" would be a very good addtion to Wiki and these issues might be fairly exposed there.
Another fairly minor suggestion is that "horoscope" is not the natal chart, strictly.  "Horoskopos" was the Greek term for the marker of the time of birth, and as such, has come to be associated with the Ascendant--but as a point in the chart, not necessarily as the time of birth.  A Lot, such as the Lot of Fortune, could be used as a "horoskopos"--in place of the Ascendant--to use the resulting house placements to help delineate issues specific to that Lot, and this sort of thing was frequently done in Hellenistic times.
The language is certainly not a POV issue otherwise.  Does anyone object to these suggestions? NaySay 17:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A peer review

message: What would happen with respect to the birth chart if someone was bon somewhere other than on Earth (Eg on the Inrternational space station or the Moon, or somewhere else entirely)? Cryomaniac 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is a six year old question, but you can find a rather neat attempt at natal charts for the Martian rovers here--66.61.118.205 (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Random Question

message: Removed Blue-Moon.com as it offers no free services and it is not a reference. Smptoday (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links - Commercial Sites 

message: I would like to suggest replacing the current example of a natal chart with a well-known nativity. The current chart does not necessarily exemplify the concept of a natal chart because it isn't for anyone notable enough to distinguish between a horoscope drawn for any moment and an actual birth. A more famed nativity would be a better choice. Sam 22:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: This is the paragraph I removed:
"It should be noted that as a division of astrology, a natal chart is part of a mythic system of divination based on a much-outdated and largely inaccurate system of celestial computations, and in any case has never been shown to have scientific meaning or relevance. Nevertheless, modern fascination with this mythology continues."
This is why I removed:
* a natal chart is not a division of astrology; it is a mean
* a natal chart is an accurate system of celestial computation (the paragraph states it is inaccurate) based on a conventional (not outdated as stated in the paragraph) division of the celestial sphere; this convention is clearly and deeply treated in the article Zodiac; the article Zodiac also explains why the conventional zodiac of western astrology is different from the zodiac of modern astronomy
* also: the article Astrology explains why a natal chart has no scientific meaning
The whole paragraph provides wrong informations together with some other information that is mostly relevant to other topics of astrology rather than the natal chart itself. Sorry, I revert again; this is not a plain rollback, just a suggestion to rewrite the paragraph in a more correct way.
--Achillu (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I removed the paragraph 

message: I just stumbled upon this via the disambiguation page for rectification, and thought I'd learn what this term means in astrology. Instead, I get 2 paragraphs of long-winded waffling about the obvious fact that terms like "conception" and "birth" are ambiguous when applied to non-biological entities, followed by what looks like a severe case of cut-and-paste errors, followed (finally!) by the non-explanation "Rectification [...] is the process whereby a more accurate time for the coming into existence of an astrological chart is determined starting from a less accurate time for the coming into being of that astrological chart."
Count me confused. We appear to have moved into meta-astrology (the natal chart for an astrological chart?) without any prior warning, and there is no information at all about *how* rectification is done. Surely some astrology fan here can do better than this?
115.70.84.146 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rectification paragraph 

message: "The picture to the above-right is a modern example of a natal chart as a modern Western astrologer would most likely view it"...
It's nothing of the sort.  It's a fancy mediaeval chart of a type I never recall seeing before.  Can someone deal with this? Wombat140 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced the chart with a modern computer-generated chart that shows the features that are described in the article. Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart picture 

message: Cleaned up the lede section. Edited to remove redundancies and wordiness, added several WP links, and introduced some terms required to understand a natal chart. Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede section 

message: I have removed the supplied ref from...
:"The accurate birth time (generally agreed upon as the first breath or intake of air)Johannes Kepler, Tertius Interveniens, ch.7, 1610: "When a human being's life is first ignited, when he now has his own life, and can no longer remain in the womb - then he receives a character and an imprint of all the celestial configurations (or the images of the rays intersecting on earth), and retains them unto his grave". See translated excerpts by Dr. Kenneth G. Negus on Cura. Retrieved 15 August 2011. and location are necessary for the calculation of..."
Per...
#WP:PRIMARY: That Kepler was stating something "generally agreed upon" is not a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."
#WP:OR: Given the age and obliqueness of Kepler's works a secondary source is needed for almost any quotation not to be considered original research.
#WP:RS: The "translated excerpts by Dr. Kenneth G. Negus" from C.U.R.A. The International Astrology Research Center are not a reliable source for the translation or interpretation of Kepler's writings.
 ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PRIMARY|Primary sources]] et al. 

message: Since this term is just one of many junior synonyms of Horoscope, a better-cited article, there seems no possible reason why the articles should not immediately be merged. I'm therefore redirecting it now; if there is anything here that is reliably cited and that isn't already in that article (or in Astrology, again far better-cited, with which it also overlaps, then feel free to merge it to the appropriate section. There can't be much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Junior synonym of [[Horoscope]]