Talk:Astrology/Archive 10

message: This morning I woke up to the first indisputable scientific proof of some of astrology's major claims in five thousand years of written history.
This particular line of inquiry was started 29.5 years ago (one Saturn cycle), and significantly augmented 11.9 years ago (one Jupiter cycle). No doubt I have arrived in this life with ample preparation for the moment. 
I am not making this up, and I'm not exaggerating (unless of course my interpretation of the data is faulty). Although the investigation in this form has just started, I can already see strong confirmation for the signs of the zodiac, rulerships, and houses. The current setup is geocentric, tropical, planetary (Placidus) houses and traditional rulers, but this doesn't preclude the potential validity of other systems (they will be tested in due course). I should also note that, while strong (3 sigma) correlation exists between certain combinations of the above mentioned factors and certain earthly events, interpretation of celestial phenomena may markedly differ from what astrologers are generally used to. I haven't yet had enough time to look at the data to say either way for sure.
Times are extremely exciting, to say the least. I will therefore devote my efforts to where they are most effective. I may pop in here, too, sometimes, but it will be more conducive to the well-being of humanity if I simply publish the results in a reliable source. :)
"He who has ears, let him hear."
Happy editing! Aquirata 13:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 5000 years of written history?  You assume an unbroken tradition.  In the Sumerian/Babylonian/Greek/Indian line, I can't think of a single thing, except the general importance of the sun, moon and seasons that has not changed, not even the basic meanings and associations of the planets. You are aware that the 12 sign zod did not come into existence until approx. 7th century BCE?  Good luck with the publishing.  Zeusnoos 16:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The delusions of grandeur finally revealed? Marskell 16:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I read Brown's studies on these 'circadian' rhythms - a professor I worked for as a research assistant in psychology used them and other similar cosmo-geo cyclical studies as the basis for his work.  They have little, though, to do with astrology - the only similarity is the proposition that there are cycles connected in some way to the sun's and possibly the Moon's force upon earth.  Such natural cycles do not pertain to how astrology might interpret them as well as non-natural symbolic methods (which makes up most of astrology), or how interpretations develop through history.  If, for instance, a scientific consensus is formed, one that says the Moon does in fact affect human biological and psychological states,  astrology is not proven since it has nothing to do with the symbolism of say secondary progressions, or the meanings of the 12 houses or signs, or other popular astrological techniques for prediction. Zeusnoos 04:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific proof 

message: If astrologers are using these planets, then why didn't they discover (or postulate) them before they were discovered by astronomers? Count Iblis 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your question, astrologers were not using these planets before they were discovered by astronomers because they did not know those planets existed. Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 05:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If they did not use the planets before, all their previous work would be (partially) incorect or at least incomplete. Then, if they do know about planets before the astronomers, what can they tell us about the planets that we're still missing. Many astronomers actually believe that there are some planets yet to be found.130.234.198.85 15:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only "some planets?"  Heard of the Oort Cloud & Kuiper Belt Objects?  Welcome to the recent discoveries of Sedna, Quaoar, Ixion, Varuna, Eris, and Orcus.  Andrew Homer 22:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Astrologers might not think so. In fact, there is a type of astrology invented in Germany in the 20's that uses a series of hypothetical planets. There are some astrologers today who do not use any outer planets because they are practicing a type of astrology (such as horary) invented before the 18th century.  Zeusnoos 15:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Andrew Homer, stop making personal attacks, and be civil.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 05:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Boy, you ask a lot of questions!  Answers will depend on who you ask. 
"If you say that these two versions of astrology were "invented", are you implying that all astrology was invented?"  Of course it was. Astrology is a series of methods that uses the planets, other objects, and  measurements of the celestial sphere to make either make predictions or symbolize people, events, and situations. All such methods are invented at one time or another. I mean that broadly without quibbling about the semantics of 'invention' versus 'tradition' or 'evolution'  because every aspect of tradition has been thought up by someone. Every measure that is granted significance was deemed significant by someone's criteria of establishing meaning.  
"And if not, then you must be assuming that some are indeed fictious (such as horary, as stated above), for surely something supposedly as real as astrology cannot be "invented", but instead it must be discovered."  Surely, not. I'm not saying some types or methods are fictitious and others real.  
"And what about the constellation Ophiuchus? Ophiuchus is contained within the ecliptic and yet it is not part of the Zodiac. Why did astrologers decide to leave it out?"  It wasn't deemed significant in the tradition, so no astrological significance was assigned to it. No one in ancient Greece or Late Babylon considered it a part of the zodiac, so it was left out of the tradition. It's hard to shake the cultural and traditional significance of 12 and 7. 
"Does a constellation only affect you if the astrologers are aware of it?" A question best left to someone else. Even so, most astrologers don't think constellations affect anyone, most are unconcerned for constellations but are more interested in the measures based not on constellations but on Ptolemy's division of ecliptic starting with the eastern tropic.  
"Another reason why astrology has no basis is because the Zodiac is only accurate to when astrology was invented..."
Not quite. Astrology was practiced long before the tropical zodiac became the basis for the category of signs.  The tropic zod is another contingency along the way of astrology's history.  
" (ex: If you were born on April 15th, say, then astrologically, you would be Aries. But astronomically, you would be Pisces. Which is it? Are you really an Aries, or a Pisces? " In Indian astrology, you would still be a Pisces. The likely reason for this is that the Greek immigrants in Indian were not aware of Ptolemy or importing material prior to Ptolemy.  By the time they had Ptolemy's redefinition of the zodiac, the sidereal zodiac stuck.  
On definition of planets, "Will this affect astrology? If not, why not?"  Someone added links to articles on the redefinition sight to astrologers' opinions (mainly that it will not affect astrology).  I think it will change how some astrologers interpret.  On the speculation that Ceres will become a planet, I'm already seeing astrologers grant meaning to it. Some astrologers (such as Phil Sedgwick in western U.S) have already been astrologically interpreting every astronomical discovery (Sedna, black holes, galaxies, etc).  This is quite the pluralistic postmodern approach.  Some astrologers will only use the traditional 7 planets (including sun and moon) because that's the system they choose.  Anything else?
Zeusnoos 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have astro texts, from the 1970s, on the Asteroids, including Ceres.  So, what's with:  "On the speculation that Ceres will become a planet, I'm already seeing astrologers grant meaning to it?"  New to the block?  Andrew Homer 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If it were a simple matter of stubbornness, I would be easy to refute- there would be little to question, right? Just observe.  No, these answers are from far too much experience with such proof. Zeusnoos 01:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think Pluto's classification has much influence on how it is used in astrology, and it's notable that astrologers use the Sun and Moon, though these are not technically considered planets by today's definition. Sam 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranus, Neptune and Pluto? 

message: Is there a source for the claim of a correspondence between the liberal arts and the planets?  This passage was first inserted in an anonymous edit in January 2005, and has remained substantially the same since then.  The only citation that was added in support of it was deceptive, pointing to a Wikipedia mirror rather than a confirming scholarly source.  In my opinion, the passage needs to be reworded, at a minimum, so that the mention of planets doesn't precede the mention of the liberal arts -- such a correspondence, if it was historically claimed, would have been more like a clever trope to symbolically arrange the liberal arts (along the lines of a Porphyrian "tree of knowledge") than an idea created concomitantly with the evolution of the liberal arts.  And it would be great to have an actual citation in support of the claim. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology and the liberal arts 

message: I agree that this is a bit much, and some related topics are too specific or not closely tied. Technical astrology terms (for the purpose of learning how to practice astrology should be put in their own hub, or only included if they are mentioned in the main article. My suggestions for paring:
Accidental dignity -no 
Age of Aquarius - no
Ascending planet - maybe
Chaldea - no
Domicile - no
Gnostic circle  - no
House (astrology) - maybe 
Imum Coeli (IC) - maybe 
List of cycles - no
List of magical terms and traditions - no
Lunation - no
Lunar node - no
Lunar phase - no 
Medium Coeli/Midheaven (MC) - maybe 
Monen - no
Predictions for the forthcoming year - ??
Ray of Creation - no
Saturn Return - maybe
Solar deity - no
Sporalogy - no
The Combination of Stellar Influences - no
Twelve Holy Days - no
Zeusnoos 14:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a quagmire, isn't it? If you remove something which is actualy important someone will probably put it back, so jump in is my advice. Jefffire 16:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cumbersome see also section

message: The lead section claims "as it has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness in numerous controlled studies." and uses this as its reference .  But when I followed that link I found some decent discussion of how common belief in astrology is, and the accusation that it is a pseudoscience, but no evidence of Astrology having "repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness in controlled studies."  Maybe it was there and I didn't see it, or maybe the anti-astrology folks need a different reference, or maybe this claim is too strong (indeed I can see how a particular Astrological theory might fail to demonstrate its effectiveness in a controlled study, but given the broad definitions used by this cite and the NSF webcite (Which defines it as "that the position of the stars and planets can effect people's lives," eesh), seasonal affective disorder, or any other form of seasonality would be an empirically verifiable astrological phenomena according to these kinds of broad definitions.  I'm gonna ax this claim in a couple days unless, someone can show me how this citation backs it up. Bmorton3 15:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about the NSF link. Must have been misplaced. How about  (esp the last few paras), and  or  and to back the claim? Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 04:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Footnote ten right before it does the trick, so I already moved it, add either of the ones you mentioned if you want. Bmorton3 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Glad to see you take an interest in this topic - some of the edits can benefit from attention by logicians.  While Vorpal is right to revert, you are correct about effectiveness. Effectiveness is ambiguous and can be measured in different ways, such as a client's satisfaction with astrological counseling or belief that astrology helped them know their situation.   Espoo's edit was "as it has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its claimed ability to predict future events (incl. past events on the basis of earlier ones) in numerous controlled studies."  This is an improvement because what was tested was claims of prediction (including knowledge of past events). This is awkward to define without saying 'to predict past, present and future', so your suggestion is good.  The second edit made by Espoo is also problematic because the site sourced doesn't say anything about exposing astrology as 'fraud' (which is intentional deceit) or distinguishing between common sense and critical thinking.  This strikes as an original research claim.  Zeusnoos 16:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh I wasn't criticizing Vorpal, I was trying to move the discussion to the talk page because of the inherent controversialness of the topic.  I think "failed to demostrate its claimed ability to predict future events (etc)" isn't correct either, for those two citations, although there might be others down at the bottom of the article that would support that claim.  Like I said those studies do things like show that putatively trained astrologers cannot match people to their birth charts as well as chance, which isn't an effectiveness issue, or a prediction issue, but is a experiment that turned out in ways that cast doubt on Astrology.  I think "repeatedly failed empirical tests in controlled studies" is accurate to what those two citations show, and vague enough for the lead section, so you can keep the detailed stuff in the last section of the article.  I guess I do still have a vague interest in this topic, although I haven't done much conventional astrology for years, I didn't even draw a chart for my last neice.  I'll change the lead in a day or two if no one has a good counter-suggestion or argument. Bmorton3 16:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite for failing to demonstrate

message: I rewrote the definition in the introduction that was significantly edited by Silence without discussion here.  I removed quasi-mystical because there is nothing mystical (not sure what quasi-m is) about the common practice of astrology - there is no Plotinian flight to the One nor a union with an ineffable divine presence nor a negative theology.  Astrology doesn't just use bodies (planets and stars) but measures of the celestial sphere - imum coeli, etc.  It claims correspondence with earthly and human affairs since some mundane astrology covers attempts at earthquake prediction and weather phenomena. Zeusnoos 15:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More restrictedly, LOTS of Astrology isn't mystical.  Union with the ineffable divine presence, Plotinian flight and negative theology DO all occur in some strands, these are all present in the Gnostic traditions of ascent through the heavenly spheres for example, or in the traditions of Haran.  These are not the common kinds of astrology practiced today, but they do exist. Bmorton3 15:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I wouldn't call gnosticism (any branch of it in antiquity) a type of astrology or even a use of astrology.  In fact, there are direct statements against astrology in gnosticism since since the planets were considered evil archons with the intention of keeping the soul enslaved to a fatalistic cosmos.  And astrological symbolism is used in theurgy, but Iamblichus had to alter the meaning of astrology, distinguish his use of correspondences from apotelesmatics. His use of it is not incomparable to Hermetic use of astrological meanings of the planets (as qualities that the soul sheds when ascending). Again, not astrology itself as it was taught and practices at the time but incorporation of its symbols.  Two years ago I attended a lecture in a seminar series that was to center around astrology in antiquity.  The talk was about examples of Hellenistic Jewish reverence for the planets and stars.  Nowhere in the entire lecture was there anything about astrology - this loose use of the term for anything that is not astronomy and involves the planets or stars is troublesome. It was nearly universal (with a few exceptions such as Anaxagoras) that the planets were living beings or gods. This does not make astrology. I've written about this sort of stuff somewhere.... Zeusnoos 16:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See "On the Doctrine of the Eigth and Ninth" or "Zostrianos" in Nag Hammadi, or Zosimos' "On the Letter Omega" or the old apolytrosis texts, or for that matter the modern Ecclessia Gnostica stuff.  You and I disagree about the use of astrology in Gnosticism.  It is true that ancient Gnostics disagreed with each other, and much of the function of the study of Astrology was to escape the influence of the planetary rulers (which some thought were evil, and others thought were merely to be transcended eventually), but trying to escape the rule of the planetary rulers IS a form of use of astrology! (And a fairly mystical one) (and you've got to beleive in the planetary rulers to want to escape them, and studying their ways is a natural strategy to take).  Perhaps you mean that Gnostic and Harranian Astrology resembles Samaratian (and thus Babylonian) Astrology more than Horoscopic Astrology, which is fair.  It is unfair to limit astrology to horoscopic astrology.  We know from Zosimos that Maria the Jewess at least used astrology to time the use of her furnaces in alchemy, which is a Hellenistic Jewish use of astrology that seems to fit the definitions.  When Dante ascends through the heavens in an exstatic state, and studies them and describes them and draws spiritual conclusions from what he encounters there which are to be used in life later, does that seem like Astrology to you?  It surely isn't Horoscopy, but it looks like Astrology to me. Bmorton3 18:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian, I've read these works (except for modern gnostica), and to be fair, yes they would have had to know the planetary ruler to escape it, and knowing it was half the battle and a difficult exercise (De mysterii, 8.1-3).  But they weren't going around practicing astrology like Valens, Hephaistio, Manetho (not the historian) to predict things, elect times, or know fate.  I'm not limiting astrology to horoscopic, (in fact that reminds me I wanted to put katarche back in the See also).  I think a limit should be drawn, however - otherwise everything dealing with celestial beings or regions gets labeled astrology.  As far as Dante and the heavens, this is a part of the Hermetic tradition, and rooted in Plato's Timaeus where the planets (as it was interpreted by later Platonists) help the demiurge by fashioning bodies and given characteristics to souls. I would prefer to say that Hermeticism (of this sort, not referring to Fowden's early 'technical Hermetica' or the Hellenistic texts attributed to the Hermetic line) uses some astrological symbolism without being astrology proper.  Back to practicality, I think we were talking about mystical.  Mystical means some sort of direct unmediated contact, though the editor who put this in may have meant the vernacular 'mystifying'.  Does this strike you as a proper description of astrology or one prominent enough to be in the opening description?  Zeusnoos 21:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think mystical or any of its roots belongs in the opening, I agree with you there.  How to define mysticism is another mess, but the mystical can certainly be mediated contact as well as unmediated.  I suspect that we are not disagreeing on our interpretations of the ancients, or on the best wording of the opening section, but on the definition of astrology.  I would be inclined to say that one common USE of astrology is to predict things, elect times, or know fate, (and this is certainly the most common use today) but that this is not the limit or definition of astrology.  Everything dealing with the formal study of celestial beings or regions, except perhaps modern astronomy, seems like a pretty good definition of astrology to me (and I'd be tempted to say that Astronomy is just a modern sub-branch Astrology, but hey I know I'm not in the consensus there).  Maybe what you are talking about should be called "divinatory astrology" since it is broader than horoscopy, but still includes only the divinatory uses of astrology.  I suppose we could invent a new word for my broad sense "caelology" and then reserve the term astrology for divinatory uses of Caelology, but that is misdescribing the tradition.  I think we're just disagreeing about where the bounds between "astrological" and "astrology proper" are.  Can either of us find evidence for how broadly or narrowly the word was defined or used anciently or medievally?  Bmorton3 21:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly happy with your suggestion of coining a broader category for meaning from the heavens. As a grecophile, I would have preferred ouranology, but by googling I see this was already coined since it is used in conference papers for the Society of Biblical Literature - and possibly for just such a meaning. Something worth looking into at any rate.  As far as evidence for the terminology, there were a number of words for astrology and astrologers. In Greek and Latin, the number of instances and the contexts can be found through searching the PHI and TLG databases.  I find it more useful to go by the terms that astrologers themselves use rather than the term given to them by skeptics and non-astrologers (when they don't match).  Sextus E uses 'astrologoi' for astrologers and 'astrologia' for astrology in general, but he brings together a number of terms and makes some distinctions - that he introduces his Pros astrologous in this way indicates to me that by 2nd Century there still was not popular consensus on what astrology and astrologers are called. He mentions mathematikoi, genethlialogia and apotelesmata, and is quite familiar with the regular astrological terminology.  Zeusnoos 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can't prefer the terms astrologers used over the ones of skeptics when trying to determine who does and doesn't count as an astrologer without begging the question.  I'd just assert that Sextus Empiricus is himself an astrologer (albeit perhaps a non-Dogmatic one) because he is inquiring into the issues investigated also by other astrologers.  I'll look again at SE and Zosimos at some point.  But your intuition really is that only divinatory astrology counts as astrology, and any other goals for studying celestial beings must be some other discipline rather than some other use of the discipline of astrology?  Bmorton3 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By this definition, because I know about astrology, and perhaps I have written about it too, that I'm an astrologer, although I do not practice it.  Maybe I'm an astrologerologer or a metastrologer because I study the study of astrology. My intuition on this is that an astrologer is someone who practices or teaches astrology with the intention to convey its 'truth'. Does every person who has studied astrology become an astrologer?  Sure there may be a few grey cases, but SE an astrologer?  He's one of the deadliest foes to astrology of his time, although not typically original in his arguments. Zeusnoos 16:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now we are disputing about the nature of skepticism.  Is a researcher on the topic of medical treatments who argues that a certain medical treatment doesn't work a medical researcher because of the topic of investigation, or an anti-medical researcher because of opposing the opinions of other medical researchers or both?  Usually we say they are a medical researcher opposing a particular medical theory.  What about physics? Is an anti-physicist a physicist who opposes a particular physical theory?  What about ethics? Philosophy? Literature? other fields?  My intuition is that quite generally we admit such people to the revelent terms but portray them as opposing certain theories.  SE is an astrologer who opposed some astrological theories (by compiling the thought of others mostly), he is both an astrologer and a deadly foe of some astrological theories, just as most scholars are both scholars of a field and deadly foes of theories within those fields with which they dispute.  Certainly Newton was both a physicist and a deadly foe of some physics theories.  Also there are certainly astrologers who practice astrology in the sense of giving advise based on charts while also stopping short of attempting to convey its 'truth' either for legal protection reasons, or genuine skepticism.  Back when I drew charts for people, I certainly expressed skepticism of the validity of the theories employed rather than assuring of their truths.  But certainly, I'd concede that skeptics are an odd border-case rather than the normal cases. Bmorton3 16:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, one more can of worms to open. What astrological theory did SE accept that makes him an astrologer? A medical researcher is not defined by whether or not they accept That you  calculated charts doesn't necessarily make you an astrologer, although someone from the outside might not know the difference. Zeusnoos 16:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...not always golden 

message: The introductory paragraph is rife with superscript citations. It's distracting and disrupts the reading of the article. Sam 02:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't be helped. Since a lot of stuff is very controversial, we need the citations to verify Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 04:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly every other word can't be controversial? :P I'm not saying all of the citations should be removed, just that there hardly needs to be two after almost every word in a sentence. It's downright irritating. Perhaps they can be cited in a different fashion. Sam 22:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There are similar thoughts expressed on the peer review page. Sam 22:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive citation? 

message: I knew someone had to have come up with a name for agency superstition:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-1315(199603)47%3A1%3C151%3AHATPOR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7
Zeusnoos 22:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ritual Instrumental Activism

message: I did my best to expand the pathetically small 'Further reading' section; I might add more later, but for now this seems like a decent list when compared to what it was a few hours ago.  I made sure that all of the books were written by highly respected authors and published by respectable presses, institutions, and/or universities (i.e. people and places that practice/study SERIOUS astrology and engage in SERIOUS research regarding the subject).  There are no "pop-astrology" or "Sun-sign astrology" books to be found on the list.  I'd like to add more (reputable and sourced) books that deal with non-Western astrology or other branches/areas of the vast discipline, including Vedic, Cosmobiology/Uranian/Hamburg School, Jewish astrology, Greco-Roman, Babylonian, Chinese/Asian, etc.  We also need to get together a good list of books that deal explicitly with the history of astrology as this is VERY important (I noticed MANY whilst browsing Amazon.com, but I'm not sure which are 'the best' so I hesitated to put them in the list).  Again though, if we wish to expand this list further we need to MAKE FULLY SURE that the books are from reputable, reliable, and respected authors, institutions, colleges/universities, and/or organizations.  --Pseudothyrum 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're trying to cut down the volume of this article, I agree that a few more books were needed, but not many.  All are ok references -Berlinski is a bit journalistically fluffy but he manages to pull together a popular account (with considerable speculation) by consulting the right sources. Since this is not primarily an article on the history of astrology, you may want to add the sources you have in mind (including the primary sources such as Ptolemy and Kepler) to the history of astrology page instead. The best works on this subject are unfortunately not in English. Zeusnoos 13:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books Added on Sept 5th, 2006 

message: If this topic has already been brought up, forgive me. I did a search of the talk pages and didn't find anything related.
Terms like medium coeli and imum coeli are capitalized sometimes in this and other astrology-related articles. Anyone know if this is the correct usage? I did a search on Google Books  and it seems as though some sources capitalize them and some don't. Sam 01:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are Latin terms so should be lower case - although astrologers in their works don't typical make note of it and capitalize them. They are usually just abbreviated MC and IC, and the IC is sometimes mistakenly called the nadir.  Zeusnoos 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of astrological terms 

message: What happens when the end or beginning date of a sign is changed?  Like how Gemini's end date used to be June 20th, but was changed to the 21st...does that mean someone whose birthday was June 21st becomes more Gemini-like after it was changed?  I know they're still on the cusp, but does that make them a Gemini/Cancer as opposed to a Cancer/Gemini, as it was before it was changed?  Or does it only apply to people born on that date after the change?--Tainted Drifter 10:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one is answering, you might try the Wikipedia reference desk. Sam 21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sun, Moon, planets, asteroids, comets, nodes, et al cross from one zodiac sign to the next at different dates and different times.  Just because our "man"ufactured calendar we use in the modern western world (you'll find many more different calendars mentioned here on Wikipedia) tries to use the Sun's cycle is only an approximate reference.  Thank's to leap year the next year a sun crosses the same sign cusp will still be 365.25 days later, but could appear on our calendar as occuring a day earlier.  Astrological software is much more useful to answer your question, than just using a mainstream or popular calendar.  Andrew Homer 11:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Astrology is a man made cultural system , not a science, and there are different approaches. In Sidereal astrology used in India and by some in the west your sun would be well in the middle of Gemini since in this system it runs June 15 – July 16. Lumos3 12:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, how many decades have you been doing meaningful chart readings for customers?  Andrew Homer 09:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The date you're referring to is position of the Sun in tropical Gemini. Dates for the tropical zodiac will never change because it is aligned with the seasons. Different sources will have different dates, but it's a minor discrepancy rather than a change; they're never more than a day or two different. If you're unsure about the position of your Sun, you should refer to an ephemeris or have your birth chart calculated. — Sam 13:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginner's question 

message: There should have been more coverage of Vedic astrology.--Darrendeng 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vedic Astrology 

message: Please include www.knowingsouls.com under this site.  We have honest and accurate and ethical Astrologers.
I disagree. Currently the focus of the site is psychic tarot readings and a link about astrology states they do not currently employ astrologers.Volpane 22:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  site inclusion