Talk:Judicial astrology

message: This article makes all kinds of claims that need sources. Some of them are likely to be unknown to or opposed by many people outside of astrology. These claims include:
* astrology gave birth to the sciences of astronomy , biology, botany, chemistry, medicine, cosmology, and physics, among other applied sciences. (I toned that one down a bit)
* Its practicioners invented the tools of algebra, geometry, and trigonometry used in mathematics.
* Theology formed out of judicial and natural astrology (needs source and explanation)
* many world religions continue to be heavily influenced by the ancient texts and astrological symbols in the major world religions of Buddhist,Christian, Islamic, Jewish, and Hindu cultures, among others. (needs explanation; it is not obvious in what regards each religion is heavily influenced by astrology)
Also, this article is lacking an explanation of who or what the "classicists" are. Algae 12:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced claims

message: *Abraham (care to give a quote from Genesis?)
*Isaac Newton (based on his article and this)
*Placidus (ambiguous name)
Also, I fixed several links. Most notably, William Lily redirects to William Lilye, an English classical grammarian and scholar – not an astrologer, needless to say. When making links, please make sure they point to the article you think it should. Also, the degree to which some of the remaining people are known to have been involved with astrology varies quite a bit (e.g. Hipparchus), so I wrote a leading sentence to indicate that. Algae 20:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Names removed from "Judicial astrologers of note"

message: I can accept the sources provided for anything astrology, but if you make statements about the history of science or religions, it is quite essential to quote authorities in these areas, not astrology. Of course they would claim to have invented everything, now wouldn't they?
I note that the term "classicist" has yet to be explained.
And the section on skeptical treatment is now very one-sided again. "Astrologers maintain that detractors who have not practiced, nor studied scientific astrology cannot state anything on astrology until they study and practice scientific astrology themselves." is wrong. Astrologers make specific claims about their ability to predict future events. Skeptics need neither study nor practise astrology to judge the validity of said predictions. You don't need to be meteorologist to judge whether the weather forecast works. Stands to reason. Algae 20:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Algae, these are your POV. The article is sourced. Suggest you also source your materials before making changes. Thanks.Theo 04:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong. You have an obvious agenda. You care about having many names on this list. I, on the other hand, don't care if Isaac Newton, Abraham or even Albert Einstein were astrologers, and if they were, I appreciate your adding them here. What I care about is that what is written in WP is actually a documented fact. And I'm afraid in the eyes of most editors your sources are no good to support sweeping claims for areas outside astrology. – And once again, I note that you adressed none of the specific issues and questions I raised, other than claiming that I have a POV issue. Algae 09:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: You do realize that with this revert, you re-introduced the formating errors, the typos, and the broken links that you created and I fixed for you? Please try and work more carefully, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a sketchbook. Algae 08:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work Algae, this article needs a clean-up: NPOV, Manual of Style, etc. Alexander 007 09:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: I would have reverted the most recent edits by Theo as well. Reasons:
* Alex did a good job at providing and citing sources for his view (just above).
* Theo keeps reintroducing obvious linking and formatting mistakes, which I'm afraid doesn't speak for the accuracy of his work.
* If I had any doubt left, I would tend to go with mainstream science.
That said, Alex, can I ask you to remain civil in your edit summaries? There is an RfC/Theo currently running if you have anything important to say about your fellow editor. And Theo: I suggest you take the current version as a starting point and make small edits – as others have told you before, there is no way you will succeed with large, controversial edits like these.  Or even better: start discussing controversial edits on this talk page before making it. Algae 08:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure; however, I was the one who started this Wiki Page, and by means have done no large "controversial" edits. Moreover, I continue to cite sources, while some add POV, without citing sources - which I think is "controversial" considering the "strong views" some have on this subject, and certainly an adversity to historical fact. Moreover, this article is just getting started; yet some continue to act as if the current version is perfect. It is not, again, it is just getting started. As for the linking, and formatting - again - it is just getting started; and if not for the "instant reverts" would most likely be easier to fill out before getting to small edits. I started the current version since some did not find this article interesting until deciding to add POV to the subject matter without much knowledge, and more importantly, historical facts, on this subject itself. So, to achieve balance, and avoid cynical, and narrow-minded POV - citing sources is best, while remaining true to Wikipedia's "be bold" motto, and verifying sources, with NPOV.Theo 09:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Starting a page does not give you any claims of ownership. And a young age of an article is no excuse for reintroducing obvious mistakes that others have fixed for you. As for quoting sources, I suggest you take a look at how Alex cited his source above, and what he picked as a source (see also my comment on your talk page). I did not see others add POV, I'd be interested in specific examples of POV statements introduced by other editors. Algae 09:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, I suppose I misjudged the significance of your assertion that it was you who created this article (you didn't, for what it's worth, but you added a lot of content). So you are not claiming ownership. – The obvious mistakes I am referring to are not POV: categories in the wrong location, incorrectly formatted sources, links that do not point to the intended article. It's now more than 24 hours that you reverted to your preferred version, and you haven't fixed any of these issues although I have pointed them out before. Algae 20:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most recent edits

message: I am not sure what is with this Wikipedia "contributor" but once again I find myself restoring legitimate information this supposed contributor deleted without posting any comments or warnings... This guy is damage on wheels... Not to deride anyone but apparently, he got an unaccredited undergraduate degree in astrology and superimposes his lack of knowledge on any astrology article posted in Wikipedia. Nor after 5 years is he apparently familiar with Wikipedia procedures (such as posting to the Discussion Section for deleting legitimate article content). In particular, he deletes valid information without notice or advisement that contributes quality to articles because he is unfamiliar with much of the subject matter. In another article he apparently had never heard of the Quadripartitum, which is the name of the book as it was known, that was the astrological Bible for more than 1500 years... If you see his edits please check them for viable information that may have been deliberately deleted...  Stevenmitchell (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored Viable Content Deleted by Chris Brennan