Talk:Astrology/Archive 4

message: I would like to get some submissions for a different main image for the article.  I don't really like the current one very much, and it doesn't seem like anyone else is that into it either.  So I was thinking that maybe we could get some submissions and then vote to keep the current image or replace it with a new one.  I will start this off with my submission.  What do you guys think?  
  --Chris Brennan 23:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image 

message: This section is a dogs breakfast and needs a cleanup sometime.Lumos3 11:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know.  I've been meaning to get to it for some time now.  I never finished reworking the second half of the astrology article.  --Chris Brennan 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wrong on so many levels. Take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a forum. Wikipedia is not based on "truth", it is based on verifiability. If you wish to contribute to a wiki based on "forum" and "truth" then this is the wrong place to do it. Jefffire 10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. If you want to make edits they have to be verified from reliable sources. "Test of time" is not a reliable source. Jefffire 08:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology and the days of the week 

message: Just seem to be a few flaws in this part of the article.  I don't have much interest in the subject, so this is more from a syntactical perspective, I'll stay out the whole astrology debate.
"Astrology has had a profound influence over the past few thousand years on Western and Eastern cultures, along with the English language."
I don't understand why the English language is mentioned.  The reference seems to be meaningless, and there doesn't seem to be any sense in including it, as it has nothing to do with astrology.  I suggest it should be removed.
"Influenza was so named because doctors once believed it to be caused by unfavorable planetary and stellar influences."
Why is it so named? This seems to have been taken directly from the wikipedia page on 'flu, but the word's root needs to be properly explained if the example is to be used.
"Also, the adjectives... "mercurial" (Mercury), "martial" (Mars), "jovial" (Jupiter/Jove), and "saturnine" (Saturn) are all old words [should this not be 'Latin', rather than the very simplistic 'old words'?] used to describe personal qualities said to resemble or be highly influenced by the astrological characteristics of the planet, some of which are derived from the attributes of the ancient Roman gods they are named after."
This contains two seemingly contradictary statements - and the second statement, that some are derived from the attributes of the Roman gods is correct.  The planets are named after the gods, not vice versa, and the descriptions are characteristics of those gods, not the planets.
The entire passage doesn't read properly, yet I feel that this is a part of the article that could be substantially expanded to include much more useful and very interesting material by someone with a knowledge of the history of astrology.
*I don't know who wrote the above comment, but agree with the general tone of it. Just one point: As the planets were there long before the human concept of "gods", it seems likely that the planets gained their attributes first, later to be ascribed to gods. Does anyone know for sure either way?  By the way, the top guy on the history of astrology is probably Dr Nick Campion - perhaps his input could be solicited?  MayoPaul5 10:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects on world culture 

message: This is a definition that might fit well in the article, especially in the beginning; it's from the Universiteit van Amsterdam  (a university that offers a M.A. program in "Mysticism and Western Esotercism") so many would consider it 'official' because it comes from a fully valid academic source.
Astrology -- the practice of interpreting and prognosticating events on earth by relating them to the movements and relative positions of the stars and other heavenly bodies. The belief in invisible influences from the stars on terrestrial bodies provided a basis for practices of astral magic. Classical astrology declined around the 6th century but flourished again in Christian culture from the 12th century through the 17th. Within more limited esoteric and occultist contexts, astrology once again became popular from the early 19th century on. 
SOURCE: Christopher McIntosh, The Astrologers and their Creed, London 1969; Jim Tester, A History of Western Astrology, Suffolk/Rochester 1987; Anthony Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos, Cambridge MA/London 1999; Kocku von Stuckrad, Das Ringen um die Astrologie, Berlin/New York 2000. 
WEBSITE: http://www.amsterdamhermetica.nl/ -- see the 'Glossary' at the bottom right of this page.
THANKS -- 64.12.116.202 10:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporate this info...? 

message: As it is, the "See Also" section is a wide collection of favorite hobbyhorses--the lobbyists' lobby.  And that's quite appropriate.  But it's very long--so long that its impact is minimalized.  So why include three links that go nowhere?  There are three red links with no corresponding pages.  They are Harmonic chart, Midpoint (astrology) and Environmental cosmology (astrology and social sciences).  I propose we delete these.  If someone wanted articles on these topic, I think one should be be bold and write them before creating a link to an article that doesn't exist.  The midpoint link can be deleted because there is already a link to Uranian astrology which appears to have the only explanation of midpoints in astrology in Wiki anyway.  I'd love to write an article on harmonic charts sometime in the future, but it's a research project for me; I've only got an educated practitioner's knowledge of the subject.  In any case, it's not in Wiki and the link should go.  I don't know what the environmental link is about, but I think it's fair to apply the same "no ticket, no wash" criterion to it.  Any comments?  NaySay 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories exist for this exact reason. The See Also here should be radically shortened. Marskell 07:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one said the topics couldn't be included (even environmental whatever-it-is) -- only that if there's no article to link to, what in the world is the purpose of the link?  First write your article, then link it.  I didn't deplore the inclusion of these topics and I also didn't know it was you who included them.  Take your paranoia down a couple of notches, mister.  You're not doing yourself any favors.  NaySay 14:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, paranoia? I was simply observing that See Alsos shouldn't function as categories do. Marskell 14:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Not you, Marskell.  StarHeart above.  Apologies for confusion.  NaySay 16:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do we have links to nowhere?