Talk:Babylonian astrology

message: I have rewritten the section on constellations which I found rather obscure. Rjm at sleepers 08:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constellations 

message: I have added two references, one related to astrology in the 3rd millennium BC, the other to an oral tradition (that may also be sourced from the 3rd millennium BC)Terry MacKinnell (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd millennium source of astrology

message: Should mention its major cultural influences on Hellenistic astrology, including developing into a kind of fatalistic pseudo-religion.  By the way, the strict 7-day week in its astrological form probably originated in Ptolemaic Egypt as an outgrowth of influences from Mesopotamian astrology (and not in Mesopotamia directly). AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree to your assessment of astrology, we cannot do that unless we have some external sources saying so. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 07:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hellenistic astrology

message: Can someone substantiate (or remove) the claim about the Babylonians coining the days of the week? As such the entry makes no sense, as it gives the Graeco-Latin names of the planets/gods along with their Anglo-Saxon equivalents, and makes no mention of what the Babylonians called these days. Harlandski (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seemingly not. I'm going to delete it as unsubstantiated WP:OR. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Days of the week

message: The section Celestial houses cites a notoriously unreliable source – D-n-J Parker, astrology book authors – boldly claiming that the Babylonian "celestial houses" are essentially unchanged in meaning to today. First of all: astrology is either pseudoscience or parareligion (or both) according to the perspective of the spectator. For such statements we need assyriologist statements, not astrology author statements. There must be at least some disciplin on Wikipedia, it is not a scribble board. The NPOV of astrology is that almost all, including many astrologers, deny that it is regular science. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a few templates for unreliable source? and citation really needed. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Celestial houses", etc.

message: I have removed the small section on the astrological houses because the information cannot be verified in reliable sources.  I've also amended the text of the first section, renamed it 'Early origins' (more relevant to its theme) and added a number of references to Francesca Rochberg's work.
The text of the following section 'Theory of Divine Governance' didn't seem to be offering anything of specific value to the understanding of this subject and there were no references to support any of its content. I replaced this with information that is referenced to reliable sources,  renaming it 'Divinatory basis' which is more relevant to the new text but keeps the gist of what the older content was trying to say.-- Zac  Δ  talk! 10:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: updates, Oct 2011 

message: The entry should reflect the fact that the five planets in Babylonia had observational names besides the names of deities with which they were associated. Thus, while Venus was associated with Ishtar, it was also named "Dilbat" and Saturn, associated with Ninurta/Ninib, was named Lu-Bat Sag-Us. Morris Jastrow, Jr., explains this in his paper "Sun and Saturn" (1910), whose text is on the WWW. Jastrow's listing is as follows: Venus = Dilbat, Jupiter = Sag-Me-Gar, Saturn = Lu-Bat Sag-Us, Mars = Lu-Bat Dir, and Mercury = Lu-Bat Gu-Ud. No observational names are mentioned for Sun (Shamash) and Moon (Sin). If Jastrow's listing has been refuted, would a more knowledgeable editor report this? N.B.: The Wikipedia entry for "List of geological features on Venus" mentions "Dilbat Vallis" based on the "Assyro-Babylonian name for planet Venus." Phaedrus7 (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet Names in Babylonia vs. Deities 

message: Much of the text in this article appears to be plagiarized from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica on "astrology", most obviously the sections on "Planets and Gods", "System of Interpretation", and "Limits of Early Knowledge". It reads as if it were written 100 years ago, and the "limitations" section takes the perspective that modern European astrology is "better" than the Babylonian form, which is characteristic of a 1911 Brittanica author, and inappropriate for Wikipedia.  Quite frankly, the whole thing needs to be rewritten from the ground up.  Goodmanj (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "plagiarism" if properly cited, but of course it may be outdated... AnonMoos (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion