Talk:Astrology/Archive 2

message: User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.
:Maybe he's labelling religion as superstition because it's superstition.  Are you seriously contending otherwise?
Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way! 
:He is not damaging Wikipedia, he is improving its acuracy.
: Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles 

message: Following discusion on the possible removal of links to schools lets make a list of criteria for what external links can be kept:
Here's my straw man proposal. 
#Astrology and its history - keep all as long as they fit this heading
#Schools - max of 3 most repected worldwide
#Validity and usefulness - keep all as long as they fit this heading
#Astrology in relation to other thought systems - keep all as long as they fit this heading
#The astrologer's tools - How is this different to free calcualtion?
#Horoscope calculation -  Only to free sites and only the 3 most respected in each branch of Astrology
Lumos3 13:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed links to www.doublesign.com from Free natal reports/Western astrology and Chinese astrology subsection, since doublesign astrology has its own subsection anyway. And, Chris, let us know how you think about the criteria Lumos3 proposed. I have no particular objection yet. --BorgQueen 14:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only main change that I would make to the proposal is that I don't see any reason to limit the number of schools to three, as long as it doesn't get out of hand, and as long as any schools added are not primarily tradeschools.  The reason that I say this is because I am not entirely familiar with all of the other schools outside of the english speaking world, although I know that there may be several major ones.  Plus, the tradeschool limitation alone should be enough to seriously limit the number of applicable schools.  Also, I was wondering if you were purposing that we combine the Astrologer's Tools, and Horoscope Calculation sections Lumos?  --Chris Brennan 21:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link SPAM removal 

message: I don't think the English days of the week were named after the Sun, the Moon and the five planets at all. Sure, Sunday, Monday and Saturday, but I was under the impression that the other days' names came from Norse mythology (Friday <- Frige, the Norse goddess of beauty). thefamouseccles 01:56, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology and days of the week 

message: Theodore7 ‘ s edits on Judicial astrology would be suited to a place in the history of astrology  or as an article in their own right but it is a huge POV imbalance to the introduction of the main astrology article to try and include them here as if they are the  central form of astrology. Lumos3 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Judicial astrology

message: "Astrology and astronomy were once the same discipline and many famous astronomers practiced as astrologers."  
This is a myth Theo.  Astronomy is the observation of the movements of celestial bodies, while astrology is the interpretation of those movements.  There is a big difference.  While the two subjects were obviously complimentary to one another at one point in time, and the growth of one was largely dependant on the needs of the other, this does not mean that they were the same exact thing.  Yes, most astronomers were also practicing astrologers to some degree or another prior to the 17th century, but astrologers have been relying on ephemerides and tables for over 2,500 years now in order to cast birth charts for people who had been born years earlier.  The minute that astrologers began to rely more on ephemerides which were produced by astronomers, was the moment that the two studies began to diverge.  The period that these ephemerides began to be compiled due to advances in astronomy was the same period that birth charts begin to appear.  This marks the divergence of these two subjects.  
Andrew Homer (StarHeart):  A factor that makes chart interpretation effective are accurate planetary positions in the chart.  Historically, Astrologers have moved Astronomy forward, because of their concern to improve the accuracy of their charts.  For Astrologers to rely on ephemerides meant a reliance on the effort of prior Astrologers/Astronomers - not a divorce between Astronomy and Astrology.
"Astrologers maintain that the cosmos of which the Earth is a part, runs in cycles and definite patterns that have been observed for thousands of years to have effects on the Earth. In fact, those practicing astrology learn at the start that astrology is a very serious study of cycles and mathematical patterns in time. They apply mathematical aspects such as the conjunction, sextile, square, trine, and opposition to form complex calculations between celestial objects in their movements amongst the constellations relative to the Earth's position and the regions of time and space where a person is born to forecast potential future events. Free will is a given in true astrological practice, but is within the principles of universal laws - not outside of it."
The vast majority of astrologers in the world today don't believe that the planets and stars literally "effect" anything per se.  The general consensus seems to be that it is more of a matter of synchronicity, or that the planets are mysteriously reflecting circumstances without there being any direct causal influence.  Also, not all traditions of astrology use the major 'Ptolemaic aspects' of cojunction, sextile, square, etc.  In modern Indian astrology they only use the whole sign opposition and certain special aspects for Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.  Then of course you have other traditions of astrology which don't use aspects at all, so its misleading to imply that all astrologers use aspects.  Also, you talk about "their movements amongst the constellations" which is only applicable to sidereal astrology, and not to tropical western astrology since Ptolemy established the vernal point as the primary reference point in the 2nd century.  Also I object to this rather subjective statement that "Free will is a given in true astrological practice" because this is an issue that is constantly debated within the astrological community itself, and to state that 'only true astrology' in not fatalistic is completely biased.  Different astrologers have different opinions about the subject, and who are you to say that the only real astrology is that which is free-will oriented?  This is what I am talking about when I say that this is not NPOV.  
"Judicial Astrology, the oldest form of classical astrology is an applied science not to be confused with "sun-sign astrology" - the popularized entertainment form of astrology that spread in North America in the early 20th Century."
What does this mean?  Judicial astrology is simply a demarcation to separate the specific interpretive art of astrology from what was termed "natural astrology" in the classical and Medieval period.  Sun sign astrology would still fall under the heading of Judicial astrology though because it is an attempt to ascribe meaning to the position of a celestial body at a person's birth.  While it is true that this is an extremely simplified form of tropical natal astrology and that it doesn't accurately represent horoscopic astrology, that does not mean that it does not have some basis in it to some degree.   
"True classical scientific astrologers, do not separate from the science of astronomy, the scientific study of outer space and the applied sciences of astrology." 
I'm currently studying Hellenistic and Vedic astrology which originated in the 2nd century BCE and 2nd century CE respectively, and I can attest to the fact that this is not an accurate statement to make.  I suspect that this notion originated with a misreading of Ptolemy by some modern astrologers, but even he separates his books on astronomy and astrology.  Even within his major treatise on astrology he makes a distinction between the calculations that are needed in astrology and the actual interpretive part of the subject.  
"Known as "judges of the heavens" - judicial astrologers rank among the most well-known astronomers, mathematicians and medical doctors in human history..."
I have never once heard this term "judges of heaven" used by any astrologers either modern or ancient and I seriously doubt the applicability of that title to astrologers in general and to this article in particular.
"...and include such names as Hippocrates, Copernicus, Nostradamus, Brahe, Johann Kepler, Galileo, William Lilly and Isaac Newton..."
While it is true that Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo were all astrologers in addition to being astronomers, and actually still have birth charts cast by them as well as some delineations, it is not an accurate statement to make that Newton was an astrologer.  While he was clearly into alchemy and he would have had to of known a bit about astrology in order to carry out certain alchemical experiments, this does not mean that he was actually an astrologer and we have no evidence to substantiate that claim.  It actually appears that he was quite hostile to natal astrology, although he appears to have believed in some quasi-astrological sort of things due to his Christian beliefs, such as comments being warnings from God.  This is accepted by all historians of astrology at this point.  For example, see Nick Campion's book Astrology, History and Apocalypse.  
"Claudius Ptolemy, the Second Century A.D. judicial astrologer who is considered the father of western astrology"
This is just flat out inaccurate.  This is a myth that has been prevailent in the 20th century astrological community due to lack of resources and general education on the history of the subject.  The history of astrology is something that has just started to become available over the last 50 years or so due to the work of many scholars inside and outside of the astrological community.  Prior to the 90's only a few Hellenistic astrological texts were available in English, Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos being the main text that has been almost always been available at various points in time since the 2nd century.  Due to this availability, and also Ptolomy's status as a towering figure in the ancient world, this myth arose that he was the founder of horoscopic astrology.  Over the past 20 years many Hellenistic texts have been translated and many of the more educated, academic astrologers have been reading through them and trying to understand the basis of the tradition.  One result of this that became immediately apparent that Ptolemy was not the "father of western astrology".  Actually, it is quite obvious if you read the Tetrabiblos because he cites other authors, albeit scantily.  Plus there are several texts on horoscopic astrology that were written by authors prior to Ptolemy which still survive to this day.  Dorotheus of Sidon is one example.   
"declared that prediction of events was only possible through the union of two factors: first, correct mathematical calculations of the positions and motions of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars. Second, a prophetic spirit derived from God by which their configurations can be correctly interpreted by certain inspired human beings known as judicial astrologers." 
You appear to actually be drawing on material from Nostradamus, but attributing it to Ptolemy.  I’ve read Ptolemy and from what I can tell he said nothing of the sort.  
"Today, judicial astrologers are rare due to the false popularization of sun-sign astrology"
Actually, there is quite a large astrological community in the world today and it appears to be growing.  In light of that, I find this to be a peculiar statement.  
"It is said that nothing forecasted by a judicial astrologer should ever be taken lightly due to the seriousness and many years of practice to become a judicial astrologer. The average span of learning and astrological practice is over 20 years to reach the qualification level of judicial astrologer."
Ahem...  
"Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry - mathematical techniques invented by judicial astrologers."
I would like to see a source to back this up.  
"Serious astrologers maintain that those who practice astrology without years of experience are not astrologers - but merely students."
I don’t buy this.  
Conclusion: I really don't like psuedo-skeptics.  The way I see it, a true skeptic is someone who is even skeptical of their own skepticism and thus they are more able to approach any subject from a truly neutral perspective.  Psuedo-skeptics tend to just attack things right away due to prejudices and misconceptions about subjects.  Its really annoying when someone is just attacking you all the time and making stupid assumptions because they haven't taken the time to research the subject that they despise so much.  I think that this is even worse though, because this is essentially the exact same thing except that its focused in a more defensive manner.  I think that this is even more destructive though.  Although I can see that from your perspective you are trying to defend astrology, in actuality you are doing more harm than good because you are doing it in a way that is very hostile and inaccurate in places, and ultimately you are giving astrologers a bad rap because of this kind of aggressive behavior.  I don't know if you are going through bad transits right now or what, but please, stop this madness and work with us here instead of trying to fight everyone.  It would be much more productive and we could accomplish so many things.  Thank you.  --Chris Brennan 06:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A "professional astrologer" OK, but one that just happens to be a BAD writer!  Your sentences are so incredibly muddled that I can barely follow them!  You might want to (re)enroll in a freshman composition course in a local college or university -- you need it for sure!  205.188.117.66 04:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Once again, just to prove my point, you have again used a semicolon incorrectly (a comma should have been used) and the period should go INSIDE of the quotation marks, as in << "incredibly muddled." >>  HaHa, this is FUN 'Mr. Professional Writer!'  You just keep digging yourself deeper into this pit and certainly shouldn't be adding to articles if you can't use written language in the correct fashion, however 'great' and 'wise' an astrologer you claim to be.  --205.188.117.66 03:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with the Astrology article