Talk:Astrology/Archive 3

Astrology Page Edits

The reason your large edit is always being reversed are:

1. It’s a major rewrite of the article done without any prior consultation
2. It ignores and deletes work done by many others over months
3. It censors the scientific view of astrology completely
4. It is an unusual view of astrology not held by most astrologers
5. Its also poorly written with grammatical errors.

Please scale down your edits and try to build in small steps on the work of others. Lumos3 11:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggest you name the "errors" and explain what "censoring the scientific view" of non-astrologers means?

I'm going to have to disagree with you on reasons 1 and 2. Nobody needs prior consultation to rewrite an article (see WP:BOLD). As long as it's better, it should be kept. And it doesn't matter if it "ignores or deletes" the work of others. If it's better, it stays. Wikipedia does not run on inertia and you shouldn't expect that your words will be around for awhile and that others will only make small incremental changes. Large and entire rewrites can and do happen, throwing everything out written by previous authors. And if the newer rewrite is better, it should stay. Now of course, you can edit it to try and make it even better, but reverting to a previous crappier version merely because that was "consensus" for awhile is wrong.

Now as for this specific edit, I believe your reasons 3, 4, and 5 were correct, but in the future, please don't use reasons 1 and 2 again. Remember, everything on here is subject to being mercilessly edited. Thank you for understanding. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that anyone can edit mercilessly and we do. But we are also cautioned not to be reckless. Be_bold_in_updating_pages#...but_don't_be_reckless. If you don’t want a major change to be edited back out mercilessly then you need to establish why you think its better rather than just replacing a consensus with your own pet view. Lumos3 15:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggest you please stop making assumptions on this subject - especially on my edits. Ask first. Also, it is being established here that the Astrology page is not a forum for some to discuss their objection on astrology on the subject. The article is on the subject itself - ASTROLOGY - which has a history thousands of years old. There is no one "pet view" as you would put it, on this subject; however, the encyclopedic version I have been editing is much more balanced, and leaves open much more room for additional materials Lumos. So, rather than playing critic on everyone else's edit - try joining us to add clear and expanded knowledge on this subject. I do not see your additions as being particularly "perfect" and there are plenty of grammatical errors to go around. These are handled by minor edits. However, the historical additions are correct and the "claims" by "scientists" who do not practice astrology is not exactly what I would call balanced whatsoever but clear POV that restrict expansion of knowledge on the subject - not expanding that knowledge. That is the purpose of an encyclopedia.Theo 08:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Several things. 1. You don't hold reasonable discussions on any topics Theo, whether it be astrology, Issac Newton, Nostradamus, etc. You always resort to wild assertions and slander, especially when your sources are proven to be lacking or faulty. Stop pretending. 2. The little essay that you keep trying to post as the astrology article is seriously not balanced. It is clearly writen by a modern western astrologer and has a focus only on modern western astrology, which completely leaves out the vast scope of what the article needs to cover in its broad overview of the subject matter. 3. Your historical additions are not "correct", as I have already shown in the above discussions on this talk page. Yet you still keep trying to post this article over and over again even though you it has been shown to be mistaken in several of its assertions.

I don't really care if someone wants to rewrite this article, but the rewrite should at least be better than what it is trying to replace, and most of all- it should be accurate. I would support anything that worked toward these ends, but so far that is not what your article is doing. Scale it down, and improve it.

Response: I would suggest that if you desire to actually hold "reasonable discussions" on any topic, that you refrain from accusations designed to cover up what is clearly your Hellenistic astrological view of astrology - making it into one monolethic body. I also suggest that if you are to show your astrological knowledge, that you do so with a view not solely based on your "opinion" which seems to cover a lack of knowledge on the subject. As for posting: as a Wikipedian, I have that right. If you are to point out "mistakes" I suggest you do so to IMPROVE the article and not REDUCE it to your own POV. Lastly, if you are to claim "wild assertions" - I suggest you also go out of your way to prove that they are so based on knowledge and facts rather than your POV. Adding to the Astrology article is done to expand on the subject - which is quite considerable considering its history, and not restrict, or fill it with POV designed to take away from the subject. The reader can think for themselves. This is an encyclopedic version with many links that improves the body of knowledge of Astrology. Editors who add to the article in this manner should be welcomed; especially those with extensive knowledge on the subject and not a retrictive POV. Thanks.Theo 02:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

An article on Astrology must contain the view of science on the subject, and at an early point in the article. A Wikipedia article needs to give the reader all views and not just a " correct" astrological one. Whatever that is. That is what NPOV means. Lumos3 09:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

First, there is nothing that says that any view of "science", as it is being termed by you, must be stated at an early point in the article. These "entries" are written to debunk astrology from the OUTSET - not to enlighten the reader. Moreover, I find it amazing that astrologers who practice astrology: who invented mathematics - would be considered NOT a science? Astrologers today use mathematics, and observe influences of the celestial bodies relative to the Earth in their forecasting. So, what does this statement "view of science on the subject" mean? You must mean conventional material science that claims that astrology has no value and that ALL views of "science" must be MONOLETHIC and politically-correct to be accepted? This is not science but POV. Where does it say that this "view" must be contained in the primary subject matter? That is NOT what NPOV means - rather, in the manner you seem to be stating this Lumos, it is the exact opposite - POV - that is neither neutral, nor informative. Peer review would on this subject would have to be done by "peers" - practicing astrologers, and not "scientists" that continue to maintain that ONLY their version of "science" be stated. Science is NOT a monolethic subject.Theo 07:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s encyclopaedia policy is to give all views on a subject a fair hearing, not just one sympathetic to its proponents. A reader of the wikipedia astrology article should be enlightened in every view of astrology, including the widely held scientific view, and be able to make up their own minds about it.

To quote our policy on Neutral point of view (NPOV)

"It is one of the central policies of Wikipedia, in which context it is taken to mean a neutral description of the facts, including the fact that various points of view exist, rather than a single, objective point of view."

If you want to write a pro-astrology article I suggest you go to the similar project called http://www.wikinfo.org , where the main article on any subject is written from a sympathetic point of view. Lumos3 10:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for me to go anywhere Lumos. I am a Wikipedian. Also, the article is on the SUBJECT of astrology, and not written from a "sympathetic" point of view. It is not "pro" but states the facts of the history, and practice of astrology - by a professional astrologer. I do not treat astrology with sympathy. It is a science and has been one for thousands of years. The mention of this word by you - sympathetic - suggests that you feel that a detracting view of astrology is therefore balanced? I think not. Moreover, I agree that all views are important, but many writing on this specific subject have little knowledge, yet find it pleasing to them to be critical - then to call it NPOV. This insults the intelligence of those with knowledge on the subject of astrology and rightly so. If you must add your "views on astrology" then do so from knowledge of the subject, rather than a negative point of view that is not balanced, nor neutral. This is one of the major problems with those seeking to be critical of astrology, i.e., in that they do not practice the science, but hold very definite views on it. How is this possible? Then, adding detracting comments based on a lack of knowledge, but then stating that knowledgable views are POV? Try not defining knowledge of astrology as "pro-astrology" as by this terming mechanism then non-knowledge of astrology is anti-astrology and should be stated as such. Theo 08:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Astrology is not a science as it doesn't follow the scientific process. --Pjacobi 14:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a terrible argument against astrology; "scientific process" has changed drastically over the centuries. There was a time when astrology was just as much of a science as astronomy or physics. It is not a science anymore because it has been wholly rejected by the scientific community (because, to way way oversimplify, it has been falsified). But I've been tracking through Theodore7's edits, and he's been making drastic or subtle changes to a whole range of astrology-related articles, and usually calling them minor edits, with no discussion. I found him because he changed almost every instance of "astronomer" to "astrologer" in Kepler. Theo, please realize that your strategy of replacing information is making other editors very frustrated. Instead, you should add sections, wholly in your own words and explicitly referenced, about your positions in each article you are interested in (preferably on the talk pages, first). Then we can discuss your work and sort what is accepted by consensus from what the majority considers to violate NPOV.--ragesoss 15:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that known astrologers be termed ASTROLOGERS first - since what is really going on here is that conventional scientific thinkers place ASTRONOMY first - when astrology is clearly primary here and comes first in spelling when referring to known astrologers such as Brahe, Copernicus, Kepler, etc. Also, the science of astrology gave birth to astronomy and a whole range of other sciences. This is a historical fact - not POV. Because of this, astrology has many links to many other subjects that cover biographies, astronomy, science, natural history, cultural history, theology, etc. Many of my edits are minor - however, they perturb some who continue to claim in error that astrology is not a science. I strongly disagree and will continue my edits. I am not adverse to discussion whatsoever, in fact, I welcome discussion, but not when it begins with accusations that I cannot edit because I am not supportive of preconceived belief systems that claim that astrology is not a science. I practice it professionally - AS A SCIENCE - and know others who do as well. So, if you must try to claim that well-known scientists are NOT astrologers - when they clearly are by historical fact - I will have a problem with that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic resource. Astrology uses mathematics, in fact, astrologers invented math. Astrology is an observational science with a database of thousands of years of observations. We chart the motions and positions of planets and stars using mathematics and correlate their influences relative to the Earth. It is a science and to claim otherwise clearly shows ignorance of the subject itself and confusion of serious astrology with sun-sign astrology - which continues to be the definition of astrology in the minds of those who will not study astrology seriously - but who have strong negative point-of-view against astrology; even to the point of placing it secondary to the lives of those well-known astrologers who practiced astrology and astronomy as their primary scientific exploration of the cosmos and the correlations to the natural world.Theo 03:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not argument pro or against anything but simply a very basic classification. And note the tempus. According to contemporary views, astrology is not science, as it doesn't follow the scientific process as defined today. Older POVs may earn it an additional classification in Category:Obsolete scientific theories. --15:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

When you put it that way, I mostly concur. I'll go with the contemporary views part, but I don't find adherence to scientific process to be a useful criterion; scientific processes vary too widely, even in legitimate sciences, to be a good way to tell science from non-science, except for rhetorical purposes. There is no one scientific method (at least one that matches up to the ways science is actually practiced).--ragesoss 20:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

These criteria may seem arbitrary to you, but there are some very plain ones for being a contemporary science: Like being taught at universities. --Pjacobi 21:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what a science is if it is not following a method that is scientific. The subject matter of astronomy and astrology are somewhat overlapping, what seperates them (in the overlapping sections) is the method used. Lundse 15:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The first subject taught at the original universities was astrology. This is a historical fact. What do you think the term "university" came from? Theo 03:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Being a pagan magician myself (and admittedly, a dabbler in astrology), I have no problem with the article as currently written. For the most part, it has a neutral tone. That being said, I certainly don't expect an encyclopedia to have a "this is a science" tone for Astrology, or any sort of magic. The results are just not easily verifiable enough for the scientific method and statistics. Whatever shortcomings that may result in, I certainly don't expect Wikipedia to be trying to convince people that astrology is either true or false. I feel that Theodore7 does want a "convincing" article.166.50.201.13 15:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that university-astrology thing is not a fact. The origin of universities are Church schools, and the first subject was theology (which you studied for 5 years, and then maybe you studied something else - no choosing your subject until you knew your bible).Lundse 15:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

Weighing in here. I think the article as it stands has admirable brevity and structure in terms of the text itself. The length may be attributed to the many links, which can hardly be a bar to readability. As for neutrality, it seems to bend over backwards to be fair. The use of defamatory language and unattributed POV statements has been accepted, and frankly, it is highly biased. What sort of statement is: "The generally established opinion of the scientific community is that astrology is superstition, with no actual predictive ability." It's weasely ("The generally established opinion of the scientific community....") and slanderously derogatory ("superstition.") If we can sharpen axes in this way, there must be a similary brief response from MY point of view. Let's all go to the mat here, what the heck.

I would be quite content with this statement if the language were less scurrilous and there were some sort of support to the generalities. A footnote. Anything. Bart Bok, if you must. Footnote the 1975 petition by Bok and colleagues. Something to make it appear less petulant, and more professional. And I take hearty exception to the notion that there is some sort of monolithic scientific "community" out there. There is not. A majority of scientists perhaps. Many have their own slants. You cannot speak for science, although there seems to be an increasingly desperate need to do so. But most of all, I think there is no place in a balanced wiki article to call astrology a "superstition." Will you call an established religion a "superstition"? What is the difference? (from the POV of "the scientific community" of course!) Will you not find committed Christians among your scientists? Committed Buddhists, come to that! There is no claim in this article that astrology is some sort of science. Perhaps it might have been so regarded centuries ago, but the meaning of "science" has certainly evolved, and in this post-Koch age, it would be ludricrous to do that now. If you will live or die on your "scientific" stance, then you will kindly refrain from he sort of defamatory name-calling more appropriate to the schoolyard than Wikipedia, and content yourself with saying, quite accurately, that there has been little proof (Gauquelin notwithstanding) of actual predictive ability. Otherwise, I demand that you go to the "Judaism" article and say that the scientific community believes Judaism to be a superstition (and surely, many do?)

Having gotten THAT off my chest (and it feels good), I'd like to suggest, returning to the cultivisation de notre jardin, that a companion article be written on Hellenistic astrology (or as my pal Joseph Crane prefers to call it, Ancient Western Astrology) and a link be given in the article, in the same fashion. I know there is a good History article available, but perhaps some of the disagreement here may be mollified by magnetising all the little bits into their own camps and attributing methods neatly with hyperlinks for further elaboration. I volunteer! A similar article needs perhaps to be done for Medieval methods through Lilly.

Furthermore, neither Uranian astrology nor Cosmobiology are mentioned in the list of various astrologies, although articles for them exist, and they are at least as mainstream as "Meso-american astrology" (and by the way, if Bruce Scofield doesn't Wikify, who in heck would write such an article? Not moi.) Surely if there is one method generally recognized with little argument to be THE modern contribution to technique, it would be Witte and Ebertin. It deserves more recognition than merely a link, among many, at the end of the article.

Personally, I would like to see "Kabbalistic astrology" co-labeled as "traditional Jewish astrology" (or something of the sort) to differentiate it from the mishmash of hermetic bits and pieces cribbed from here and there that is sometimes lectured on as "Qabalistic Astrology" here in New England.

I think Cornelius' views--which have become very influential in today's astrology--should at least be mentioned, as well as Damiani and Gauquelin. The article seems "Seymour-heavy" to me. Several decades ago, it would have been buttressed with John Nelson's RCA stuff, and maybe Addey. There are perhaps fashions in these things. But these are today's.

I think there should be two or three of the very finest books referred to as well. One thing the reader desiring more info on astrology will want, most of all, is a book or two to start with. Do we want them to go to Isobel Hickey? or [gasp] Linda Goodman? If there must be ONE book, I imagine we might ALL agree it should be Robert Hand's "Horoscope Symbols." I would also like to add Cornelius' MoA. Ebertin's COSI is referred by almost every astrologer I know when actually working, but this would certainly be an advanced text, inappropriate for a beginner.

Please do not take these remarks critically. I am trying to make an evaluation to be of help, and I can only do that by making observations from my own standpoint. I will do some of the work, if it is felt to be useful. --N. Harris NaySay 1/7/06 21:09 UTC

PS: I think another fine book to add here which would be interesting to both the skeptics and the astrologers would be Garry Phillipson's excellent "Astrology in the Year Zero." --NaySay 1/7/06 21:33 UTC

Okay, here is an unsupported statement from the "Validity of astrology" section: "Some astrologers argue that astrology works by a mechanism that is (yet) unknown to science." I have spent some time hunting for a reference for this statement among the astrological literature, but thus far, I can find none. Perhaps there is a quote from an astrologer something in the considerable "skeptic" literature which can be brought to bear here? If not, the statement does not seem to belong in the article as it stands. It's highly POV and belongs, rather, in the "Validity of Astrology" article, perhaps, which is, I gather, more of a slugfest of opinions. Let's keep this professional (and brief.) --NaySay N. Harris 1/8/06 00:17 UTC

Andrew Homer (StarHeart): Feel free to recruit me for peer review regarding articles on: Cosmobiology, Uranian Astrology, Relationship Astrology, Relocation charts, Travel Astrology, chart rectification, Synastry, chart comparison, declination midpoints, Chiron, Persephone/Transpluto, Astro*Carto*Graphy, Solar Fire software, Kepler software, Local Space charts, Mundane Astrology, or Political Astrology.

Age of Aquarius song

Hey Lumos, is there any particular reason why you were trying to keep that Age of Aquarius song in the article? --Chris Brennan 17:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That was a mistake , I was trying to remove it. Lumos3 13:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I spotted this page on RfC yesterday, so here are my thoughts.

The version to which Theo keeps reverting is far too pro-Astrology, and doesn't give the skeptical views on Astrology enough space. egs:

• Claiming that 'Astrology and astronomy were once the same discipline' is misleading. The neolithic people who built various stone circles clearly observed and measured the movements of celestial bodies, (ie practiced astronomy) and we simply don't know why they did so. Assuming that the reasons were astrological is a leap of faith. Similarly, all through history, astronomical measurements and observations have been used for navigation, rather than prediction, which makes that practice astronomy not astrology. It's fair to say that many people practiced both in the past, and it's also fair to say that very few (if any) practice both today.

I am an avid proponent of both astrology and astronomy, and I know others who are as well. So this << (if any) >> is quite wrong. --64.12.117.8 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Response: The subject title is Astrology - and is not a page for "pro" or "con" views of astrology. This seems to be the main confusion in your statement above. Nearly every culture on earth practice astrology and to claim that "neolethic people" were the only ones is not valid. Moreover, there exists millions of documents, treaties, texts, books, art, architecture, etc., throughout all the nations of the earth that clearly are astrological. Suggest you review them since it is obvious that astrology is as old as human history.Theo 10:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How does this respond to the claim that astrology and astronomy were not necesarrily the same science? Lundse 15:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC) (PS: I am not the originator of these examples, I merely came across this and thougth I'd "jump in").

• The claim that astrologers invented algebra, geometry, and trig. Since the invention of these techniques is lost in the mists of time (we don't know the named individuals who invented them), this claim is unsourced (unsourceable) speculation.

Response: This is not true. To claim that these "techniques is lost in the mists of time" is also not true. Suggest you read the thousands upon thousands of ancient astrological texts that exist. Try starting with The Secrets of the Book of Enoch - this book survived the Great Flood and there are many copies easily obtained through a simple Internet search. Also suggest you read any number of astrological Hindu and Arabic texts on algebra, geometry, etc., translated into Latin, German, Spanish, and English. Your claim that these books are "unsourceable" is not valid.Theo 10:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Theo, there's not even any proof that there was a "Great Flood", so claiming that a book (or even knowledge passed down unchanged from that time) can't be seriously claimed. 166.50.201.13 15:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean? Because the books exist that make the claim that Astrology was the basis for math, it must be? Sourcing a claim is not just finding some astrologer who believes it, it is finding a historical source for it - this Secrets... sounds like a candidate, though. Does it show how astrologers invented math? Lundse 15:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• 'Free will is a given in true astrological practice' Are there no deterministic astrologers? Who says? 'but destiny is within the principles of universal laws - and not outside of it.' This is random speculation on the highly nebulous concept of destiny. This is unencyclopedic language.

Response: Of course there are. Just as there are "deterministic" individuals in life. If you practiced astrology you would know that free will is a given. Any professional astrologer who knows their work will maintain that this is so.Theo 10:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Saying that Nostradamus's predictions 'cannot be disputed as false' is factually wrong and POV.

Agreed. And if N. predictions are taken to be vague enough not to be falsifiable, they are also incapable of being "true". Lundse 15:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I much prefer the version being reverted to by BorgQueen, Chris Brennan and others. It seems more balanced. Theo, perhaps if you introduced changes piece-by-piece, with discussion, this pointless revertery could be avoided. (Please use the TalkPage and not revert wars, thanks), as you said in one of your revert summaries, is a good idea, but from the basis of the other version, which seems to be the consensus position.

Hope this helps. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with most of the above. There may be some things about the popular reception of astrology in the twentieth century that would be worth discussion in the article. The most recent edit of that version of the article suffers from three weaknesses: POV, US-centrism, and lack of sources. Durova 08:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Readers baffled by the above references to Nostradamus and his astrology may find the spoof glossary on my User Page amusing, even if not actually helpful. ;) --PL 17:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC.The latest revert by User:Theodore7 does not read neutral to me. The use of the word Detractors is POV. The sentence And the great debate on the validity of astrology continues into the 21st century is misleading. What makes the debate so 'great', and it is as significant as the author paints it? Free will is a given in true astrological practice, not only am I curious if this is sourced, but does it consist of a true Scotsman fallacy? Again, Serious astrologers maintain that those who practice astrology without years of experience are not astrologers - but merely students. does not seem neutral to me. The section on 'Astrology & 20th Century North American Expansion' reads to me like a page on general Christianity from a Catholic POV. Seems like this information should be put in a more specialized page, not the generalized topical page. Additionally, I see no problem in including the skeptical viewpoint, perhaps in its own smaller section, as long as the article remains neutral and on topic. --Andrew c 18:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing Wikipedia Astrology Page

Yes, I think that is an excellent idea Durova. I think a good rewrite by all interested editors with less U.S. centrism and adding sources is a good idea. If there are claims of "POV pushing" then suggest that sourcing is one of the best ways to proceed. The article I've edited has a source page, and more sources will be added. Would prefer this to avoid anyon's POV. Remember, Wikipedia is an encylopedia - therefore, adding sources helps the reader when reviewing the topic matter.Theo 13:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not astrology is factual, the social phenomenon that surrounds it is interesting and encyclopedic. I'd like to see the article discuss more about that. Durova 02:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. One of the things that remains sad is that detractors of "astrology" often have no idea what it is that they are talking about when the - "A-word" as they refer to astrology - is applied. Wikipedia is an encyclopedica resource, and yet, some continue to base their "knowledge" of astrology with their belief system. Moreover, astrology has a very, very long history - with many cultures practicing it in the real world. Some detractors fail to even see this, and many, have never read a serious astrological text, or textbook. Rather, they allow their "belief system" to interfere with scientific investigation and practice science as a noun, and not a verb. They set barriers for themselves by pushing a POV then state others are doing this - so, sourcing is the best way to continue since there are thousands upon thousands of serious astrological books, and texts that are very scientific on the subject as a science - an applied science.Theo 04:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have a strong pro-astrology bias. Take care to keep that from affecting the article page. Durova 17:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Theo is doing the same as the "detractors" he's trying to "defend" this page against. He's allowing his "belief system" to interfere in having a useful entry being written. I am a "believer" in astrology, but I don't feel a need to rewrite this article at every turn. When I am, it's to remove over-zealous sections such as the suggestion that half of Greek mythoogy was stolen from the Hebrews.166.50.201.13 15:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No more than anyone else's expertise, or knowledge, such as those on Joan of Arc. Suggest not confusing this knowledge with "appearance" of "bias" since I am taking great care to undo both pro & con astrology POV bias and multiple POV and factual errors on this topic of my expertise as a judicial astrologer, writer, astrology teacher, and a Wikipedia editor. I care as much as about this subject as you do about Joan of Arc. Theo 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If everyone proceeds in that spirit then this should become an excellent article. Best wishes. Durova 21:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Providing Sources & References for Wiki-Astrology Page

The version that keeps being reverted continues as the only version that contains sources. As old as astrology is, there are many sources that can be cited that would end the so-called "revert wars" that I want no part of, and never did. I do not consider my additions, or edits to be a "final version" - however, I would prefer a balanced, version that is encyclopedic, informative, and allows the reader to obtain more than just website links. I have added published books, textbooks, etc., also as sources to back up the material on the Astrology Page. I will continue to cite sources, and to reference them in the article subject. It would help that others join in and help to improve the article, rather than engaging in personal accusations, attacks, revert wars, etc., but who have not sourced one book in the so-called "consensus" version. This is not a consensus, but POV, and I suggest sourcing as one fine example of following Wikipedia policy & standards to achieve the best NPOV possible for the subject matter. So, I will continue to cite published source material.Theo 17:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

All of the "sources" that you cited are out of date, not to mention the fact that none of them back up your assertions. Sources aren't just random books that you pulled out of your library Theo. They are supposed to support the arguments that you are trying to make. Unfortunately none of the "sources" that you cited do that, so basically you just have a few random book references added to your essay with no quotations. For example, in your essay you are still trying to attribute sayings to Ptolemy that he did not say. I have already proven this, yet you sill keep trying to post it anyways. What about that, huh? --Chris Brennan 18:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

For someone who says he is involved in Project Hindsight, and studying Hellensitic astrological texts - this is a contradictory statement. Most sources are dated, Chris, and are not "ramdom" books pulled out of my library. Jeez, you can find them in the Library of Congress for crying out loud. Suggest that if you are to maintain that people are "wrong" about their arguements Chris, as you state, then you back it up yourself with sources - and cite them - which is not done at all in the version of the Astrology Page you say you support. As for Ptolemy, suggest that as a 21-year-old student of astrology that you continue your studies since you continue to write, and act out childishly, and not as a professional astrologer, or historian, or scholar of astrology. Again, cite sources, and know this Chris, if you are to state that they are "out of date" then I suggest you review the "dates" of the Greeks texts you talk about yourself. You might find that they are quite ancient themselves. Theo 19:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that your (Theo's) approach is not to provide sources that back up your claims, but to suggest that people 'read thousands and thousands of documents', which is what you said to me in the RFC section, or just 'you've got to be kidding' (in the 'positive discussion' section), where the person you were arguing with actually provided quotes on Ptolemy giving book and page ref. Why not support your claims properly, for example: Professor Foo says on p 64 of I look up and everything spins that 'insert relevant quote here'. If you are a professional, this is surely not beyond you. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Squiddy, try one, two or three of the "thousands" to begin with. That would be a start. Sources are cited, the documents are there. So, please, try assuming that Professor Foo, who you claim is a professional (?) can find easily, the many sources out there. Try a library. Theo 21:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I came here precisely because I am not interested in Astrology - I thought I might be able to help out if two sides of committed partisans were unable to cooperate. In fact, it is you, maintaining a one man revert war, and replying to all suggestions / criticism / comments with 'I'm an expert - read the subject', who is the problem. I am not going to re-appear on this talk page, I think the source of the problem is bleeding obvious. Good luck, all. (PS Prof. Foo is fictional, I was just trying to show you how you might convince other people that you have something useful to contribute by backing up your statements). Ta-ra, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

cat and thoughts on intro

Well there's nothing like dropping into the middle of a revert war... I added this to the superstitions category two months ago and am re-adding it now with every intention of defending it. It's not name calling--it's a widely held opinion. And not by "many scientists" but by "virtually every scientist with any credibility whatsoever." Further, the idea that we can present an intro to this topic without noting opposition is utterly a disservice to readers. Marskell 19:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed to a point. Even this can be considered POV. The article section is on the topic ASTROLOGY and having this "statement" sitting so high up reads as a "disclaimer" and is POV. So, I disagree that it is "utterly a disservice to readers" since it is your POV - shared or not. Stating what others "believe" is okay, but this statement goes over and beyond. Clearly POV.Theo 19:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, the topic is astrology. Astrology is widely considered a superstition. I don't see how this doesn't jive. Marskell 19:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, your POV. Not based in fact, but point-of-view - shared or not. Re-read the term encyclopedia for more.Theo 19:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

How about you re-read assume good faith and no personal attacks. Honestly, what is the matter with you? Marskell 19:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with me. Suggest you ask others the same question as well. Can you read? You do know the difference between POV and NPOV, yes?Theo 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the sarcasm and address this. Science considers astrology supersition. Fact, not POV, and it's just a matter of choosing your adverbial "generally" "many," "most" "virtually all" scientists etc. It's absolutely on topic in the intro and was here when I first looked at this page. Islam and Christianity also consider it superstition and antithetical to their teachings. Again fact, not POV. This is what I added and this is what I'm defending.

By this assertion then: Brahe, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and a whole host of well-known astrologers were just "superstitious then, right? Their works are superstitious works.Theo 20:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm really at a loss as to how to address your attitude. "Can you read?" Decently, yes. You're obviously touchy on this topic but assume good faith and no personal attacks aren't jokes--they're the bedrock you need to edit on this site. There isn't a single thing I've said to you that justifies your comments. Marskell 20:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So, you are saying that your own comment to me, Markell, just above, where you say to me: "Honestly, what is the matter with you?" is not an attitude, or sarcastic? My reply to you was an honest question because in the same line, you cite no personal attacks and assuming good faith, and then you ask me, "what is the matter with you?" You know, if people such as yourself would also read their own comments before being "touchy" with a come back, perhaps more work would get done here. Or, do you consider, the question, "what is the matter with you" assuming good faith? So, despite your claim that "there isn't a single thing I've said to you that justifies your comments" - I suggest you scroll back up a few to your own comment - "what is the matter with you" - remark, and answer this question: is this what you mean by assuming good faith and no personal attacks?Theo 20:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to the obviously sarcastic suggestion that I re-read the definition of encyclopedia (honest and disingenuous at the same time if you like). Doesn't take a whole lot of thinking to realize when you're being patronized. But it was an earnest, if surprised, question. I mean really, wtf the is up with being snide out of nowhere? Or to repeat, what is the matter with you if you feel the need to react aggressively to general ideas? Page has your back up? Need a wiki-break or whatever? As for me, I've addressed the point at issue and I didn't attack you. --Marskell 20:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, excuse me, your words here - "wtf" - are you now going to get profane? There is no patronizing going on from me to you. There is not aggression here except from these statements, and perhaps, I should provide a link to assuming good faith - even to controversial subjects as astrology - for you. Please, try to refrain from POV and attacking a fellow Wikipedian. We newcomers have had enough of that.Theo 20:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wtf as you appear to know means "what the fuck?!"--that is, an expression of surprise or incredulity. Profane if you like (I don't think so) but not an attack at all. I'm genuinely perplexed by you. However, further discussion appears useless as you're playing bait and switch (hope that's not an attack!). So good day then. Marskell 22:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Marskell: I stated my opinions; presented my intentions, and asked for differing points of view. Since no objection was forthcoming; I made my changes. Where were you?

As I said in that statement, to which you never responded, you cannot speak for the entire scientific community--you could not, even if you were a scientist. The only professional and scholarly option is to carefully quote the most representative source of the opinion you believe to be widely held, which is why I laboriously looked up the 1975 Humanist manifesto, typed it into a Wiki article I created for it, made links to it, footnoted the quotes, and and footnoted every other opinion made in this controversial area. If you can find a more representative or a more historically resonant pronouncement than this one, by all means, quote that instead. I don't personally believe there is one, but I'm a historian, not a scientist. No one can speak for all of science; there are scientists who don't agree with you. Perhaps not a lot, but nonetheless there is no monolith called "science" out there when it comes to opinions about fields, such as religion, which have nothing to do with it. The best you can do, if we have any hope of ever stopping this war, is to opt for the majority of them, because that's all you've got. And that's what we were all inching toward by honestly and fairly quoting Bok et alii.

As for religion, which would you like to speak for? science? or religion? It's an odd duck who can speak for both in the twenty-first century. What source can you quote for the unilateral opposition of "religion" -- whatever homogeneous entity THAT is! -- to astrology? You're on weak ground there-- and the ground's centered in Europe. Do you believe that "religion" is the church around your corner? Or the mosque? On the contrary, astrology is a very deeply established tenet of several non-Western religions--Hinduism, very notably--as well as several forms of Buddhism, including that of the Dalai Lama. It continues to be practiced in traditional Jewish sects, and by Moslems all over India. Furthermore, your definition of "religion" as an organized cost-center with its own IRS employer-ID number is fine for your accountant, but doesn't hold up as an intellectual concept. -- NaySay N.Harris 1/14/06 20:49 UTC--

Cite me one recent, respected, peer-reviewed journal article in any legitimate discipline that treats astrology as having a scientific basis. Marskell 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? I have never made claim to the scientific basis of astrology, sir, but that point of view has been respresented in the article with appropriate references and links. You will find few astrologers in today's literature who will propound such a view; references to the historical record are another matter, and may be found in the historical articles. -NaySay NaySay 1/14/06 21:12 (UTC)

The absence of peer-reviewed work (and I'm not talking about pop-sci books for a buck) itself speaks volumes. I'm not asking for "astrology is wrong" as a lead I'm asking that we present its current status in terms of mainstream epistemology--and as such its incumbent that we make a caveat as to its non-acceptance amongst "most" (again pick your adverb) scientists. The need for citation does not dictate equivocation or silence in the absence of citation. And what's happening here is that we're getting a lot of disambiguous crap about how its an "art" or "process" or whatever and not stating the obvious: that it's not a mainstream scholarly pursuit.

As an example with another page I've worked on, fully one third (or one hundred million) Americans purportedly believe aliens regularly visit Earth. But we don't lead with that. We lead with the following: "Its existence is currently hypothetical: there is as yet no evidence of extraterrestrial life that has been widely accepted by scientists." And that's as it should be. How about: "There is as yet no evidence that astrology has a falsifiable, scientific basis."

As for religion: add don't delete. Hinduism incorporates astrology--add that. I added that Islamic and Christian teaching speaks against astrology. That's not untrue. And please spare me the "so-and-so believed in it" business. We don't focus on Newton's religious tracts at the expense of gravity and calculus.

Finally, I must ask: what's up with "insulting," "defamatory," etc. etc. as descriptions of the edit in question? We're not talking about a person. I'd suggest adopting a disinterested stance here and not treating criticism as some terrible attempt to insult. Marskell 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an encyclopedia is a poor place to argue whether a subject is superstition or fact. Astrology is a body of {knowledge, religion, superstition, lore, myth, learning, realization} - pick one, and it can be described and explained clearly so that viewers can understand what its tenants are. Astrology has been with us a very long time and deserves a good write up. I would recommend the deletion of this section as not helpful in clarifying the subject. --Beanmf 04:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Beanmf: I agree with you, but then I would. Everyone doesn't see it that way, and I am trying to help find a statement we can all live with. I have a good friend, a Buddhist who is deeply attracted to Platonic philosophy, who feels that the fundamentalist right have co-opted the expression "intelligent design" for their crude purposes, for example. He'd love to set that record straight, and "rescue" the concept from the holy rollers. I myself am committed to natural selection, and I feel my blood boil whenever someone claims it's "just a theory" and that there are other ones which should get equal time--like a Presidental debate. If I didn't have a thousand things that had greater priority, I'd want "equal time" on that one, I suppose. The EB describes astrology as a "superstition" and the 1911 version was far more derogatory (see, for example, what was said about William Lilly in the article Wiki took from it.) The farther we get from it, the more POV many "objectively-stated" arguments may seem to be. One of the strengths of a standard encyclopedia is that each article is assigned to one expert and a cohesive article from one point-of-view results (hopefully stated in a fair way.) But it's in the very nature of a Wiki sort of enterprise that coherence of that sort is not an option. We have to try to find its strengths, I guess. And I imagine this is an intellectual area--like it or not--which is in ferment now. But yes, wearily, I think you're right. --N. Harris NaySay 1/18/06 18:28 (UTC)

The aditional link to the Humanist article is, I think, an example of POV forking, which is not really allowed in Wikipedia, although it is usually done to suppress information, I imagine the policy is the same for trying to push a negative POV (neg toward the subject, not in general). The source is already cited at the end of the article, and the introduction isn't really the place for in-depth anything...it is just an introduction. It should describe briefly what the subject is, and, if applicable (which it is in this article) briefly mention if there are any detractors, who they are, and, if it can be kept brief, a general reason. In any case, the introduction to the astrology article isn't the place to debate whether it's a useful practice or not. Thanks for listening :). bcatt 11:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Four classic elements image

I have removed this image as it does not fit well with the article. Its present in two other articles where its more important, Astrology and the classical elements and Classical element. Its leads into too much detail for the main astrology article and, worldwide, some systems of astrology have not used it. Lumos3 10:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And actually, I had been wanting to talk about that Ptolemy picture... Do we really need to have a 16th century picture of him up in an article that doesn't mention him? --Chris Brennan 14:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris: I agree about the Ptolemy picture. I'm going to replace it with an old Viennese zodiac I have the image of. If you don't like, put something better in. -N. Harris NaySay 1/19/06 18:00 (UTC) Done. I just love the med. astro image by the way. Beautiful. Is that the one on Warnock's page? NaySay 1/19/06 19:02 (UTC)

The Enneagram stuff is way too peripheral. I think there should be a link to this stuff, as there is to much more important topics such as Uranian astrology and Jyotish. --N. Harris NaySay 1/22/06 01:00 UTC

Yeah, I agree. I removed it a few days ago, but it seems to have reappeared. There are a lot of things that this article should cover and I don't really see any reason to feature one person's system that they came up with in the past few decades... --Chris Brennan 02:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Western Bias

I have added a Jyotish chart image. This is Wikipedia's main astrology page and it needs to show a global view , not one with a western bias. If anyone has an image which can represent Chinese astrology that would be a nice addition. Lumos3 12:01, 20 January 2006

Yes, there's a vast difference between the Astrologies developed in greatly different cultures. I've been amazed by Chinese Astrology, but I have yet to see anything to get excited about regarding Indian Astroogy. I do think that each of the culturally different Astrologies be presented separtately. My endorsements of "Western" Astrology and "Chinese" Astrology does NOT extend to Indian/Vedic/Jyotish Astrology. StarHeart 08:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Many of this articles sections make a presumption that we are talking about Western astrology. I believe these should be better placed as sub sections of the Western astrology article. The astrology article itself should give an overview of all main astrological cultures. Western , Vedic, Chinese and MesoAmerican. These can then be expanded on their own pages. We are going into to much detail on Western astrology to soon Lumos3 14:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, although there are many crossovers between the 'western' traditions (Hellenistic, Medieval, Renaissance, Modern, etc.) and Vedic, since they all developed largely from the Hellenistic construct. Also, all of the above stated traditions, including several other asian astrological traditions (Chinese and Tibetan) were developed directly or indirectly out of the Babylonian tradition, so there will be crossovers there as well. So, whatever we do will have to account for these interrelations. I think that we are going to have to search out some wikipedians who have an intimate knowledge of the some of these traditions and I think that that may be difficult. --Chris Brennan 21:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I would add (ducking behind my desk) that's it's very clear that Jyotish too is a product of the Mesopotamian/Egyptian/Persian/Greek tradition all developed in the Mediterranean. Nothing like the Jyotish system existed in India until the Greeks invaded northern India with Alexander the Great. At that point in time, the whole thing exploded in Sanskrit, beginning with the Yavana Jataka of Sphujidhvaja. The "Yavana" of the title was Greek. The Central Asian and Bactrian Greeks were called "Yavanas" or linguistically-related names until they disappeared a millennium and a half later. The Sanskrit names for the signs derive from the Babylonian names. Although the Indians had a marvelous system of astronomy, including the constellations we now call the Nakshatras, outstanding mathematics, and possibly a native system of sky-omens or even what we might call astrology, the system they have now is a better-preserved version (with many further developments) of the same Hellenistic system that originated the techniques in this article. There's a very convincing body of evidence for ancient Western astrology being the "Ur-astrology" of all these systems we see today. And for that reason, this is not just a question of Eurocentrism; this tradition spread from Europe and the Middle East, and major tenets of that system are still present in all modern descendants. -N. Harris NaySay|NaySay 1/22/06 22:17 (UTC)

PS: I know nothing about the Meso-American version of astrology, but hardly anyone does. It may have different origins. Or not. But in any case, no one practices it today. It's at best a footnote. If you can find someone who can say more than one sentence about it, get out your semaphore flags and give them a hail. I have one sentence: it depended heavily on the six-year cycle of Venus. -- N. Harris NaySay 1/22/06 22:30 (UTC)

References?

I don't see why Clark's "Sibling" book or Houck's "death" book belong on further reading. They are both minor books about extremely specialized topics. I don't think Clark's book is even in print anymore, and it's not an important work. What is the point of giving these books in a section for people looking for a book to learn something about astrology? Especially if it isn't in print? These are second-tier books at best, and they for those who already are familiar with astrology. This is not the place for them. I think they should be removed. If not, I'd list at least 50 more books that are better and more relevant to "Further Reading." Any comment?

Also--the Society of the Golden Dawn doesn't belong in the same list of schools that contains Kepler College and the Sophia Center. I don't even know if they teach astrology, but they're just a Theosophical offshoot, hardly astrological. If you include them, you need to include a dozen others in the States which are a great deal better than they are and more up to date. I think it should be removed. Any comments?

Lastly, why is Cornelius a "reference" and removed from "Further Reading"? They are all references, if you want to be strict about it. A "Reference" section doesn't mean much when the book is listed right above it in several footnotes. I think it should go back to "Further Reading." Any comments? NaySay 06:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved Cornelius's book from Further reading to References section because it is used as a reference. Further reading section normally contains materials that are not used as a direct reference but tells readers what to consult for further research. I altered the format to remove the redundancy you objected. As for the books in the Further reading section, feel free to prune. --BorgQueen 07:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I renamed the section as "Notes and references", as per Wikipedia:Citing sources. --BorgQueen 08:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Review comments

I've just been reading the page. I find the continual comparisons to medicine deliberately deceptive. Astrology is not a science and the constant allusions to it's supposed similarity to medicine are, to my eye, an attempt to foist credibility upon the reader. I've edited accordingly, so that the text no longer directly alludes between the two fields.

There's a section which says "many new schools...under responsible leadership" followed by "passing an exam does not necessarily mean a student is competent". If the school is reasonable, passing an exam INHERENTLY means the candidate is competent. Accordingly, I've removed those because they form a non-sequitur.

I learned the basics of astrology in about six months, when I was much younger. The comments about "it takes years to learn the most basic principles" are simply inaccurate; the author has I aver lapsed into romanticism. I've removed them.

Toby Douglass 12:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous to claim that this is so. It takes at least five-six years for a child to learn the alphabet (with 26 letters) yet you state that you have learned the basics of astrology in six months. I do not believe you.Theo 13:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... disregard that previous version by Theo. He has been trying to post that for a while now and both astrologers and skeptics alike have repeatedly rejected it due to its inaccuracies. View his talk page for more information. Sorry to have wasted your time with the edits upon that version. --Chris Brennan 12:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Theo - I am not a child. Toby Douglass 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Chris, you will not be a serious astrologer with the actions, and attempts here. At 21 years old, you "claim" to be a astrologer; yet, your actions, and comments have shown otherwise. Your revert wars show that you are incapable of being honest, or serious in your pursuit of knowledge in this field. If you have anything positive to add, then do so without the false accusations of "vandalism" on edit summaries, or prove vandalism with facts.Theo 13:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You’re a charlatan Theo. The majority of the people here don't know enough about astrology to realize the full extent of this, and you are obviously in denial, but I know what you are. Good riddance Theo. --Chris Brennan 13:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi...newcomer here :). I agree that one can learn the basics of astrology (what the terms mean, what the planets, signs and houses mean) and maybe the triplicities and quardaplicities within the span of a few months if they have a good memory. Learning how they all interact together, aspects, and what all this indicates, though, takes much longer.

One note, children actually learn faster than adults in most cases (in terms of language, the average child learns hundreds of new words per year, whereas the average adult usually learns a dozen at most), of course this is merely a case of the tendancy humans have to think they have less to learn the older they get, and has nothing to do with actual ability. In summary, an adult can learn as fast as a child, but many choose not to. It doesn't really take children several years to learn the alphabet, as we don't really start teaching them the alphabet until they are 4 or 5 years old, and most grasp it within several months or less. Lets please not be ageist...not against children and not against young adults...ok? And can we all try to be nice? Just because we don't agree, doesn't mean we can't get along, right? bcatt 11:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to leap in...

I reverted Theo in full and then went back and left the bulk and only reverted the intro to its previously established form. It's the only part I've worked on, so I didn't feel competent reverting everything. Having worked on it, including tracking down a source for the religious opposition, I'll only say that there is absolutely no way we are going to leave criticism in the intro as merely: "Detractors say there is no evidence for the claims that astrologers can predict the future and maintain that astrology is a "pseudo-science" at best." Marskell 13:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro length

Is it just me, or is that the longest introduction to an article ever?!?!

Surely this should be more summarized? I'm quite sure most of that info can go into sections easily...am I wrong about this? Here's what I suggest:

Astrology (from Greek: αστρολογία = άστρον, astron, "star" + λόγος, logos, "word") refers to any of several traditions or beliefs in which knowledge of the apparent positions of celestial bodies is held to be useful in understanding, interpreting, and organizing knowledge about reality and human existence on earth.

(Maybe): All such traditions are based on the relative positions and movements of various real and construed celestial bodies as seen at the time and place of the birth or other event being studied. These are chiefly the Sun, Moon, planets, Ascendant & Midheaven axes, and the lunar nodes.

A practitioner of astrology is called an astrologer or an astrologist. Astromancy, the prediction of the future by the stars, is a slightly archaic synonym for astrology. An astrologer may sometimes be called or an astromancer (or the rather rarely used astromancist). The term astromancy is most often used when listing astrology among other, different forms of divination such as geomancy and necromancy.

Astrology is not considered to be a science, but is more appropriately an art, and is separate from astronomy, the scientific study of outer space. (maybe)There is as yet no accepted evidence that astrology has a falsifiable, scientific basis. Astrology has also been rejected on a religious basis by most Christian and Islamic groups, although it continues to be a tenet of others, such as Hinduism and forms of Buddhism.

Andrew Homer (StarHeart): People show me where in the Gospel of Thomas (the ONLY gospel written when Jesus was breathing) that there's ANY criticism of Astrology. Just because someone calls themself a Christian doesn't mean that they are. How do you explain that it was the Arab world which maintained Astrology duting Europe's "dark ages"? Why are you sweeping under the carpet the MANY astrological references in BOTH the Old Testament and the New Testament?

Note: the italicized parts aren't proposed to be italicized in the article, just to show what parts I'm not sure whether I think should be in the intro or within the following sections. I think the problem is that since this is a controversial article, both (or all if there's more than two) sides want to make sure the debate is done up front. I think the standard practice for the intro of any article is to briefly describe what the subject is, and then, if it is a subject that involves different views, put a brief introduction to any major detractors (and their reasons if it can be kept brief) and put the rest within the sections of the article. bcatt 10:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

I agree with the above stated point (can't remember while writing this who left it) that this article leans very heavily towards representing Western astrology, and notice that two western astrology images are heading the article...is there an image perhaps that repesents astrology as a whole? If not already uploaded to wikipedia or commons, then perhaps a certain theme that I can try to look up on the internet? I thought maybe of using:

Or maybe an image can be made to represent the planets as seen from the earth, as this would be more appropriate to how astrology calculations are made...Any thoughts? bcatt 01:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Etymology

Clarified the etymology section as it was a little bit misleading and not really complete. Although "word" in the logos sense really means "the word on..." (as in a text or oral speech), the previous representation made it appear as something much more simplistic. Besides, the logos article makes it clear that "word" is only one of the more common translations, not the translation. I chose to use other translations which more accurately represent what is meant by "word" in this sense and the rest of the translations. bcatt 01:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. --Chris Brennan 01:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up intro

1. Clarified and wikified first paragraph
2. Moved second paragraph down to description section
3. Separated paragraph concerning practitioner terms and astromancy, added practitioner terms to end of first paragraph, corrected info in astromancy and moved to follow paragraphs regarding scientific and religious criticism/support
4. Moved fourth paragraph down to description section
5. Fifth paragraph: removed first sentence, as it is considered a science by those who support it and not considered a science by those who criticize it, so it's not accurate to apply a blanket statement that it isn't considered a science, as it actually does use scientific principles as defined by dictionaries and wikipedia itself; and also removed the last part claiming that astrologers don't require causal or scientific basis for their interpretations of a chart, as I don't see this as being true...likewise with it being dependant on intuition. If necessary, comments regarding these claims can be added to the criticism section. The remaining portion was moved to the description section.
6. Neutralized the scientific opinion of astrology, providing both it's criticism and support
7. Clarified religious criticism and support
8. Moved paragraphs 8 and 9 into description section
9. Used solar system image proposed above as a more generally encompassing illustration of astrology, as there were no written objections to it, though I am looking at creating a new image depicting the planets and sun seen from earth; and moved coloured western chart image further down the page, removing the y2k one...this was a tough choice, as I think the y2k one is more general and therefore more appropriate for the article, but the coloured birth chart is easier to look at and has a good description on it's page.
10. Generally joggled images around to try to make them fit better within the article

bcatt 01:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Sorry...this was my comment above

Above - Please sign your entries.

Nice edit though. Lumos3 19:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Astrology: Threat or Menace?

I think it's relevant to take a moment to consider the overall purpose of this article. Astrology is, in fact, one of the oldest and most universal of the esoteric practices humanity has ever conceived. Whether it is "real" or not is not a relevant topic for this article. It has a history, which is definitely worth respecting. While I understand the desire for science advocates to want to steer curious minds toward the contemporary foci of astronomical studies, there is scholarly legitimacy in the study of astrology's history and methods, both anthropologically and as a part of the evolution of scientific thought.

In my opinion, the arguments about whether astrology is a legitimate practice has no place here. It fits in the realm of faith and philosophy, whose threads of insight wove the beginnings of astronomy and influenced other sciences. No historian of science would deny that anymore than one would deny Isaac Newton's near-obsession with alchemy.

I've heard many arguments against practices such as astrology, some well-intended and some just angry. The fact remains that the vast majority of humanity believes in the supernatural in one form or another. Attacking a person's faith will never convince them of the rightness of your point, or enlighten them to science. It has the exactly opposite effect. If the concern of the skeptic is that of "consumer protection" consider that people are not quite so stupid as you assume. If they choose to exchange money for a service they subjectively consider valuable to them, that is a legitimate transaction in a capitalist system. Attempting to make a moral issue of it (tossing around words like charlatan, for instance) is a very slippery slope.

If a person is here on Wikipedia, they are not without a questioning mind. Most casual readers who explore astrology are not seeking to become astrologers or to spend thousands of dollars on a professional to the detriment of their wellbeing. They are curious. They'd like to know more. Astrology does in fact open the door to astronomy. If you are truly interested in guiding people in that direction, utilize more positive language. Discuss the connection between the two schools.

Astrology is not responsible for starvation in the third world, war or disease. It does not cause the brain to come oozing out of one's cranium. Creating a battle where it is not asked is the very reason that science and religion have become so woefully divorced in the eyes of the vast majority of people. Granted, the battle was started by religion, but it need not be perpetuated, and by doing so you are alienating the very minds you seek to enlighten just so that you can reassure yourself that you are smarter than most people, thinly and cheaply masked with this banner of the public interest.

I agree that balance is important in any article, but a mere glance at this discussion page demonstrates that balance is not as important to some of the individuals participating as being "right". Try to look at this page instead as a reference for a field of human pursuit that, though it is certainly no longer part of the body of modern science, had a long and venerable history that undoubtedly influenced a many aspects of our greatest achievements. If we had never been compelled to look at the stars in wonder and seek to make them part of our existence, how much of what we know now would have been lost? "The contemplation of celestial things will make a man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." - Cicero

It's something to consider, since none of our presumptions here will have our names remembered so long as his.... || Shadow Magi 10:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. I'm currently trying to rework the intro, due to it's length, accuracy and the attack page that is practically thrown in the reader's face (which, btw, I've nominated for speedy deletion). I'm looking at the fact that astronomy is misrepresented as never having been connected to astrology (when, in fact, astronomy was born out of astrology), and the fact that many astronomers still support astrology as a science. Also looking at clearing up the religion part (if you don't know the significance that astrology has in religion, just look up the three wise men...they were astrologers). In the interest of NPOV, the opposition does need to be properly represented, but I think that can be done without the article having the "astrology is a crock" tone that it's currently leaning towards. I'm also reworking the part where astromancy is mentioned, and wrote an article for it, since it used to redirect here. Hope this makes sense...I'm very tired lol. Anyway, I'm trying to work on it and look forward to any suggestions. bcatt 12:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that "astromancy" is not synonymous with astrology, I don't think that the distinction between predicting exact events as opposed to generalities is the difference between the two. I'm going to do a little reasearch on the subject, but my current understanding is that astromancy is merely a derogatory term that is sometimes used in reference to astrology. I'm not really sure that it belongs in the intro at this point though. --Chris Brennan 21:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding, astromancy is an actual practice, not a specifically derogatory term (although I'm sure that many like to use it as a derogator term for astrology)...how I understand it is that although a very similar, or even the same, process is used, the end result is where the difference lies. For example, where an astrologer would see a charismatic character, an astromancer would assert that the subject "is going to be" some sort of public figure. It's probably bad example, but it illustrates what I was attempting to convey in the article. Hopefuly you can find something to clear this up, I'll look around too. bcatt 01:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. The problem with that though is that there are still many astrologers who do make concrete predictions about people and events. Even though much of modern western astrology has been directed towards character interpretation since Alan Leo in the early 20th century, this is not how it has always been traditionally, or how it is outside of the new age and psychological astrological circles. For example, Vedic astrologers in India are all about telling you very specific things pertaining to your life and what will happen based upon your birth chart and your dashas. This doesn't mean that they are practicing "astromancy" though, because they are in fact using horoscopic astrology and a very definite set of rules in order to arive at specific conclusions. --Chris Brennan 02:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, Chris. Also I really and truly dsilike that picture of Saturn and some other planets. It's not attractive and I don't see anything astrological about it. Can't it be moved? Also, I don't like all the pictures on one side. It's a bit Adrian Monk-like, don't you think? Hard on the eyes. Also, I don't see a reason for having Percy Seymour in paragraph one. I personally think he's off in the ether somewhere and he certainly is not main line astrology. Also, in my opinion, who cares if astrology adheres to some scientific protocol? I think it's about time we stopped worrying about the scientists. They have their own religion. Also, paragraph 2, we start off with the being defensive again. I wish all this defensiveness would stop. The heck with it. The article should be about astrology, not about some astronomers' view of what we do. Especially in second paragraph. You're jumping right up, with your dukes in front of your eyes. NaySay 03:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't really made any major edits to the main astrology article because I was waiting until there was enough actual astrologers frequenting wikipedia to be able to come to a concensus about it. Astrology should be defined in its own right before it is contrasted with opposing viewpoints. This seems to be the way that other articles are done, especially ones which carry theological connontations. So yeah, I think that we should start a major overhaul of the article. This has already been started by Bcatt, but we still have a long way to go. --Chris Brennan 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The more I research this astromancy thing, the more it just looks like an obsolete 17th century English term. It appears that most of the sources that I have at my disposal for the history of astrology don't even refer to it because it was only used mainly in 17th century England as astrology was falling out of favor. Saying that it is just divination by the stars doesn't quite make sense either because there is a large contention of people who believe that that is the mechanism behind astrology in the first place. So I'm not really sure where to go with this. I would say that we should just drop it from the intro at this point, add the inter-wiki link to the see also section, and move on. --Chris Brennan 03:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree on the "astromancy" term. Agree on the major overhaul, and seeing as I'm giving a presentation before an astrology group tomorrow for which I'm getting paid, I qualify as a professional. I've been a bit unwilling to do much with this article, as it seemed a waste of my time, but if it's finally going somewhere useful I'd be overjoyed to help out! Doovinator 04:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Great! Sounds like we have a group going then. --Chris Brennan 04:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Are we not going to run into some trouble from those who show up and start going in on the "astrology isn't a science" bit? There is an NPOV policy that all views on a subject must be represented, though I would like to put emphasis on the fact that astronomy exists because astrology needed more accurate tracking of the planets...rather than how it is represented as astrology borrowing or taking advantage of astronomers' hard work (as this is how it reads to me right now)...and I was writing the following when I stopped to check my watchlist:

I am wondering if anyone has any information on whether the scientists who reject astrology ever actually examined it first before discarding it? Are there any empirical studies which have shown astrology to have no basis? I have not yet read a critical "report" of astrology that did not include a falsely attributed practice (such as being based on the stars, etc). If it has not been seriously studied (other than by faithful astrologers), then this debate is clearly a case of scientific tunnel vision.

I would like nothing more than to just discuss astrology in this article, as the criticism seems to have very little validity in it's logic (not to mention in my own experience, which shows that astrology is indeed quite valid)...but, I can't very well insist on NPOV over at Joseph Smith, but turn a blind eye to it here ;).

Chris, would you mind updating the astromancy article with what you've found?

NaySay...sorry you hate the solar sys image...I was trying to come up with something neutral to all the different types of astrology, as I had noticed someone's comment way up there about a heavy leaning toward Western astrology...I asked for ideas but got no response, so I just put it up. Any ideas for what would work for an "all-encompassing" image? bcatt 08:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (ummmm, yeah...sorry if none of that made sense...I'm going to bed now)

Evidence that scientists who reject astrology have examined it first before discarding it is here - [1]. I don't believe Astrology is true in the simplistic way that most Astrologers here seem to want it to be. I enjoy it because it gives an incite into the thinking and world view of past generations and cultures. Lumos3 22:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)