Talk:Horoscope/Archive 1

Archive 1

Midheaven and imum coeli

--76.236.214.157 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)The article says "For events occurring where the planes of the ecliptic and the horizon coincide, the limiting position for these points is located 90° from the ascendant." Strictly these planes can't coincide, but they can be parallel, and since the stars are so far away, we can treat them as if they coincided. Am I right in thinking that the only time the horizon can be parallel to the ecliptic is when the native is on the Arctic Circle or Antartic Circle? Is it worth mentioning in the article? Is there a source for this? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't give you a source, but since the Earth's axis of rotation is not orthogonal to the ecliptic, the two points on the Earth's surface at which the horizon and the ecliptic are parallel are constantly changing. I don't think this is worth mentioning in the article, though. Jminthorne (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

==adsadsadasdasdasdsadas This is as bad as believing in karma or eight-armed gods. Enough said. If you need further explanation to understand the reasoning behind my statement, then you better get your head checked to see if there is a brain in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.32.105 (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for your personal views on horoscopes. Please review Wikipedia's guidelines for civil discussion on talk pages.Elle (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree. It all depends on your view of things what you're saying is something like me telling you that jeauseee is real, it all comes down to what you believe in. And I don't believe this either but, I not going to go around telling all the believers it's "Bullcrap". And you saying that, is agianst the Contatution because everyone has a right to religion and belive and you can't go around saying stuff about other peoples believes just because you don't believe it. Oh and I want you to know a 12 year old just made you look like an idiot. (oh but I believe in Jesus to get this straight) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.44.40 (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the subject and the tone of the original message it is not incorrect. Astrology is not a real science and has not much to do with the reality. Sometimes it is fun to read but no one should ever base his/her life on it; at least not important decisions. My opinion is that the summary in the heading of the article should state briefly that horoscopes only seem to work because of the Forer effect.

I'm curious as to why there isn't a "Criticism" or "Controversy" header in this article. It seems to pass off pseudo-science as fact. 207.112.84.150 (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree there ought to be a section on criticism. It is pseudo-science. Also the standard horoscopes that appear in newspapers are massively vague, broad, and unhelpful. Eugene-elgato (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No comment…?

Why doesn't it mention anywhere in the article, that horoscopes are basically fraud and humbug? I suppose the idea that they are is pretty much accepted, this should be reflected in the article. Reading it, a truly neutral observer is forced to be under the impression that they are true and accepted, without any evidence of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.79.82 (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Horoscopes cannot possibly be fraud or humbug because they are just pieces of paper with charts drawn on them. It's the interpretation of these symbols that is far from universally accepted. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article does say "However, no studies have shown any scientific support for the accuracy of horoscopes, and the methods used to make interpretations are, at best, pseudo-scientific." which I would say pretty much covers it. Cubathy (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Explaining removing and rewriting

Rewrote paragraph:

"(though today this system is largely inaccurate: see below under "The zodiac")"

• it is not inaccurate, it is conventional

Removed paragraph:

"Much like the dates of the Gregorian Calendar, the actual location of the sun along the ecliptic shifts on an annual basis making calendar dates no less important than calendar years in determining the location of the sun at the moment of a person's birth. However, this actual solar position is not usually taken in to consideration when determining anyone's "sun sign"."

• Just repeats what was written just above.

Removed word:

"mythical"

• The word is not correct there: the paragraph says: "with respect to the northern hemisphere vernal equinox or the fixed stars (depending on which astrological system is being used)"; so the position is accurately measured with respect to the vernal equinox in western astrology, or otherwise accurately measured with respect to the "fixed stars" in vedic or sidereal astrology.

Removed phrase:

"(including the sun and moon, both considered "planets" for horoscopic purposes)"

• repeats what was already said

Removed words:

"supposedly have been" and "which would have been hidden"

• I am not sure here, anyway I think they would (actually the text uses "would") according to the conventional zodiac used by the astrologer (the paragraph treats both the sidereal and the tropical zodiacs)

Removed paragraph:

"though again, as mentioned previously, such calculations usually bear little or no actual resemblance to the locations of such objects in the sky at the time in history chosen by the astrologer. "

• Repeats what was written and is not correct here, because the paragraph is not only about the tropical zodiac but also about the sidereal zodiac.

--Achillu (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)