Talk:Astrology

What astrologers "don't know" about the span of each constellation

The "boundaries" of each constellation were decided in 1930, so seeing as to how astrology is thousands of years older than that, the argument that "they don't know" these totally modern, artificially drawn boundaries is completely bogus. I'd edit it out but I'm afraid my dial-up connection would cut off at least half of this humonguous article.Doovinator 00:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why would you edit it out? I assume you're talking about the part in The case against astrology. Since people actually use that as an argument against the usefulness of astrology, it's our job to document that as part of The case against.

Also, you complain that the modern boundaries are "artificially drawn". Firstly, the ancient boundaries were artificially drawn too. Secondly, we call the same set of stars "Virgo" that we did back then. If the sun is actually inside that group of stars for 44° of arc, how is that bogus? I can't vouch for the actual arc lengths, but the argument sounds logical to me. Foobaz·✐ 01:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the original scheme the "boundaries" came first, like longitude lines. The constellations were the stars which happened to be in "x" area of the sky, not the other way around. It's as if we'd been defining "America" as "a land mass between 30 and 165 west longitude", and a geographical commission came along and declared the actual boundaries to be thus-and-so and therefore everyone who came before is "wrong". The definition has changed, not actual boundaries. All astrologers are fully aware of the "boundaries" of the constellations as defined in 1930, but this has nothing whatever to do with astrological "signs". If the sun is in the area of the sky where it habitually resides in the last month of summer, then it's in the astrological sign "Virgo". After it has passed through that area, the days start getting shorter and it's in the astrological sign "Libra". The stars are convenient markers for these areas of the sky, but nothing more. Astronomy is a completely different science, and has a different jargon.Doovinator 22:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Doovinator is right. Astrology divides the zodiac in twelve equal parts, and this matches roughly with the existing constellations (not through coincidence). The one legitimate point of dissenssion within the astrological community is whether to stick to a calendar zodiac or to follow the precession of the equinoxes (which leads to nearly a full sign's worth of difference nowadays). The term "sign" is also used to mean 30° (360° divided in 12).

Urhixidur 03:10, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

This discussion is very confused. Nobody seem to "get it." Here are a few simple facts: The zodiac used by Western astrologers has been unchanged since at least ancent Greece, when it was agreed among Western astrologers that the ecliptic (which has nothing to do with stars millions of light-years away) is the basis of the twelve zodiacal divisions. Not the constellations! Critics of astrology persist in insisting that the "constellations" should be the basis of the zodiac, but they are not. Astrology uses a local system, namely, a system based entirely on our own solar system. The zodiac used in astrology is the relation between the earth and the sun. It is twelve evenly divided sections of the ecliptic beginning at the Vernal Equinox (beginning of the sign, not the constellation, Aries) when spring begins and the days and nights are pretty evenly divided (hence the name Equinox) and extending to the Summer Solstice (beginning of the sign, not the constellation, Cancer) when the days are longest and nights shortest in the Northern Hemisphere and then to the Autumnal Equinox (beginning of the sign, not the constellation Libra) when again there is an equality and then on to the Winter Solstice (beginning of the sign, not the constellation, Capricorn). All this is very clear. It is only the names of these divisions which are confusing because there happen to be constellations of stars with the same names, now out of synch with the signs although they were in synch with them millennia ago, presumably when they were first named. But when it is realized that the twelve ecliptical divisions are really twleve even divisions of the orbit of the earth around the sun, based upon the entirely measurable seasons of the year, we see that astrology is local, centered in our solar system. The twelve signs used by Western astrologers are twelve "fields" within the earth's orbit. Why they work, no one knows (nor does anyone know the ultimate "why" about much of anything in science), but it is dishonest to imply that they must rely upon remote constellations to have any efficacy. I myself decided upon them, rather than the so-called "sidereal" zodiac based on the constellations, after long and careful observation, comparing the positions of planets and the sun in the two systems.

Reply: Western astrology is based upon the geometric relationships (aspects) of the planets (at any given time). The geometric relationships remain constant (for any particular astrology chart) regardless of one's employing the tropical or sidereal methods. See, External Link http://www.templeofsolomon.org/astro.htg/astro.htm for a complete primer (and errors) on Western Astrology. One of the the main benefits of the study of (archetypal) astrology is the information regarding the Pantheon of Celestial Gods (Mars, Jupiter, Venus, etc.) and recognizing that these archetypal energies operate, to some degree, to erode all of the western images of pathos (crucified Christ, treks through the desert, etc.) and to refresh our minds with positive (pain free) imagery. Astrology has been discredited for two primary reasons. One reason is apparent, being the invention of the telescope which revealed (Galileo) that the Earth is not the center of the solar system (astrological charts place the Earth in the center). The second reason, deeply veiled and hidden, is that Christianity has attempted to discredit and debunk astrology with Gregorian calendar changes and seeming intentional calendar errors - throwing off the zodiac - which seem designed to hide the strong association between Christianity and astrology. (e.g. The Son (Sun) that dies (sunset) and is resurrected (sunrise), the Son (Sun) and the 12 apostles (signs of the zodiac), the son (sun) "born of a virgin" i.e., The sun's precession Precession of The Equinox out of Virgo into Leo, the sign of the king. One can gradually, by the study of astronomy and western astrology, begin to discern that The New Testament is (quite possibly) an astrological/astronomical allegory (a midrash) which formed the basis of Christianity. The length of the constellations is (eventually) inconsequential to a dedicated student of astrology because, over time, the advanced adept can adjust his or her own astrological chart interpretations and alignments to compensate for what he or she observes and experiences regarding their chart (rectification). Sure, it is unraveling a great puzzle which includes many red herrings but the dedicated student will gradually arrive at deeper spiritual/metaphysical truths regarding personal identity and the deeper purpose of life, including spiritual enlightenment. John Charles Webb posted July 19th 2005

Andrew Homer: The aspects between the planets is ONE of the tools used by Astrologers. Vedic Astrology uses the arbitrary CONSTELLATIONS. Western Astrologers designate the 12 equal SIGNS of the Zodiac by using the first second of Spring as the reference point for zero degree Aries - with 30 degrees assigned to each of the 12 Zodiac Signs. Constellations and their boundaries are arbitrary. Zodiac Signs have a fix reference point. If one has bothered to study Astronomy, one would know that it's the Astronomers who, around 1980, capitulated and also started to use the first second of Spring as their reference point for the Zodiac, too. The more proper title for this section should be "What psuedo-Astronomers Don't Know About Astrology."

List of Astrologers

I noticed this page is getting big; it will surely expand — it needs to be reworked from top to bottom, a lot of things haven't been said, don't know if I have the energy for it, but together I'm sure we will — so I've moved the list (which should also be expanded) to List of astrologers. I'm not very fond of lists, since Categories are a much more organized way of presenting the same skeleton, but they have the advantage of serving as a checklist for articles that need to be written, whereas Categories only include articles that have already been written. Ideally, though, the better list will be Category:Astrologers. At any rate, this sets "Astrology" on the same footing as "Physics" or "Medicine", which don't list every doctor or physicist on the article page; it does astrology no service to look like we're saying "See, look how many people were astrologers." — Bill 12:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PROOF for Isidore of Seville

Press CONTROL + F and search for "Seville"

• Though Seville eventually came to reject natal astrology, he was always a major proponent of medical astrology/mundane astrology as is laid out in these pages:

• [1]

• [2]

• [3]

• [4]

"The "De natura rerum" a manual of elementary physics, was composed at the request of King Sisebut, to whom it is dedicated. It treats of astronomy*, geography, and miscellanea. It is one of Isidore's best known books and enjoyed a wide popularity during the Middle Ages." -- previous page newadvent.org

* As any educated person knows there was no distinction between astrology and astronomy in those days -- it just does not list it as astrolomy, that is the mixture of astronomy/astrology.

• [5]

"In his later life, Pierre d'Ailly was much concerned with defending astrology/astronomy from charges that it was inconsistent with Christianity. As a basis, he took the attitude endorsed long before by Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636) that one can distinguish between natural astrology* and superstitious astrology, and that it is the former which is consistent with Christianity, while the latter is not."

* Natural astrology being medical astrology and mundane astrology which was used and written about widely during his time, not the use of astrology for personal/predictive reasons, which many of the relgious believed would be somehow tampering with God's will.

• [6]

I see no proof in any of this, nor do CAPITAL LETTERS make it one....

Your main thesis is flawed: "any educated person" — thank you — and see my transcription of Isidore — knows no such thing. The line was vague and lots of people crossed over it in one direction or the other; but in general, "natural astrology" refers to what we call astronomy, "superstitious astrology" to predictive astrology. I'll concede to you the very grey area of what we now call meteorology and where it impinges on physiology: the ancients, almost uniformly, did view the weather as having something to do with the farther heavens, and there was general agreement that weather affected physiology (see for example Vitruvius on the siting of towns — where clicking on the section numbers sends you to the Latin if you need it).

And before we go any further, in case you were tempted, it is pointless dismissing me as personally against astrology in any way. I've spent a good deal of time studying it, learned how to cast a chart 30 years ago, for a while even making some money casting charts, have a fair library of astrological material, and view astrology as valuable both in itself as a psychological descriptor and as part of the arsenal of "any educated person" in the fields of literary criticism or Antiquity. I've done statistical studies on some facets of astrology (one of them coming up in favor of a correlation between being an organist and having Mars conjunct Uranus: at 3σ level of significance!) I am still — as you can see — fascinated by the subject; see for example my chart of Nero.

Now that we've got that out of the way.... Of your 6 refs, two are quite irrelevant: #4 is the Catholic Encyclopedia on Isidore, breathing not a word about astrology (which I'm perfectly willing to admit means nothing, given the recent opposition of the church to astrology: 19th-century and very straight-laced; but still, there is nothing about astrology there, for whatever reason). #6 is merely the astrology section of Tim Spaulding's site, which he named "Isidore-of-Seville" in honor of the great man because he was a polymath or an encyclopedist. Nowhere there is Isidore brought up in connection with astrology.

#1, #2, and #5 are very tertiary sources, all probably paraphrasing the same secondary source, notice the very similar turns of phrase; none of them states unambiguously that Isidore was an astrologer. #1 views Isidore — again, for what that's worth, these are people like you and me writing modern opinions — as against astrology, not for it. #2 mentions Isidore incidentally except for repeating that he was in favor of medical astrology. #5 is the most incidental repeat of the same thing.

#3 is better, since it actually quotes Isidore, even kindly footnoting the reference, although not linking it: IV.13.4 is here — on my own site, natch; if Isidore's astrologer-ness boils down to that, it's very weak indeed.

What is needed is some kind of proof that Isidore wrote about astrology per se, or practiced it. Again, this has nothing to do with being for or against astrology, or for or against Isidore, or Roman Catholicism: just a concern for facts. We wouldn't call Vanna White an "American politician" because she must surely have made some loose political statement like the rest of us all — nor even more politically active actors; we shouldn't call Isidore an astrologer if he wasn't one. — Bill 11:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Right. The issue is whether or not he was an "astrologer", did he do astrology-predictions or alchemy and all the rest of it. Educated people do not know that astronomy and astrology were one in the same. Humanity has been looking up at and studying the stars from the very beginning: astronomy is our oldest science. Many Middle Ages astronomer's were definately not astrologers, they considered astrology to be not in keeping with their Christian/Islamic/Jewish teachings. They were studing "the heavens" as a way to understand the universe of their God. Isidore wrote an encyclopedia, and in that encyclopedia, he tried to list all the endevors's of humanity, just like Wikipedia does today. What one may find in the Etymologiae concerning astrology is not proof that he was an astrologer: it simply does not fit his job description: it isn't what he did, (at least, not so far as history has recorded). func(talk) 20:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neo-Platonic astrology

Neo-Platonic astrology as a study case

'M'oved the following from the article as it is too much of an essay style for an encyclopedia. Someone needs to re work this into a history of the idea. Lumos3 23:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Neo-Platonic astrology as a study case the case of Platonic and Neo-Platonic astrology should be of particular interest. Here one can easily observe both the strong motivations towards the establishment of an astrological science, and the collapse of the bulk of these motivations in the post-Galilean world.

We shall begin by following a line of thought that was very strong in many parts of the classical world. So strong, it was the reason for the deportation of Anaxagoras from Athens (he was advocating that the stars were nothing but “hot stones in the sky”), and the Epicureans made the fight against this view the main point of their moral philosophy.

So, imagine you live in a society with a technology that is less than modern: no cars, planes, etc. The only things you would observe that have the capacity to move on their own are living things. Hence only living things have what Aristotle calls (potential) "innate movement". But all living things decease (given enough time). All? Well, look at the sky - there you will find heavenly bodies moving perpetually in well-ordered paths. If living things are the only candidates for self-induced movement, then the heavenly bodies must be alive. They are also perpetual, hence immortal. They also seem to be moving in a nice circular fashion; hence they must be highly intelligent sentient beings (circles being the most perfect of geometric forms). What would you call a super-intelligent, immortal sentient being?

A god.

So the heavenly bodies are gods. That's well enough. But there are two other things you should notice about these gods:

1 They seem to be unbound by earthly physics: they float high above, unaffected by gravity, and they also move in circular motion - a type of motion that is not very common down here on earth. So the rules that work in the heavens are not the same as the terrestrial laws of physics.

2 We already know that the heavens directly affect our lives. Think about the weather: rain, snow, light, heat, cold, clouds... the different seasons... all these things govern our lives (esp. if we live in an agricultural society).

Let us sum things up. We have seen that:

• Heavenly things govern life here on earth.
• Heavenly things do not abide by earthly laws.
• Heavenly things are gods.

It should be strongly emphasized that this view holds strongly as well in monotheistic cultures, and is in fact firmly embedded into classical Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Although they are no longer deemed to be actual gods, the heavenly bodies are still highly regarded in classical monotheistic religious philosophies, and are often looked upon as angels or some other instrument of the one god.

It is very easy to see how Astrology and Alchemy stem from this view. It would be only rational to try and consult the heavenly bodies - concerning almost everything – from the conception of babies to the signing of political and commercial treaties – hence Astrology. It would also be very tempting to utilize the forces governing the heavens down here. If you could “make” Mars work for you, you would be free from the confines of terrestrial physics – hence Alchemy.

It is also very easy to see why the Galilean views were so intimidating in the eyes of many renaissance scientists and policy-makers: Galileo’s observations were deadly to the dichotomy between earth and the heavens. He was showing that the stars were merely natural phenomena, rather then super-natural super-intelligent perpetually unchanging beings.

So, in the classical world, the case for astrology was almost trivial. The connections between heaven and earth are everywhere you look, and the heavens are clearly something supernatural. In the post Galilean world, however, advocates for Astrology face an excruciating task. The easy-to-observe influences of heaven are dealt with within the framework of sciences e.g. Meteorology and Solar Astronomy. Further influences are no longer deemed trivial, and are usually very hard to show.

---

Remarks in the last paragraph

It is very easy to see how Astrology and Alchemy stem from this view. It would be only rational to try and consult the heavenly bodies - concerning almost everything – from the conception of babies to the signing of political and commercial treaties – hy and astrology were one in the same. Humanity has been looking up at and studying the stars from the very beginning: astronomy is our oldest science. Many Middle Ages astronomer's were definately not astrologers, they considered astrology to be not in keeping with their Christian/Islamic/Jewish teachings. They were studing "the heavens" as a way to understand the universe of their God. Isidore wrote an encyclopedia, and in that encyclopedia, he tried to list all the endevors's of humanity, just like Wikipedia does today. What one may find in the Etymologiae concerning astrology is not proof that he was an astrologer: it simply does not fit his job description: it isn't what he did, (at least, not so far as history has recorded). func(talk) 20:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article is nearly 32K

A warning has appeared when the edit box is opened that this article is now nearly 32K bytes long and needs to be split up into smaller articles. I suggest that the Cases for and against sections plus the Astrology and science section be moved into a new article called something like - The validity of astrology . A short summary of this would remain in the main astrology article. Any comments Lumos3 17:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Make sub-articles. ConfessedSockPuppetJunior 06:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Observing that many sections were exact duplicates of things in other articles, I deleted a lot of sections and made them into links saying "See (such-and-such)". That takes care of the 32 KB warning. Hope these edits aren't too drastic. I just thought it would be better not to have the exact same information duplicated in more than one article. --Slartibartfast 01:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

unclear text

what does this mean? I cant make sense out of it. do they influence or not?

Many of those who practice astrology believe that the positions of certain celestial bodies either influence, or correlate with but do not influence, people's personality traits, important events in their lives, and even physical characteristics.

Knightt 21:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Opinions differ. Most reasonable people believe heavenly bodies neither influence nor correlate with mundane events. Some astrologers believe they correlate with human activities because they influence them; some other astrologers believe they correlate with human activiities for some other reason. - Nunh-huh 01:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Andrew Homer: Someone is psycho-babbling Carl Jung's earlier explaination that the planetary positions have to do with the "synchronicity" of events. Just before his death, Jung capitulated to the "causality" explaination of events.

The case against Astrology - Distance + life prediction

I'm tempted to just delete the recent edits to the case against astrology, as both points are based on a misunderstanding of astrological practice, and I'm not sure that scientists make these criticisms. Before you accuse me of bias, I am not an astrologer, and I do not believe in astrological practice. That having been said, let me address the two points. The first point - distance is not taken into account - is invalid. While the typical chart has no indication of distance built in, the different aspects are given degrees of importance. For instance, many astrologers believe that the Sun is the most major aspect, and the moon is the second most major aspect. The second point - about a life predictive system - is also misguided. No astrologer makes the claim that the predictions of astrology are immutable. In fact, astrologers say that astrology describes influences, which if properly understood can help the person being analyzed change the future! These criticisms are strawmen, and I think it does the argument against astrology a disservice to keep them. I will be deleting them in a few days unless someone can convince me otherwise. Cardshark

Hello. Some comments. Yes some specialists in paranormal stuff do this kind of comments. (See French book Henri Broch - Au coeur du paranormal). About distances. Indeed astrology mentiones some aspects related to distances. But, and that is the point, in such a case it means distances matters for astrologer and this criteria must be mentioned for all objects officially considered in astrology (it is not the case) but also... plainly all objects in universe. Mentionning one or two (or 10000) distances is not enough. To be precise all the signes would have to be charted in terms of distances for each of the stars making them up. In other word this point is a consistency one. About life predictive system: No astrologer makes the claim that the predictions of astrology are immutable. The very point. Either your are predicting something whatsoever and it has to be observable as predicted, or your are just speculating and you can be ignored. Actually the problem is mixed up in your comment: the concept of prediction is misunderstood in astrology (and many other domains). Astrologer hides behind a smoke screen the fact that their predictions (whatsoever: facts or influence which is wordable as probability) are not observable, therefore even less "verifiable" and utlimately are not prediction at all. I think those two points are rather informative because they are true, verifiable, and unlike for example precession of the equinoxes, any one can understand them. So no: certainly not delete! Rewrite if you please for sure. Gtabary 11:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You said - " The very point. Either your are predicting something whatsoever and it has to be observable as predicted, or your are just speculating and you can be ignored. " I'm sorry, but with all due respect, this is a ridiculous argument. For example, a geneticist may be able to tell you that you have a 10% chance of dying of a heart attack based on your genetic makeup, but that by changing your eating habits, you can lower your risk of that heart attack. Is the prediction useless because it is not immutable? Obviously not. The prediction is very helpful because by altering your lifestyle, you can affect your life in a positive way. Furthermore, the argument is a straw man defense because it argues against a position that astrologers do not advocate. It doesn't help the argument against astrology at all, rather it weakens it. Unless you can demonstrate that astrologers hold this view, and that some sort of qualified person such as a scientist argues against astrology based on this view, it has no place in the article. I'll give it a couple more days for further discussion, and then I will remove it from the article. Cardshark

I am going to prove you incorrect, will you feel ridiculous ? (Ok just teasing there :-) . Probably better not to use ridiculous.) A geneticist may be able to tell you that you have a 10% chance of dying of a heart attack and, that's the catch, those 10% are repetedly observable at the scale of a population, over a 50 years period, statisticaly . Summary: a probabilistic prediction is done AND the prediction is observable. That's where para-science life-prediction predictions fails: Even with long time and an important sample to analyse, none of the predictions are observable. Astrologer do pretend to have a kind of prediction system be it absolute or probabilistic. If it's neither absolute nor porbabilistic, that's not prediction but speculation. That is technically the answer to your question. Note the orginal point of the paragraph is still unchanged and valid: knowing the future is meaningless if you can't change it; knowing the future is meaningless if you can change it because then you don't know the future; not knowing the future is... not knowing the future. I don't understand the use of straw man: Please explain me what else astrology pretend to do but to kind of predict (even only probabilisticaly) the future ? I'll suggest an other wording of the paragraph in some time. Gtabary 11:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, saying "If they believe this, they're wrong because.... and if they believe that, they're wrong because..." is the classic example of the straw man argument. Click the link, and read the section labeled "rhetorical use", it gives a thorough definition. Furthermore, I stand by the analogy that I made to genetics. Your paragraph said that either there was no point of knowing the future because it was immutable, or the prediction was just speculation and therefore useless. If an astrologer said you have a tendency to be obese, and you should watch your diet, that is not a useless prediction. If your argument is that astrology is not a science, and therefore it's predictions are wrong (and therefore useless), that topic is very well covered elsewhere in the article, and your paragraph was redundant (and less well-reasoned than others on the page). Furthermore, since astrologers do not claim to make immutable predictions, at least half your argument was a straw man. (sign please)

(Reset indent). Hi again. I read the straw man article. Interesting. Though unlike what you think orginial paragraph do not qualify as a straw man argument. Here is why.

What orginal paragraph does is quite different: It takes what astrology is reported to be - Many of those who practice astrology believe that the positions of certain celestial bodies either influence, or correlate with but do not influence, people's personality traits, important events in their lives, and even physical characteristics. which the single point for strology to be - and refutes it. Name it future prediction, probablities, influences it boils down to the same: predict somehow, something. There is no presenting whith (cf straw man) distortion, portion, fiction. Therefore there is no straw man stuff. End of story.

Now about the if a then wrong, or b then wrong and a = non b; then all wrong invalidity and "classicality". Sory but if a is wrong as well as b is, well, all is wrong. And in our case indeed both are wrong.

The analogy with genetics do not stand because... The geneticist do not have to observe his 10%, because the 10% are the result of observations. In other word the geneticist do not have to prove existance of facts for the facts are the base of the affirmations. Astrology still have to exibit even only some facts to back up affirmations, or to be observable after affirmations. Shorthand: no need to prove what's already proven, plenty of need for what's never been.

It is very possible that other paragraphs cover better than my contrib, some aspect of this. Though I did not read this interesting paradox elsewhere, which stimulate thinking on a fairly correct ground.

I was thanking about a milder wording like: A paradox seams to arise in life predictive system: if one's able to know the future, it's thanks a degree of immutability. Depending on this degree one can wonder what is the point in knowing such future if it's not changable. In the extreme, a completly knowable future would leave us with no interest in knowing it at all.

Don't forget to sign comments. :-)

Gtabary 16:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I tried to make my last edit more balanced, shortend, including your main point, immutability and is there more to stimulate thoughts as opposed to claim invalidity. Gtabary 14:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is extremely long winded. The case against astrology is that there is no scientific basis for it. That is all that needs to be said in this section.

Combining "Skeptics View..."/"Case Against..." Sections

Okay, just had an edit reverted. I think we should combine these two sections or subsections, and do the same for "Astrologers View..." and "Case For..." sections as well.

This should make it easier for scientists here to make a short and convincing argument against astology without having to get into an edit war with people who disagree. This section could link to another article as well. The page if 35k and I think this section needs to be first on the chopping block.

In view of the unwieldy size of this article I suggest that the Cases for and against sections plus the Astrology and science section be moved into a new article called something like - The validity of astrology . A short summary of this would remain in the main astrology article. - Reposted from section on articles size above.Lumos3 21:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have just done the above, moved the entire discussion on astrology's validity to a new article, see Validity of astrology. In order to keep the balance of the main article I have added the robust warning on astrology from the 1911 Britannica astrology article to the introduction. Lumos3 22:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice. Can I go and fix that now please?? Dave 06:35, 24 Apr 2005

Please do 219.162.148.31 , I agree it needs a lot of work to make the arguments on both sides logical. You might like to get a Wikipedia user name if you will be doing a lot of editing. There's no charge and you will be able to keep track of all your edits that way and build up a creditable record as an editor. Lumos3 11:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Planets

I notice there are no pages giving the astrological meanings of the planets. Something I hope to remedy, calling them Sun (astrology) etc, and them linking them to this article.Squiquifox 00:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A Horoscope for Wikipedia

The Wikipedia article states that the project went public on January 15 , 2001 - but doesn’t mention a time of day. Has anyone constructed a horoscope for the project? It would be interesting to see one posted here. Lumos3 20:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The history of Wikipedia article doesn't state a time of day either, but it mentions that the server was located in San Diego. I'm not sure what a "real astrologer" would use for Wikipedia's "birth chart", but I made an image of a chart for January 15, 2001 at 12:00 PM (noon) in San Diego using the astrology program Kepler. You (or anyone else) can do whatever you want with it. Also, if we ever find out a more definite "birth" time, I can make another one. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/apollia/wikipedialaunched.gif

--Slartibartfast 00:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would any skilled astrology like to have a go at interpretation of this chart and post it here? Lumos3 21:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply -

I John_Charles_Webb have begun to create an analysis for Wikipedia's astrological chart. It is currently (July 19th 2005) a work-in-progress. [[7]] See, Discussion portion of image link.

Wikipedia's Horoscope is here:

Image

& Discussion

Click on the image to the right to see a full size version. Then click on the discussion page of the image to discuss its interpretation. Lumos3 23:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

And Here:- The Astrological Birth Chart for Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopaedia

Why I removed the "constellations of the zodiac and the parts of the body" section

This is because the signs in astrology are associated with so many tons of other things besides body parts - for instance, gemstones, metals, animals, plants, etc., etc., etc. - that I don't see any reason why the associations with body parts need to be singled out and spotlighted in the main article. --Slartibartfast 01:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Free natal reports

I noticed that there were no free natal report links here , so I added them . I didnt find any good free Chinese & Jewish natal link . So still searching for it .farhansher

Explanation of restored sections

I discovered templates, and made a few, so that now, people viewing (for instance) the astrological sign keywords text will all see the same text - whether they're viewing it from zodiac, astrology, or astrological sign - and any improvements/edits to that text will affect all pages which contain it. More details, if desired, are on my Talk page.

--Slartibartfast 11:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Numerology and Astrology

It says that "Zero is ruled by the planet Pluto, which gives it many transforming and regenerating qualities. It has a lot of depth and intensity, which makes it a transcendental number indeed." -- But 0 isn't a transcendental number at all.

Andrew Homer: Here are the neo-Chaldean numerological equivalents: 1 Sun, 2 Moon, 3 Jupiter, 4 Uranus, 5 Mercury, 6 Venus, 7 Neptune, 8 Saturn, 9 Mars (& Pluto). The so-called Pytagorean system for numerological correlations to the alphabet are bogus. The valid neo-Chaldean equvilents for the alphabet are: 1 AIJQY, 2 BKR, 3 CGLS, 4 DMT, 5 EHNX, 6 UVW, 7 OZ, 8 FP, 9 nothing.

Removed strange accusation of astronomers

I removed the suggestion that the constellations were redrawn to discredit astrologers. The 1930 convention had two main purposes: 1. Establishing one set of commonly agreed upon constellations. 2. Eliminating 'blank spaces' between constellations. This was done to facilitate astronomy, enabling astronomers to easily indicate a given sector of the sky. If there is any credible sources claiming otherwise, please link to them.

If the astronomers of 1930 wanted to discredit astrology that badly, they may have selected the far simpler course of merely pointing out that the signs of astrology bear little resemblance to the actual positions of heavenly bodies. --Spazzm 00:47, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the notion that the ecliptic didn't cross Ophiuchus before 1930, since it is clearly contradicted by this: Ophiuchus

The story seems to be that before 1930, the area that now only belongs to Ophiuchus belonged to two or more constellations. In order to formalize it, astronomers had to choose one. If they choose one of the astrological signs, they would avoid angering astrologers. If they choose Ophiuchus, one of the most important documents in astronomy, Kepler's "De stella nova in pede Serpentarii" (On the New Star in Ophiuchus's Foot) would still be meaningful to future astronomers. They would also honor Kepler and Ptolemy who first described the constellation over 1700 years earlier. It comes as no surprise that they acted as they did. --Spazzm 01:18, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

I removed some of the more blatant misrepresentations as well: Ophiuchus was intersected by the ecliptic before 1930. It is not a 'very small part' of Ophiuchus that lies across the ecliptic - the Sun is in Ophiuchus from 2005-11-30 to 2005-12-18, ca. 19 days. As a comparision it is in Cancer from 2005-07-21 to 2005-08-11, ca. 22 days. (According to Celestia). The constellations were not clear and agreed upon before 1930 - the area in question, that now belongs to the foot of Ophiuchus, belonged to more than one constellation. Ophiuchus was not extended, it was Scorpius that was diminished. --Spazzm 01:45, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

New articles on Jewish, Christian and Muslim views

Many Jewish authorities had views on astrology, especially Maimonides, but there is no systematic discussion on this issue. I thus am working on a new article, Jewish views on Astrology. My current sources include the Talmud (I own the Soncino version); the Jewish Encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia Judaica, the collected works of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, as well as other sources. I have now written text that includes the basis of Jewish views of astrology, based on mitzvot in the Torah, and it discusses the various ways in which these mitzvot have been interpreted. I then summarize the views of Nahmanides, Maimonides and Gersonides, and offer brief views from Reform and Conservative Jews, and from two Orthodox rabbis who have written on this issue, Rabbis Barry Freundel and Nachum Amsel. I will create the new article later tonight, and I hope we can bring in more sourced material and discussions. RK

We should begin a stub on Christian views of astrology, and Muslim views of Astrology. I know that astrology has been popular in many Christian communities over the past 2,000 years, and as such deserves serious discussion. (At the moment, I have no idea how astrology has been received in the Islamic world.) RK 18:19, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Homer: A legitamite "Christian view of Astrology" would divulge that "Christianity" sourced from the Persian Mithraic religion brought back to the Mediterranean world by Roman businessmen and legionnaires. From hindsight, the Mithraic religion was half Christianity and half Astrology. December 25th was the Celebration of Mithras since at least 70 BC. The Roman emperor renamed Mithras "Sol Invictus".

Case for astrology? Text is very off-topic

I see that over time many proponents of astrology have added their views here, but I am truly puzzled by the section on the Case for astrology. It contains absolutely zero data for astrology, in any shape or form. The fact that tides affect many living organisms has nothing to do with astrology, stars, or anything supernatural. If there are actually people who use this as evidence for astrology, then they are using the word "astrology" in a way that has nothing to do with the contents of this article. The only "evidence" I have even heard of for astrology isn't even discussed in this article; that evidence is the first report on the so-called Mars effect, which has since been discredited. RK 20:41, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the right person add a pro-astrology section. There used to be a longer section, but it contained incoherent rambling, strange accusations and outright misrepresentations. It has been pruned down a bit since then, I'm glad to say. --Spazzm 23:47, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

The section needs a better topic sentence to the effect that the gravitational influence of celestial bodies on the Earth may affect our perception of tides and theoretically our character. This is quite tenuous obviously. The only bodies that produce a tidal effect on the Earth are the Moon and Sun and of course astrology isn't limited to these two. Even if we accept tidal influence from other bodies you still have to make the leap and accept that this correlates to personality and life probabilities. I have read that statistically significant differences in life outcomes occur in people born at different times of year (likelihood of being in accident, obesity etc.) but this is much better explained by seasonal variation than astrology. Marskell 14:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems plain to me that if astrology is real, then it is supernatural. Attempts to find scientific justifications for it are simply wrong-headed Pmurray bigpond.com 05:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Homer: As the saying goes, "the taste is in the pudding." Experiential evidence and emperial experiences are completely valid concepts and considerations. Year after year, one of America's top stock market analysts uses astrology. A lot of research has been used by Michel & Francoise Guaquelin regardings folk EXCEPTIONAL in their career field. Read "The Seven Windows" regarding disease. The study of the natal charts of the common components in the natal charts of outstanding military strategists is amazing. Sweeping under the rug what has happened to American Presidents when Jupiter and Saturn conjuncted in an Earth Sign (Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn) are we?

Rudolf Steiner

Hello Astrology Buffs,

I have included Rudolf Steiner's birth data in his article and was wondering if someone who has more know how and time than me would be kind enough to run it up on software and post the diagram on his article. I am worried that if it isn't done someone who poo poos astrology will take the information out. I had to search far and wide for that data, and it would be a shame if it was deleted.

Also, someone made a post that 0 is not transcendental. I beg to differ. If mankind had not discovered 0 then we would would not be nearly as progressed as we currently are technologically. If that is not transcendantal, I don't know what is.

Regards, --TracyRenee 22:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS. Sorry that I don't contribute more, but I have so much to do and so little time. I am currently studying for my accuntancy exams as well as working full time as well as pursuing my writing.

Zero is not a Transcendental number: "[...] a transcendental number is any irrational number that is not an algebraic number [...]"

Zero can't be transcendental because it's not irrational; it can be perfectly described by the sum of a finite number of fractions.

If we accept that a transcendental number is any number that is necessary for our current level of technology, well then all numbers are transcendental. --Spazzm 00:45, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Numerology and Astrology

Spazzm,

You obviously know much more about mathematics than I do. When I said that Zero is transcendantal, I was speaking metaphorically and did not know that there is an actual term called transcental to describe numbers. I stand corrected. Feel free to edit the word and use a word that you feel is more appropriate.

--TracyRenee 13:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, TracyRenee. I see that in the meantime the passage in question has been moved to a different article. --Spazzm 03:58, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Removed quoted book review of Seymour's book

I removed the quoted book review because the legality of quoting almost the whole review is rather questionable. Also it was far too long. --Spazzm 03:57, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

this all seems very confused

surely an article about Astrology should mostly be concerned with history and the various methods used to determine predictions, rather than an elaborate and confusing argument about falsifiability and "pseudoscience"?

Great idea. Since there are so many different traditions and methods in astrology, perhaps it would be best to have detailed discussions on subpages, e.g. Western astrology? --Spazzm 00:36, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

The "see also" section...

...is absurdly huge. "See also" is not intended to be a complete index to every topic related to this one; it should restrict itself to articles that notably contribute to the context of the topic (that is, things like anaretic degree are just too minor), it should not duplicate section article links (like astrology and alchemy), it should not mention topics that do not establish a relationship (tropical year) or are covered in the article itself (birthday through natal chart), it should not duplicate lists (people in list of astrologers don't need separate mention in the "see also", unless they were defining to the field, in which case they should be in the article to begin with).

A complete list of astrology-related articles is what Category:Astrology is intended to cover. In short: if you need a table to lay out the "see also" section, you're doing something wrong. Consider coalescing topics in new lists (I think List of astrological factors has merit).

I've weeded a lot, adding Category:Astrology or Category:Astrological factors to the linked article while I was at it. But there's just too much! Please help out in trimming the list down and properly categorizing the items. JRM 13:11, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

History mini-section

This small section includes a link to the "Jewish views" article, but I don't think that it's particuarlly noteworthy for this small section. I don't think that a significant percentage of people reading that section are interested in what Jewish people happen to think about astrology. Nor would that be an appropriate place to link to "Muslim views on astrology," or Hindu, Christian, Peruvian, etc. For now I'm moving the link to the "see also" section. At some point, someone may want to make a section, and possibly an article, on various culture's views on astrology, which could then link to all those sorts of articles. But at any rate, that sort of thing is only tangentally related to the history of astrolgy, so I'm moving it.

--Blackcats 22:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Re-directs

I looked at this page two months ago and in stopping by it today I notice the bulk of material has been re-directed (history of astrology and validity of astrology). The page as it stands looks bad and reads bad. After the intro there is a series of series of choppy, meandering level 2 headlines. "Validity of astrology" particularly has little logical basis as an outside article and should be re-included here. I will re-merge this in a day or two unless someone has a good argument why not. Marskell 23:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

See the discussion on splitting off the Validity of Astrology section to another page above (Combining "Sceptics View..."/"Case Against..." Sections). The article was over large and growing and was getting the 35K warning mesage. The idea was to keep the arguments in the Validity article and a concise description of Astrology in the main one and I think this is basically sound. I agree both articles still need a lot of work to improve them. Wikipedia's structure allows subordinate articles to be spun off in this way without loosing coherence. Lumos3 14:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Astrology as a descriptive language for the mind

It might be intersting to point out that "star-signs" is probably the most widely used classification of personality types.

Andrew Homer: "star-signs" is a contradiction. Zodiac Signs have NO relation to stars nor arbitrary constellations.

Categorisation

There seems to be a serious disagreement (a.k.a. edit war) over categorisation of this article. The categorisations proposed range between two extremes:

• Astrology
• Astrology; Abstraction; Astrologers; Astrological factors; Belief; Divination; Mysticism; New Age; Occult; Occultists; Philosophy; Prediction; Prophecy; Protoscience; Pseudoscience; Religion; Religious behaviour and experience; Solar system; Spirituality

The relevant parts of the Wikipedia:Manual of style appear under Wikipedia:Categorization, from which I'll quote here. First off, one should decide whether or not an article belong under a given category:

* Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?

* If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?

If the answer to either of these questions is no, then a category is probably inappropriate.

Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.

Second, the issue of multiple categorisation (emphasis mine):

An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used, however —categories become less effective the more there are on a given article.

An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software. An article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category, for instance, Deism belongs only in Category:Deism.

Applying the multiple sub-classing rule (an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory), we note that:

• Category:Astrology is itself categorized under Divination, Solar system, New Age, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience
• Category:Astrology is also categorized under Occult and Prediction by way of Divination
• Category:Mysticism is itself categorized under Religious behaviour and experience, and Spirituality
• Category:Philosophy is itself categorized under Abstraction, Belief, Culture, and Science
• Category:Prophecy is itself categorized under Prediction, and Religious behaviour and experience
• Category:Religion is itself categorized under Culture, Belief, and Human societies

Applying this to the long list of categories, it shrinks thus:

• Astrology; Abstraction; Astrologers; Astrological factors; Belief; Divination; Mysticism; New Age; Occult; Occultists; Philosophy; Prediction; Prophecy; Protoscience; Pseudoscience; Religion; Religious behaviour and experience; Solar system; Spirituality

Note also that Astrological factors is itself categorised under Astrology, so one could drop Astrology in its favour. However, since « an article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category », that seems silly (to me, anyway). Second, the category Astrologers seems destined to collect articles on people who practiced astrology (like the Astronomers category groups articles on people who practice astronomy), so it seems irrelevant to categorise Astrology under it. A link to the Astrology article could easily be added in the Astrologers category page's comment line (something like « This category concerns practitioners of [[Astrology]] »). The same argument applies to the Occultists category, which Astrologers are categorised under in any case. Hence:

• Astrology; Abstraction; Astrologers; Astrological factors; Belief; Divination; Mysticism; New Age; Occult; Occultists; Philosophy; Prediction; Prophecy; Protoscience; Pseudoscience; Religion; Religious behaviour and experience; Solar system; Spirituality

This leaves the question as to whether Astrology (the article) belongs under Mysticism, Philosophy, and Religion. I do not think anyone really believes Astrology to be a religion --there is no worship involved. Is it a form of mysticism? I'm not so sure, since the only "mystery" involved is the purported mechanism of action. The movement of celestial bodies and their assignations in the zodiac houses (and so on) is not mysterious, but rather mechanical. Finally, I also find the Philosophy connection rather weak. Philosophy is « the critical study of the most fundamental questions that humankind has been able to ask ». Which of those questions (listed under Category:Philosophy) does Astrology critically study? I could not identify a single one.

It seems clear, in light of the foregoing, that the Astrology article belongs in the Astrology category and only in that category, as per the Manual of style. Disagreements should be voiced here.

Urhixidur 15:23, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

• This article is needed to be under "Esotericism" new re-categorization (which contains "Occult" and "Mysticism" articles, among others) since Astrology always had a key role in majority of systems based on esoteric knowledge (of past civilizations and of the current-day global society). Please give your feedback. --GalaazV 18:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Homer: I have fun iritating my fellow Astrologers by referring to Astrology as the most "muscle-bound" religion on the planet. My fellow (insecure) Astrologers are intent on needing to prove Astrology as a science. From empericism and experience since 1969, I know Astrology works. I don't lose sleep over others' opinions regarding the validity of Astrology. Try to find ANY other religion with as much emperical validation as astrology. Besides, since the U.S. Constitution ensures "religious freedom", I have more constitutional protection practicing Astrology as a "religion" than I would practicing Astrology as a "science."

Astrofaces advertisement

I removed the astrofaces advertisement from the article. It is inappropriate to hijack this article to promote that site. The link is more appropriate where it belongs in the external links. - Tεxτurε 18:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

An Astrology Website

Hi I would like to remove the post that I previously made about a website on astrology because I was misinformed. I thought that because the people who developed the website used the same software as Wikipedia that it was part of Wikipedia. I have been informed that the source code used by Wikipedia is public domain and therefore anybody can use it, which is why that website was so similar in format to Wikipedia. The people in the website that I previously mentioned do not want their site advertised on Wikipedia because of many of the very negative remarks that people on Wikipedia have made about astrology and me in the past. Regards,--TracyRenee 14:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be part of wikipedia, but an independent wiki. --Hob Gadling 14:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles

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)

Astrology category is also under target!

Andrew Homer: The art and science of Astrology has been around for at least 5,000 years. Any learned person who studies the topic of Astrology with integrity discovers its validity. In fact the new physics of "hyperdimensional space" and "string theory" put even more wind into the sails of Astrology.

How about the tenth planet?

They recently discovered a tenth planet. See http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/newplanet-072905.html for details. What is the symbol for this planet going to be? How about revising all the horoscopes and such in light of this discovery?

Or how about further proof of its irrelevance? Hey sorry. Marskell 22:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Marskell, if you knew me, you'd realize that by asking this question I was mocking the whole Astrology concept. Kicking the anthill, if you will. All in good fun. :)

Andrew Homer: Which 10th planet are you referring? Sedna? Varuna? Ixion? Zena? I brake for Transpluto/Persephone.

External links to Astrology Schools

Why does this article have a section with external linkls to Astrology schools? This looks like advertising Spam to me and is against Wikipedia policy. I suggest it is deleted. Lumos3 16:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. And I think the section has WAY too many websites listed, not only schools, and some of them are apparently exploiting this article as a free advertisement area. If others agree on this, I will be happy to clean them out mercilessly. --BorgQueen 17:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The links to these three schools were already interspersed with the various bits of Spam in the external links section, so I created a new section specifically for the schools to differentiate them from the Spam. These are three highly respected schools in the astrological community and there is no reason to remove them. They are not trade schools, and the curriculum in all three of them deals largely with the history of astrology, which is something that is not generally covered with any depth in other institutions. Plus there is already a precedent set in every other page on Wikipedia that deals with specialized fields, and there are listings of the various schools which specialize in those particular fields on each one. A few examples of this on Wikipedia can be seen in the Astronomy article, the article on Medicine, and even the article on Art.

That issue aside, it does seem like there is an awful lot of Spam in this article that should be cleared, but it seems like some sort of criteria should be established for what constitutes a legitimate external link first. Right? --Chris Brennan 05:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

External Link SPAM removal

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.

1. Astrology and its history - keep all as long as they fit this heading
2. Schools - max of 3 most repected worldwide
3. Validity and usefulness - keep all as long as they fit this heading
4. Astrology in relation to other thought systems - keep all as long as they fit this heading
5. The astrologer's tools - How is this different to free calcualtion?
6. Horoscope calculation - Only to free sites and only the 3 most respected in each branch of Astrology

Lumos3 13:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Astrology and days of the week

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)

Answer: This is like saying the Norse people didn't have astrology. Of course the days of the week are named after the Sun, Moon and planets. Your "impression" is in error. Check the facts.

Judicial astrology

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)

Answer: As a scholar and a judicial astrologer, I am versed in the current practice and historical practice of judicial astrology. Therefore, I am qualified to present factual data on this page. I also find your edits quite POV considering that you submit that sentences on the history of astrology do not belong on the Astrology page. What is your argument for such a stance? Keeping names like Kepler, Copernicus and links off the Astrology page that the student or intersted party may find useful? Moreover, if you knew something about tropical and sidereal zodiac tehniques, you would know that this "argument" is not really one at all considering it is only about the precession of the equinoxes and nothing else. Judicial astrologers know the difference between the "seasons" and the uneven constellations and the rate of precession. This is not a valid argument but just a technical matter. What I consider a "huge POV imbalance" is the entries of non-astrological trained persons who introduce non-astrological POVs into the introduction of astrology on Wikipedia. Judicial Astrology IS the central form of astrology and is not connected with "sun-sign" astrology. You would already know this if you knew what Judicial Astrology really is and has been since the dawn of mankind. Teddy 23:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply: The main Astrology article has to be an introduction to the entire subject in all cultures including Western tropical & sidereal, Chinese, Jyotish, Mesoamerican, Tibetan, and Kabbalistic astrology and no doubt many more. An encyclopaedia needs to give a new reader to the subject a view across its whole field and not just that which you consider to be the truth. You are trying to sell the reader a belief that Judicial astrology is superior to all others and this wont do in the main article. There is now a stub for Judicial astrology which needs to be expanded. Please put your material on it in there. Lumos3 09:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer: Judicial astrology is practiced by all cultures and includes tropical, sidereal techniques, and Chinese, Jyotish, Mesoamerican, Tibetan, and Kabbalistic cultures. Your view of Judicial Astrology as stated here is not correct in that you state that it is "superior" when it is CENTRAL and the Origin of all astrologial practice - including Jyotish. Please review your own perspective here. There are plenty of links on the Astrology page that can lead to the branches of Judicial Astrology, which include Jyotish, which is a branch of sidereal practice - a technique - not a philosophy - of Judicial astrology. Teddy 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply Please cite published works which support your view of judicial astrology. I have never seen it described in the way you do and your point of view, even if true, seems to be a minority one amongst astrologers. Wikipedia cannot be a place to argue a point of view no matter how right you believe it to be. Once your view is held by most astrologers then Wikipedia can give it the prominence you believe it deserves. Lumos3 20:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Issues with the Astrology article

"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.

"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) transferd from Theo's talk page by 202.156.6.54 07:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Chris, I've got no problem debating astrology with you, or anyone else. However, I do have a problem with what you term "aggressive behavior" and suggest you park it right there. If you are able to write intelligently on the subject page and on Talk Pages, then ok, I have no problem talking, debating, or reaching consensus, respectfully; however, not everyone is on your level: some are less knowledge, others equal to yours, and others have more knowledge. I would not call this "madness." Also, I am quite able to defend astrology and have done so before. I suggest that if you want to work together, that you first get to know a person before making such remarks - because that is taken as being "aggressive behavior." Writing with clarity, and being direct is not aggressive - but calling names, and then acting as if you are "working" to be productive doesn't fly right. So, if you would like to do so then remember that you are dealing with a professional astrologer here; experienced, and knowledgable. I would appreciate it if you would note this and cease the name-calling; because that is not productive. Thanks.Theo 10:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Considering some of the lot here with relatively little astrological experience who repeatedly "edit" this page from other writers; it is no WONDER that the sentences are "incredibly muddled". Try noticing THAT first before re-enrolling some of us in a freshman composition course.Theo 21:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Ptolemy

"Claudius Ptolemy, the Second Century A.D. a judicial astrologer who is considered the father of western astrology, 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."

Fine. If you want to work with us here and reach a consensus about the article respectfully, as you say you do, then why don't you take the first step. Either retract this statement about Ptolemy and stop trying to post it in this article, or please provide a quote from the Tetrabiblos to support it. I have the Ashmand, Robbins and Schmidt translations of the work, as well as the text in its original Greek, so it should be quite easy for you to prove that this is legitimate. Right? --Chris Brennan 09:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Chris, sorry, been busy. Yes, it is quite easy to prove. I've read all of Ptolemy's works. As a student of astrology yourself; you should have already read - The Centiloquy: or, "Hundred Aphorisms of Claudius Ptolemy, the fruit of his four books. It should be rather easy for you to find. The very first rule reads - "JUDGMENT must be regulated by thyself, as well as by the science; for it is not possible that particular forms of events should be declared by any person, however scientific; since the understanding conceives only a certain general idea of some sensible event, and not its particular form. It is, therefore, necessary for him who practices herein to adopt inference. They only who are inspired by the Deity can predict particulars." Refer to the first rule of the Centiloquy. Theo 01:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The Centiloquy is attributed to Ptolemy. That doesn't mean that he actually was the author. In fact, modern scholars agree that he was not the author of that work. In the ancient world it wasn't looked down upon to attribute some other famous author's name to your own work, but rather, sometimes that was how you drew attention to and gave prestige to what would otherwise be an obscure work. The highly respected historian of sciences and head of the department of the history of mathematics at Brown University, David Pingree, writes in his work From Astral Omens To Astrology, From Babylon To Bikaner that "Ahmad ibn Yusuf's Kitab al-thamara or Καρπός, known in its Latin version as the Centiloquium, and attributed falsely, already by Ahmad, to Ptolemy..." Another historian, James Holden, agrees and writes in his book A History of Horoscopic Astrology that "A collection of 100 astrological aphorisms called Karpos 'fruit' in Greek and Centiloquium 'Hundred Sayings' in Latin was attributed to Claudius Ptolemy in the Middle Ages. It is certainly not his..." Even in my edition of the Centiloquium, which was published recently by contemporary traditional astrologers at RenaissanceAstrology.com, the pubisher Christopher Warnock writes in the preface: "The first complete Latin translation from Arabic was done in 1136 and as many as 10 different versions existing in manuscript form. It was traditionally accepted as the work of Ptolemy, though modern scholarship has established that the probable author was the 10th century Arabic astrologer Abu Jafar Ahmad ibn Yusuf."

As you often attempt to say to me, I "Suggest you do more reading and study." --Chris Brennan 04:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Chris, you know, you own tone here does not support working together whatsoever. If you are to engage in discussion, then please do so as a student of the subject. Moreover, at your age, your tone implies that you are equal in knowledge, and experience as a professional in his 40s. Perhaps you assume my own knowledge. Astrologers never assume. Suggest you ask first. I never, ever, wrote, nor even implied, by such a tone, to astrologers older, more knowlegable, and experienced than me - even in my 20s. So, in the hope of learning, it would be wise to re-consider your heady attitude in this light, and return to objectivity, and open discussion, rather than heated debate over such a matter. By your above statement, you are saying Ptolemy did not write the very aphorisms that contains the "fruit of his works?" Remember, his own name - Claudius Ptolemy, is included in the title. How can you imply that then he did not state, nor write them? I suggest you re-read Centiloquy, and see that it is obviously written by Ptolemy. This should be rather simple to do; since not only his writing style, but the astrological information of the times of Ptolemy show without doubt that the old man surely did write the aphorisms. His other works use the same astrological tone, style, and formation. He clearly produced the work. It was common practice of aging astrologers to do this at the end of their lives, and was penned by Ptolemy. In addtion, as a student, you should know that you are going to find the same kind of arguments amonst "intepreters" in several editions. But, have you read the Almagast, and the four books, of which the Centiloquy is part? It reads as Ptolemy writes throughout all his other works, and reads the same. Many of his works were translated in the 10th century and beyond, some of the best done by Placidus de Tito.

Lastly, he was not, by far, the only astrologer to state the same rule concerning the conduct, and practice, of astrologers - correct mathematical calculations of the stars and planets, and divine inspiration - to forecast. This came from the reading and understanding of The Secrets of the Book of Enoch, and the Gnostic texts, particularly, the Pistis Sophia. Astrology & the use of divine insipration has always been practiced specifically by judicial astrologers in Egypt, Perisa, Israel, and throughout the ancient world by the Magi, or Magus of many cultures. The two rules have always been central to serious astrology. The study of the stars is the study of God's ways and astrology is the language the ancients used to read by. It is the first rule of judicial astrology, and Ptolemy re-stated what astrologers of yore have always maintained. I have no problem with it. Who I am to challenge that? I do not dare to. God the Creator made all the stars, and planets. So, it makes pure sense to me. No astrologer can truly predict particular events without divine inspiration integrated with mathematical calulcations. This is to certify whatever has been given to the one seeking to gain knowledge of future matters. Thousands upon thousands of astrological/alchemical texts are rife with theology.Theo 05:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

On Positive Discussion

A note here: if there is to be positive discussion on the Astrology Page; it is requested that not only one person consider what are NPOV edits; however minor - to be "messing" with a page, as recently happened. Wikipedia is a community resource, and not the realm of a clique. The Talk page is used for discussion, and not for hostile exchanges. Suggest a much more, positive, and open-minded direction take place. If one cannot do this; then it is wise to refrain from considering one page as the domain of an exclusive group. ThanksTheo 03:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

BAD BAD punctuation -- I mean...WOW! The ideas are there, but they just aren't put together 'correctly' at all. Learn the difference betwixt a comma and a semicolon and others might take you seriously. Did you happen to step foot in an 8th grade classroom...ever? You can't be a native speaker of English; if English is your 2nd or 3rd language, I completely understand, but jeez dude PLEASE learn the difference between a comma and semicolon 'cause it really hurts me (and probably others) to read your writing! --205.188.117.66 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The above statement is an excellent example of what I mean. I suggest you take the time to decide if you are going to acknowledge the source information on the Talk Page; or play copy-editor. I consider your insults rather childish - even for a 21-year-old. Moreover, your attempt to debase and demean English usage, at best, immature. Lastly, your own sentence, "Jeez dude" and the usage " 'cause" is not exactly what I would call the use of proper English, Mr. Brennan. Take your own advice.Theo 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, in complete honesty, that isn't me. --Chris Brennan 04:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Concerning Ptolemy: see the Talk Page. Again, I ask you. How is it possible for Claudius Ptolemy to rise from the dead; transport himself to the 10th century, and steal the hundred aphorisms with his own name in the title from a 10th century Arab astrologer? How is this possible?Theo 05:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As I just said on my talk page-

Theo, I think that I was very clear about this in my post when I said that

The Centiloquy is attributed to Ptolemy. That doesn't mean that he actually was the author. In fact, modern scholars agree that he was not the author of that work. In the ancient world it wasn't looked down upon to attribute some other famous author's name to your own work, but rather, sometimes that was how you drew attention to and gave prestige to what would otherwise be an obscure work. The highly respected historian of sciences and head of the department of the history of mathematics at Brown University, David Pingree, writes in his work From Astral Omens To Astrology, From Babylon To Bikaner that "Ahmad ibn Yusuf's Kitab al-thamara or Καρπός, known in its Latin version as the Centiloquium, and attributed falsely, already by Ahmad, to Ptolemy..." Another historian, James Holden, agrees and writes in his book A History of Horoscopic Astrology that "A collection of 100 astrological aphorisms called Karpos 'fruit' in Greek and Centiloquium 'Hundred Sayings' in Latin was attributed to Claudius Ptolemy in the Middle Ages. It is certainly not his..." Even in my edition of the Centiloquium, which was published recently by contemporary traditional astrologers at RenaissanceAstrology.com, the pubisher Christopher Warnock writes in the preface: "The first complete Latin translation from Arabic was done in 1136 and as many as 10 different versions existing in manuscript form. It was traditionally accepted as the work of Ptolemy, though modern scholarship has established that the probable author was the 10th century Arabic astrologer Abu Jafar Ahmad ibn Yusuf."

In other words, Ptolemy didn't write the Centiloquy. It was written by an Arab astrologer named Abu Jafar Ahmad ibn Yusuf in the 10th century, and he attributed it to Ptolemy so that people would read it and so that his work would gain notoriety. This was common practice, and there are many other examples of other authors doing this with astrological works in the Middle Ages. This isn't some personal opinion of mine or something. This is something that is agreed by text editors and historians that have examined the texts and the original manuscripts, and I quoted those people directly.

Further more, if Ptolemy had written the Centiloquy, then it probably would have been a part of the Tetrabiblos, or there at least would have been some mention of it in the numerous astrological texts between the 2nd and 9th centuries which drew on Ptolemy's work and cited large portions of it. But there are none. --Chris Brennan 05:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Chris, the problem with that is that Ptolemy was a prolific writer. He also penned the Almagest as well. Moreover, all of Ptolemy's writings were translated into Arabic; then re-translated into Latin. This has caused much confusion among the writings and sayings attributed to whom. But, if one actually reads Ptolemy, his writing style, his use of astrological principles, and his sayings: it is very hard to attibute the Centiloquy to Abu Jafar. For instance, the sources cited above which "claim" Ptolemy did not write his hundred aphorisms often use Moxon's Mathematical Dictionary, and will attibute some of the aphorisms to Hermes Trismegistus; which is inaccurate. Moreover, the Centiloquy is called the "fruit of his four work" - meaning they are from his Tetrabiblos. What seems to throw some off is that some of the aphorisms deal with parts of what is considered to be horary questions. Lastly, the point is that the two standards of astrological prediction are maintained by ancient astrologers. Even Nostradamus cited the astrological standard for prediction in his 16th century book of prophecies.Theo 06:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I was just about to post this before you posted yours. I might as well anyways. --- Furthermore, as far as internal textual evidence goes, there are certain things which clearly show that this could not be the work of Ptolemy. For example, several of the aphorisms make explicit references to Horary astrology, which is not something that Ptolemy addressed at all in the Tetrabiblos. One of the reasons for this, among others, is that interrogational astrology (ie. horary) was not developed until the 2nd and 3rd centuries and this development occurred in India within the Hindu tradition. (See Pingree, 1996, pg. 21) Horary was not a part of the mainstream tradition of Hellenistic astrology from which Ptolemy and his contemporaries were drawing on, and it did not become integrated into the western tradition of horoscopic astrology until the Middle Ages when the various Arab and Persian astrologers undertook a synthesis of the Indian, Persian and Hellenistic traditions. So you see, even the internal evidence in the text itself with the references to horary show that this could not have been the work of Claudius Ptolemy. --Chris Brennan 06:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. There are practices of horary that go back before the time of Christ. It often is a mistake to consider that this practice did not take place until the Hellenistic tradition was matured - mainstreamed. Actually, the practice is quite older than this. Several versions of horary practice is as old as astrology itself. Some questions were used with runes, for example, in Celtic tradition; while the Chinese used a version of what we now call the I-Ching - so, horary practice is quite ancient. The Greeks were not the only culture using it. Horary usage was common, even in the Second Century of Ptolemy, but in that particular cultural tradition. One of the things Arab & Persian astrologers of later centuries did was imploy much better calulation methods - using Ptolemy's work as a standard. I do not doubt that attributions may actually be a question - considering the amount of "borrowing" from others - but, I would give Ptolemy the benefit of the doubt - seeing that these were around 800 years before the birth of Abu Jafar and considering the copius amount of translations of Ptolemy's work. Read his writing in Centiloquy and see if he uses the same syntax in his other works.Theo 06:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently working at Project Hindsight where we are translating all of the existing Greek and Latin astrological texts which date from the 2nd century BCE to around the 7th century CE, and I am very familiar with all them. I can confidently say that Horary astrology was not practiced in this Hellenistic tradition from reading the texts with my own eyes, and this view is backed up by numerous historians and astrologers. I don't think that it is accurate to say that there is "no proof" of this. If you are asserting that horary was practiced during Ptolemy's time and before, then please cite any of the Hellenistic texts that you think would support this view and I will gladly pull out the text and take a look at it. I have all of them at my disposal. --Chris Brennan 06:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've been following the work of Project Hindsight for years now and am familar with its good work. Though, I do assert that horary practice pre-dates Hellenistic practice. It is quite old, and many cultures practiced it. Traditions from African, to Native American, to Celtic. They all have forms of this method of divination. Theo 00:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, if you are asserting that horary was practiced during Ptolemy's time and before, then please cite any of the Hellenistic texts that you think would support this view and I will gladly pull out the text and take a look at it. I have all of them at my disposal. --Chris Brennan 00:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggest you stick with the Hellenistic texts then. Chris, suggest you realize that the Greeks were not the only culture practicing astrology, nor its methods, including horary. The Greeks were only ONE of many cultures practicing the ancient science. Try referring to Babylonian, Hebrew, Chaldean, and Eygptian materials as well. Include the oral traditions of the African tradition, and that of native Americans, for example. Read the Secrets of the Book of Enoch, for one, - that pre-dates the Hellenistic texts, and is a treasure trove of astrological information related to the Deity. It's common knowledge. Runes, I-Ching, palm-reading, etc., all are forms of horary practice. The Delphic Oracle for the Greeks used a form of Scrying, etc. All horary traditions are out there for you to study. Suggest you use your own access to the Internet to just look them up.

Horary practices: of Palmistry, Phrenology, Numerology,Tasseomancy, Geomancy, Dream Interpretation, (read Daniel in the Holy Scriptures) Physiognomy; Scrying (w/ many forms) and the methods of the African Ifa Religion & Culture. There are many more varied horary practices throughout the Earth. The Greeks were not the only ones. It may happen to be the one you are involved in right now; and I've studied it as well; but suggest a more general, and comprehensive study of divintory methods; many, related to astrology. Sometimes, western students of astrology often become pinned in studying western-related forms of astrology - such as those of the Hellenistic period. However, when I instruct, this tradition is only one of several traditions taught. I consider it to be a more broad study, and gives students of astrology a wider view of the variety of horary forms practiced throughout the world.Theo 01:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you now saying that the Hellenistic astrologers didn't practice horary astrology? --Chris Brennan 03:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Where, in my above response, Chris, did I state that Hellenistic astrologers did not practice horary astrology? You know, it would be mature of you to engage in serious discussion, rather than this pithy stuff you are chucking out, ok? Get real and stop wasting time here. Re-read the above passage.Theo 04:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then if you are still asserting that horary astrology was practiced by astrologers during and before Ptolemy's time, then why haven't you provided a quote for me to follow up on yet? I asked twice already, and it should be a pretty easy thing for you to do if it was as widespread as you say. Right? --Chris Brennan 04:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me right? A quote? I just gave you a very brief outline of horary practices - that INCLUDE - Hellenistic astrology. So, you've heard of them? I have not heard your response. Listen Chris, you are a student of astrology. I am an experienced, professional, consulting astrologer, ok? Find your own quotes if you are going to play games. If you have ALL the texts available to you regarding Hellenistic - then you should easily be able to find others. I've named several in our discussions. Conduct a search yourself. Plenty of search engines out there. Follow up on your own. Do you OWN homework, Chris. There's plenty of material. Plenty. I did when I was your age. And it was a lot harder too. No Internet. I'm busy enough as it is with clients. And Chris, You should try to be better than that. Be honest in your studies. Stop treating astrology as one monothelic body - remember - the west is only ONE point on the compass. You've got East, North, and South too. Not just WESTERN ASTROLOGY. Ok? Astrology has a rich GLOBAL history Chris, and is not restricted solely to Western traditions. Perhaps you are a bit too involved in Hellenistic astrology. Tunnel vision can seriously harm your astrological skills and abilities. Would advise adding many more views, a wider perspective. Remember, the world is round. If you have actually studied astrological history, you would not be posing such "questions" here. Get real. Then I can work with you. Otherwise, give it a break - I'm too busy. If you are serious, and cease gearing for monolethic-view "debates" of astrology from a single "Hellenistic" POV, then perhaps more can be accomplished. In the answer above, I stated several forms of horary practices, among several cultures - you just jump over them, and come back with another "request" for "quote." Come on. Theo 04:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really need to find any quotes actually. I know horary astrology wasn't practiced during and before Ptolemy's time in the Hellenistic tradition as you are asserting, because I've actually read the texts. Its your job to prove your assertions by citing some Hellenistic astrologers, but you haven't done that. The obvious reason for this is either that you can't quote these mythical horary texts because you aren't familiar with them, or because they don't exist. So which is it? --Chris Brennan 04:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? My "job?" I don't think so. Listen, continue your studies Chris. You cite them - since you have them ALL. Since you are the expert here. I guess you said it with your "obvious" reasons. Listen, play games with someone else. Obviously, you are not being serious. I don't have the time for student snobbery. Yeah, they don't exist, ok? I guess you have spoken on the subject and that's that. The Hellenistic tradition is the only view of astrology, ok. And no other cultures practiced it. Only the Greeks saw the constellations. No one on earth saw them; nor practiced astrology. Sure. Ok. Now, can I go back to work? Jeez.Theo 04:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There you go again with the personal attacks instead of proof of your assertions. Thats fine though. Yeah, I guess if you don't want to make any attempt to actually prove the validity what you are saying then that is the end of it. Fine by me. --Chris Brennan 04:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing "personal" about it. I am too serious, and experienced to be falling into you "quote" traps. You just jump over things like they do not apply. I am not a child. If you want to discuss as a educated person, then do so. Or "debate" astrology on your own time. I don't have to prove the "validity" of anything to you. I've cited many examples. I suggest you find out more about the subject you would like to practice professionally someday. You should be studying the subject rather than debating it. At 21, you haven't gained the knowledge nor experience to be so absolute in your astrology. Suggest you go back to the basics. Try reading Margaret Hone. Start there.Theo 05:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Theodore7. Your repeated attempts to insert the same large edit into the main astrology article are being reversed by a number of people. This means there is no consensus that your edits improve or build on the article. The ethic in Wikipedia is to find consensus. This means you need to find a way of expressing your views on Wikipedia that everyone here finds acceptable. I have inserted some of your material on the history of astrology page where it fills a gap in 20th century history. I suggest that you edit the judicial astrology page and begin a dialogue there on what exactly is meant by the term. Lumos3 17:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Lumos, there's no problem having a Disputed Tag on the Astrology page - but please do not assume that these are "repeated attempts." I have the same right as an Wikipedian to add to the encyclopedic information. Consensus only works when those who are versed in any particular subject matter enters into positive discussion on the subject; rather than "attempts" by some to add highly detracting, and negatively-directed POV into the subject matter. As for the other page, I already have started this process. And, one more note: I am engaging in dialogue.Theo 03:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

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)