Talk:Hamburg School of Astrology

Hamburg School and Uranian Astrology

It was probably a mistake to have merged Hamburg School of Astrology and Uranian Astrology (eliminating the entry for Uranian Astrology and merging the entries in ways that sometimes don't make sense), since Uranian often developed on a course substantially removed from the Hamburg School, especially outside Germany... even though the roots of Uranian Astrology were in the Hamburg School -- as were the roots of Cosmobiology, which, following the same logic, could be considered a subset of Hamburg School Astrology. These are issues that have tossed around and disagreed upon for years, and it seems that the best solution is to provide entries for all 3 (Hamburg, Uranian, Cosmo) and then specify how they overlap and how they differ. This was the case originally, but someone apparently force-merged them all into one 'box', and cut and pasted components from separate articles into one, in ways that often look illogical and inconsistent... thus making the very subject itself look illogical and incoherent. Which is great fuel for astrology-bashers. Argument of the classification of the 3 variants, and which label should be 'dominant' has been an ongoing issue for decades, and it's not likely to change despite efforts to cram them all into one category, even if they did have common origins. My sources are a number of books studied over a period of about 35 years, in English and German, some of which are still listed in the articles that remain posted. Uranian Institute 184.23.29.54 (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the comments and alterations by "HamburgerSchule" appear to match the interests and past emissions elsewhere of Michael Feist in Germany, who inherited the Hamburg School printed materials which include a computer program and numerous books, including those by authors (including Ruth Brummund) who report that they bought the copyrights to those books from the previous owner, Udo Rudolph, prior to Mr Feist's inheritance/acquistion, and this biases his viewpoints on the definition of Hamburg School and Uranian Astrology and the role of Ruth Brummund (who was vice-president and research director for the Hamburg School for several years), whose name he deleted from Wikipedia, per the editing notes, and with whom he is reported to have more than one legal confrontation in the past. The term used by Richard Svehla and others was "Uranian System of Astrology", and the term used by Ms Brummund is "Uranische Astrologie" -- not the same. It appears that Mr Feist is attempting to claim some sort of monopoly on all Hamburg School material and anything he perceived to be derived from it, explaining the other article omissions, parts of which were at one time cut and pasted into this article in an incoherent and nonsensical manner. In sum, Mr Feist's alterations to this article and the deletion of Uranian Astrology and Ruth Brummund suit his objectives, but do not present an objective view of Hamburg School or Uranian Astrology (a field which developed rather substantially and independently of the Hamburg School in the United States for over 70 years as of this date.