Talk:Age of Aquarius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Astronomy or Astrology[edit]

I am wondering why its not called an Astronomical Age, because regardless of what people believe about what the ages mean the literal definition is when the equinox is within 30 degrees of a zodiac.

Like I don't believe in astrology at all, but the age of Pisces and the age of Aquarius is a real method of a calender.

Probably because until archeoastronomers and cultural historians etc got involved in only the last few decades, the astrological ages were only referred to by astrologers over the last two thousand years? And yes, the astrological ages do behave like a calendar no different than lunar months etc have been used for calendars for thousands of years. If you want an academic understanding of the calendrical significance of the astrological ages, read "Hamlet's Mill"

Rudolf Steiner[edit]

Rudolf Steiner has said that the Age of Aquarius will be in 3573. For him, each Age is 2160 years long. We are now in the Age of Pisces, since 1413. (read french page wikipedia for more details). In the Age of pisces, people have to develop their own individuality. In the next Age of Aquarius, people can have a spiritual brotherhood but not now. If the brotherhood comes now, the inividuality will not be strong enough for that. Rudolf Steiner has spoken about two great spiritual events : the return of Christ in etherical world (and not in a physical body), because people must develop their faculties until they can reach the etherical world; and the incarnation of Ahriman on earth. Ahriman is the spirit who has interest only with physical, mineral, intelligence and calcul. He will try to block the evolution of humanity. Vladimir Soloviev speaks too of this event. He has said that Antechrist will bring peace on earth, give food for all and makes an unique religion. The actuality is good to receive a false savior, who will use the false think that we are now in the age of aquarius.

I have seen this information before - but to in include it in this topic we need citation(s) with page numbers. Have you got a source? Terry Macro (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
You're both out of your minds. And it's 5373, not 3573. Everyone knows that. An age is relative correlated to the actual Y-time needed for a semi-rotatlon of the Galaxy. Get a clue.

Source : "Vivons-nous les commencements de l'Ere des Poissons" - pages : 143-155 - Author : Christian Lazaridès - Editions anthroposophiques romandes - 1989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.141.251 (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

astrological ages based on precession of the equinoxes have nothing to do with the semi-rotatlon of the Galaxy Terry Macro (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Old Comments[edit]

The section entitled The Age of Aquarius according to Spiritual astrology does not seem to fit with the rest of the article. It repeats content given earlier and seems to be a promotion of a particular society. I suggest the section is removed. Any thoughts to the contrary? Arcturus 23:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I have rewrited the article combining the old texts. Hope it is fine. English is not my mothertongue so it is possible some sentences might not be so clear as I intended. The section entitled The Age of Aquarius according to Spiritual astrology was not intended as promotion but to present notions (commonly accepted by studious astrologers) backed on one of the proeminent schools, through all 20th century, of astrology in the western countries. Calculus of Astrology are based on Astronomy motions of sun and planets, etc, which require study and lots of maths! The Astrology (Solar) Ages are based on Astrology calculus, if one does not accept Astrology there is no point for this person talking about the Age of Aquarius or any other since it only can be identified, targeted and its effects described through Astrology notions and calculus. Please see external links --GalaazV 19:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

about Common belief[edit]

I removed the initial line:

This article refers to a common belief, to read about the song or album; see Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In, or the album The Age of Aquarius.

As it is stated in the article, the Ages work also as astronomical units: a few constellations in the sky - with distance measured and borders among them defined by the International Astronomical Union in the 20th century - through which the Sun 'moves' (due to the movement of precession of the Earth); on the other hand, according to Astrology each time the Sun is moving through a constellation there is a related meaning in human and world development (the movement and the effect both make possible to say there is an Age).

If one does not understand Astronomy or disregard Astrology it is one's problem; but we must not hide the fact that there are groups of stars, each group in an amount of space as seen from Earth (defined as constellations in astronomy) and there is a kind of movement of the Sun through some of them, giving the name to the Ages. On the other hand, its effects are studied by astrology, giving meaning to the Ages.

Yet there are different calculus for the starting of the Age since the borders between constellations are an artificial delimitation and, on the other hand, these calculus to Astrologers may also depend on the evaluation of a real starting point of the effects of the Age upon the Earth and its life forms, which may not agree with the standard (astonomically defined) delimitations of constellations.

This means the Age itself is not a belief but a fact (since the Sun nowadays 'moves' through the constellation Pisces and later on, as explained in the article, will move through Aquarius); the existence of effects from this movement and its related ages is interpreted as:

  • according to those who disregard astrology: belief of those who study it;
  • according to those who study astrology: ignorance of those who disregard it.

From the removed line I put the internal links in the section "See also". --GalaazV 13:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. - I wrote earlier:

  • The Astrology (Solar) Ages are based on Astrology calculus, if one does not accept Astrology there is no point for this person talking about the Age of Aquarius or any other since it only can be identified, targeted and its effects described through Astrology notions and calculus.

It might seem a contradiction, but as I see it, although the Ages are named through Astronomy (calculus based on astronomical elements and motions), the notion of Age can only be fullfilled or acquire a real meaning if understood as time periods affecting us on earth and not the constellations by themselves in the sky, which can only be known through Astrology; so, all in all, I still think these Ages have to be seen as Astrological references (time periods).

Astronomy is accepted as an official branch of the «positivist-reducionist science» and Astrology is not accepted. Yet, astrology, which always included astronomy, is some thousands years older, crossing civilizations, than this last centuries (XIX-XX) accepted science and it requires a mind and conception of man and universe far beyond the limited materialistic-reducionist of our present civilization. Many may regard these wider conceptions as illusion, but the one's who study it can understand the how and why the illusion is among the majority who reduce their perspectives - views - knowledge (naming it 'nonsense' without further investigation). This was well explained in brief words by Neal Grossman (PhD History and Philosophy of Science),Why NDE Evidence is Ignored, in 2002 (related to the Near Death Experiences but also correct to apply to this subject here):

« Resistance to paradigm change: Ever since the publication of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the concept of a paradigm has been a familiar, useful, albeit sometimes controversial, tool. The concept of a paradigm helps us considerably in understanding scientific revolutions, when dramatic changes occur involving deep-rooted assumptions about how things are or how things must be. All academics matriculate within the context of a specific discipline that trains its practitioners to think in terms of the currently operating paradigm. Once the operating paradigm has been internalized in the mind of the individual, other competing paradigms appear wrong and/or foolish.

To one who has internalized a paradigm, this way of approaching things appears to be right, reasonable, objective, and sensible. The paradigm itself is rarely questioned. It is the very water in which the academic philosopher swims, which is why it is so difficult for one who is immersed in the paradigm to see it as a paradigm, rather than as the way things "must be." Someone operating out of a different paradigm appears to be out of touch with reality, irrational, and so on.»

When, exactly?[edit]

The information giving the starting date of the Age of Aquarius says it will start around 2600 AD. However, this is in direct contradiction with the Age of Pisces article. Information from the Astrological Ages article says that each age lasts 2,100 years, and that the Age of Pisces began in the 5th century. Fine, that agrees with the 2600 estimate. However, the article on the Age of Pisces says that it began in 100 BC. That would place the dawning of the Age of Aquarius right about... now. So which is it? I'm confused. 172.140.6.240 06:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Me too...plus I've been reading about the Aztec calendar, and I think it places the beginning of the Age of Aquarius (and thus the end of the last sun and the destruction of the world at 1212...but I'm not too sure. Either way, this had to be cleared up - hopefully by someone who knows a lot more than I do. :) mathwhiz29 05:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
It's fairly well explained above: "Yet there are different calculus for the starting of the Age since the borders between constellations are an artificial delimitation" - So it depends on where you think a constellation starts - so for example do you pick the first star that comes into view or the geometric center? In fact this should probably be in the main article. RainmanCT (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Astrologers do not agree on any definitive dates for any of the astrological ages. The most common determining factor is to calibrate the position of the sun at the vernal equinox each year (around 21st March), but even here there is confusion. For the last 2,000 years astrologers have taken the placement of the sun at the vernal equinox as the calibration technique. Currently the sun at the vernal equinox is physically located in the constellation of Pisces (since about the 4th century AD). However the great majority of astrologers claim that the Pisces age commenced with Jesus. Another anomaly is that the ancient astrologers never used this technique at all, but rather took the rising of the last zodiacal constellation before dawn at the vernal equinox. This is called the heliacal rising method. Currently the constellation of aquaraus is the helical rising constellation at the vernal equinox (butbthe sun is not located in the constellation of Aquarius). There is no relationship whatsoever between the Aztec calendar and the astrological ages - the Aztecs did not know of the 12 zodical signs used in western culture. The 'destruction' of the world in 2012 is just the standard nonesense propogated by the ever-present doomsday purveyors - who can find something to cause great destruction about every 5 years. Terry Macro (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Ages are all about alignment. Then why not state that the Age of Aquarius started on march 20th, 2015? The sun-moon-earth were in total alignment (=solar eclipse), just hours short of the vernal equinox. Looking back 2160 years, there was a simular eclipse on march 26th 144BCE, just 4 days after the vernal equinox at the start of the Age of Pisces. 212.178.144.158 (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Previous Ages[edit]

Interestingly ages of Pisces, though two fish, brings to mind the Christian fish symbol. The age before was the age of the ram (and fire), which brings to mind the even older religions of sacrifice on the fire. Not sure if this has been gone in to in more detail.

Read Decipher (novel)! it goes into this in great detail :) mathwhiz29 05:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, of course. The whole point of the Christian fish symbol—formally, Ichthus—is the symbolism of the Piscean Age, whose Christ/Messiah is Jesus. Ichthus (Ιχθυσ) is Greek for Pisces. I suggest you to watch Zeitgeist. Before you start claiming that the film is a pile of hogwash, let me refer you to some of its documented sources; here's a link. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2011 (U
Islam is also a religion os Pisces. Islam is clearly full of Pisces' values, and not only Christianity.-

Redirecting[edit]

Redirecting to Astrological ages article since there is not enough data to separate article. On the other hand, users can read in the same article about how astrolgical ages, as the Age of Aquarius, are determined.

I just read the article and surely i cannot read the same article about this. I am unredirecting it Age of Aquarius needs its own article. Please do not redirect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercury888 (talkcontribs) 10:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture[edit]

This concept achieved widespread cultural importance in the U.S. hippie movement during the 1960s and 1970s. I don't think that that is fully reflected in this article, which seems to be (justifiably) written from a mostly astrological POV. While "In popular culture" sections are the bane of some articles, having such a list of cultural references may help this article. It also needs a better explanation of the reasons for the prominence of the Age of Aquarius in that movement. Furthermore, from this article it appears the AoA isn't due until long after after the "buzz" started in the '60s. Was there some earlier calculation that had the start of the new age back then? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture - New Age "phenomenon" or "movement"[edit]

"The New Age Movement is more accurately a phenomenon, not a movement, "

It is not clear to me exactly what this means. Maybe the author could be more explicit? Why is the New Age Movement not a movement?

145.62.32.131 (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

New Age Movement - a phenomenon or a movement?[edit]

The New Age topic seems to indicate that it is both. The definition of the New Age movement should not be a major issue at this topic even though the AoA overlaps to a certain degree with the New Age movement. Without an external reference the statement "The New Age Movement is more accurately a phenomenon, not a movement, " is a personal opinion. Why don't you propose an editorial change to the statement? Preferably any definition of the New Age as either a movement, phenomenon or both should be referenced to a reliable source. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"New Age" is more of a subculture, a mix of hippy culture & secret society culture. I'd say I view "New Age" as springing from esoteric 'secret society' type guilds & the thinking they brought from the beginning of last century (when copycat masonic-like fraternal orders sprang into being everywhere in Europe and the United States: from The Golden Dawn, to The Armanenschaft, to name just two of a nigh countless amount), which included many different 'movements' but were more like 'clubs' which today may be viewed more like pseudo-intellecual religious cults, or harmless "secret" societies that were unspokenly not serious (just wanted to appear so) and just a place for people to feel like they belonged... mixed with the "hippy" culture (I say culture but it has been viewed as a movement, really it just included some movements that have been associated with the "hippy" subculture) and the peace, love and irreverence to the common concerns added with concerned about things that common society at large wasn't. (much like the esoteric movement of the 1800's and early 1900's) "New Age" is just a collection of fringe subcultures, many of which are fringe just to be fringe. When I think New Age I think "role play pinko cult of your choice, for fun" but the "cult" isn't taken seriously or is completely passive. When it becomes actively serious it ceases to be "New Age" 4.242.192.12 (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dane Rudhyar[edit]

The following rather brief addition to this topic WILL BE REMOVED unless page number(s) are given to the reference that 'predicted in 1972 that the Age of Aquarius would begin in AD 2062.'. Also Dane Ruhyar provided far greater and detailed information on the ages. The following addition lacks depth:

"The astrologer Dane Rudhyar, who was connected with Theosophy and who was active and influential in the New Age movement, predicted in 1972 that the Age of Aquarius would begin in AD 2062. insufficient ref: Rudhyar, Dane Astrological Timing: The Transition to the New Age New York: 1972 Harper & Row Terry MacKinnell (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Feb 14 2009[edit]

the following: ".... musical Hair describe a specific alignment which occurred on Feb. 14 2009 (though this alignment is not unique and occurs relatively frequently)." will shortly be removed as no reliable external references etc have been provided. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

the external reference provided (the Aquarian Alignment) is only a website and inadequate as a reliable reference. Furthermore it is just one more nonsensical claim made about the Age of Aquarius and really should be deleted. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Terry Mackinnell. This will need a more scientific explanation with proper references. Please remove or rewrite with third party references as soon as possible. All Is One (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Terry MacKinnell[edit]

  • Terry MacKinnell states that the Age of Aquarius arrived between 1433 and 1441 CE. Mackinnell adopts a number of innovative approaches to the astrological ages. One key point is that in the Aquarian Age, the most powerful sign is Pisces from the momentum of the previous Pisces age. Nevertheless, emergent historical developments since the 15th century are oriented to Aquarius. Aquarius is considered a "modern" sign, and Mackinnell claims that modernity is the Age of Aquarius. Furthermore, many historians claim that the modern world developed from the 15th century onwards, in support of the Aquarian Age having arrived in the 15th century. MacKinnell also claims that the USA is the current age's empire (the American empire) similar to the former empires of ancient Rome, ancient Egypt, and Mesopotamia in their respective ages.
    • Terry MacKinnell, "The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius", published in "Astrological Monthly Review" (Australia and New Zealand), Vol 67 No. 2 February 2005, Pgs 36 - 41</ref>

Why are we devoting so much space to this source? Has this theory been reported in 3rd-party sources, or otherwise shown to be significant? I see that it was added and re-added by an editor who sometimes signs his name "Terry MacKinnell". Is this a coincidence or is the editor adding material about himself and sourced to himself? According to whom is this approach "innovative"?   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why We are Devoting So Much Space to This Source[edit]

Terry Mackinnell works on the astrological ages and Age of Aquarius have been widely published by numerous third parties including:
`The FAA Journal’ Published by The Federation of Australian Astrologers
`AA Journal’Published by the Astrological Association of Great Britain
`The International Astrologer'Published by ISAR (International Society of Astrological Research)
'NCGR' Published by the National Center for Geocosmic Research
`Astrological Monthly Review’Monthly magazine formerly published in Australia and distributed throughout Australia and New Zealand.

Terry MacKinnell is included in Nicholas Campion's book, "The Book of World Horoscopes" where Terry MacKinnell is noted for claiming the earliest date for the arrival of the Age of Aquarius.

Terry MacKinnell is a notable international player in the ongoing debate on the astrological ages and Age of Aquarius.

Terry Mackinnell has been included with other various astrologers insights into the Aquarian age as each astrologer brings very different perspectives. The insights by various astrologers was never intended to be truncated, and hopefully other editors will include many further examples of different perspectives upon the Age of Aquarius. Terry Macro (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Terry MacKinnell familiar with the conflict of interest guideline? WP:COI says:
  • Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. ... In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged. Significantly biased edits in mainspace are forbidden.
Terry MacKinnell should also see the section on WP:COI#Self-promotion.
Terry MacKinnell should also read WP:EL, which says to avoid linking to:
  • blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).
It appears that every mention of Terry MacKinnell on Wikipedia was added by ... Terry MacKinnell. That's a violation of several guidelines. When I removed this self-referential material, Terry MacKinnell restored them all, labelling the edits as "vandalism" in violation of another guideline. If Terry MacKinnell is such a recognized authority then material about him will be added by people besides Terry MacKinnell. In the meantime I think it's legitimate to remove it.   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • For the whole of the period March 2008 to May 2009 my user page clearly indicated my association with the subject. Nearly all of my significant edits occurred in early 2008 when any other editor wishing to contest my edits could easily see my historical associations with the subject. For the benefit of any interested parties, I have reverted my user page back to how it was for the whole duration of my edits on the subject. I did not engage in any significantly biased edits but adopted the Wiki NPOV. I did not bully or intimidate other editors into forcing my point of view.
  • None of the three conditions of WP:COI#Self-promotion apply
  • The external link was no different than most of the other external links - this is not a hanging offence, and if it is, all other editors who entered these external links are in the same boat
  • When you removed this "self-referential material" you did so provactively and with no civility. I would have thought a Wiki adminstrator would know better. There was no background or information in the talk page about why you did your unexpected major edit. I suggest WBB read [[WP:ACM] Deleting without explanation "Deleting anything that isn't trivial requires some justification"
  • How did "encourage" and "discourage" turn into "a violation of several guidelines".
  • I also suggest WBB read WP:HOUNDING

Terry Macro (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked you about the material but never received a reply.[1] I'm going to delete it again. If other editors here have access to Terry MacKinnell's writings and want to add him as a source then that's fine. In the future I suggest you avoid adding such material yourself.   Will Beback  talk  06:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I can find no reason in the WP:COI to delete my entries in this topic - see WP:COI "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." I had advised my community about what I was doing in the topics, and my user page clearly showed my association with the subject matter. There was no excessive self-citation. Any content included that involved me was notable. No peer in Wikipedia astrology group has objected to the content. Any deletion of the material is unjustified. You allegation that my editing was "... a violation of several guidelines" is misleading and untrue and your allegations are possibly harrassment. Terry Macro (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying that there have been no complaints before isn't an answer to the current complaint. So far as I can tell, every single mention of Terry MacKinnell in this encyclopedia was added by you. The mere fact that you've had a few articles published in publications doesn't make you an expert on the topic. Astrology is already a fringe topic, and within that topic Terry MacKinnell's views are, by his own admission, non-standard. That makes the added material all the more problematic. WP:EL says:

  • ...you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked.

It does not appear that you've avoided linking to your sites. Again, I suggest that you avoid adding mentions of Terry MacKinnell or his websites. If you feel that it's a requirement for you to do so then perhaps we should take this to the noticeboard to see what other editors think.   Will Beback  talk  08:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided includes:

  • Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting.
  • Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, in the mobile phone article, don't link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.
  • Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[2] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.
  • Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).

In my review of the links, it appeared that all of them were either self-published, unverifiable fringe views, or excessively commercial. Can anyone point to the sites that they think should be kept?   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no input, I'll go ahead and remove them. Links which meet the requirments at WP:EL are still welcome.   Will Beback  talk  08:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Aquarius[edit]

In 1995 all the planets and moon were aligned. It seems since then all hell has broken loose on earth. Not peace as which was predicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.175.212 (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't that in August 1987? "Aligned" is very much a matter of defintion in this context. If all the planets are, say, with 120 degrees, would you call that "aligned"? --Mortense (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Goddess21482[edit]

Goddess21482 included malicious edits which tempoorarily forced me out of retirement to correct. Goddess21482 maliciously changed my name from Terry Mackinnell to something like Terrance McKenna and also changed the arrival of the Aquarian age to the current age as a matter of fact when this is contentious and unproved to date. No references were provided for these edits by Goddess21482. 124.187.28.20 (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The moon does not revolve around the earth once every day[edit]

Because the earth rotates on its axis, the moon appears to rotate around the earth approximately once per day and the moon passes through the 12 houses approximately once per day (but not the 12 zodiac signs a it takes approx 2 1/2 days to move thru one zodiac sign). In addition you cannot change information from a cited source unless you have another cited source to counter in which case you should provide the relevant info from the cited source. Terry Macro (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Zoller is a top echelon astrologer in the world[edit]

The lack of a Wiki bio has no meaning as Wiki is not a reliabale source. Robert Zoller is at the top echelon of astrologers in the world and is widely known in the field. His views, though controversial re the Aquarian age, suitably displays the variety of views available. The removal of this section does not improve the topic. Terry Macro (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Tropical Astrology[edit]

This article seems ignorant of the widely held standard of tropical astrology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_and_tropical_astrology). In striving to find an acceptable standard for the beginning of the Age of Aquarius, it quotes the definition of a constellation from the IAU, an organization which would hardly lend creedence to an "Aquarian Age" and which therefore has absolutely no authority in determining when such an age would begin. Annoyingly, the article seems to let the IAU have the last word on this matter. It's like letting the Pope decide what's kosher.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.163.247.60 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 
  • I agree with your sentiment, but the input from the IAU is relevant due to many astrologers referring to this basically irreleavant input from astronomers on the subject - and the IAU is a relevant source regardless of the correctness of the information. Wiki cannot find an acceptable standard for the beginning of the Age of Aquarius because it would be original research (WP:OR). This topic represents the status quo of the topic inasmuch there is no acceptable standard to date in reliaible sources on the subject. All that can be done here based on Wiki's criteria is that all the relevant approaches to the ages based on reliable sources should be included. If you have some aditional information that would clarify the matter, you should add it. Terry Macro (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No Rudolf Steiner ?[edit]

I don't understand why Rudolf Steiner's view is bannished of this page. I have put a french reference with pages and it has been suppressed. If english wikipedia wants to stay in the unique thought, that is a wrong way. Just open your mind and try to think that we are perhaps not at the beginning of Aquarius but Pisces... There is no english source about this chronology because occult powers want to hide this to humanity, and all english autors have flown blavatsky's way. Have a look on the french page : there is freedom...

Rudolf Steiner Rudolf Steiner has said that the Age of Aquarius will be in 3573. For him, each Age is 2160 years long. We are now in the Age of Pisces, since 1413, because the stars at 15° of the vernal point show where the humanity is (the sun occults stars where it is, and release others when he walks). In the Age of pisces, people have to develop their own individuality. In the next Age of Aquarius, people can have a spiritual brotherhood but not now. If the brotherhood comes now, the inividuality will not be strong enough for that. Rudolf Steiner has spoken about two great spiritual events : the return of Christ in etherical world (and not in a physical body), because people must develop their faculties until they can reach the etherical world; and the incarnation of Ahriman on earth. Ahriman is the spirit who has interest only with physical, mineral, intelligence and calcul. He will try to block the evolution of humanity. Vladimir Soloviev speaks too of this event. He has said that Antechrist will bring peace on earth, give food for all and makes an unique religion. The actuality is good to receive a false savior, who will use the false think that we are now in the age of aquarius.

I have seen this information before - but to in include it in this topic we need citation(s) with page numbers. Have you got a source? Terry Macro (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

'French Source'''Italic text : "Vivons-nous les commencements de l'Ere des Poissons" - pages : 143-155 - Author : Christian Lazaridès - Editions anthroposophiques romandes - 1989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.141.251 (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.141.251 (talk)

  • I think your Rudolf Steiner material does belong in this topic - it just needs a little cleaning up (editing). I have also come across this information on the astrological ages from Steiner from other sources. Terry Macro (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Age of Aquarius rules computers[edit]

How can it be that Aquarius traditionally "rules" ... computers; this appears to make no sense considering computers are a relatively new phenomena. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  • to be totally correct, Aquarius traditionally rules electricity and anything using electricity which includes computers. Terry Macro (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect statement[edit]

Regarding:

"Astrologist Neil Spencer denounced the lyrics as "astrological gibberish", noting that Jupiter aligns with Mars several times a year"

This is not true (did the source actually say that?). There is at least Mars' orbital period, nearly two years (1.88 years), between the alignments (closer to 1.88 + 1.88* 1.88/11.9 years = 2.2 years). (Although it could happen several times at that time due to the (apparent) retrograde motion close to opposition of either Mars or Jupiter.) --Mortense (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is Neil Spencer?[edit]

You don't explain that anywhere. Derp.

Who the hell are any of these people, and why do we care? None of these people are notable enough to have their beliefs detailed, nor are their beliefs themselves noteworthy. Common beliefs are summarized elsewhere in the article. All the others need to be deleted. Wikipedia is not an infinite storehouse for nuttery.73.11.47.19 (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Neil Spencer is a researcher and author of a detailed book into astrology including this topic and according to Wiki is a WP:RS. Wiki has clear guidelines for pseudoscientific topics such as this and you would need to state how this topic deviates from the Wiki guidelines? Its hard to see how deleting information provides the reader with a clearer picture of the topic. Of course, there could be a lot of improvement in this topic but compared to what it was like many years ago, it provides a relatively balanced view.Terry Macro (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
There are lots of people who have written books about astrology. Since it's not an empirical science, there is no standard of evidence to suggest that Spencer is any more or less correct than anyone else. It is actually his work as an astrologer that disqualifies him as a source; we don't do primary sources around here unless there's a particular reason to. "The no original research policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources." There is no reason to ask Spencer any more than my grandmother what their opinions are on the matter. If you can find a news article (WP:RS) on AoE that specifically highlights his work on this matter as being a prominent example of thinking on the matter, by all means include him. Ditto for any other researcher, **BUT** you only get to include as much info as the secondary source did. And all of this needs to be firmly placed in the context of pseudoscience. This article would provide a clear point of view by summarizing the music and historical relevance, the astronomical interpretations, and any astrological writings on the matter which are notable **in themselves**. We do not go picking through every astrological work we can find that references the issue and quoting the author, much less doing our own summary of the matter. If you think that this article meets WP:FRINGE, I suggest you read it again carefully. 2601:1C0:5003:541:6979:761E:4AE9:40BB (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Neil Spencer is not a primary source, he is a secondary source. Nowhere does he state in his book that he is an astrologer or that anything he is presenting in the book is his own material (if he is an astrologer). Each chapter of his book has numerous references to a wide variety of sources. There is no evidence of any original research whatsoever. Neil Spencer is a journalist and broadcaster and an experienced editor and has edited “New Musical Express”, “Arena”, “Straight No Chaser’ and “20/20” and has written for many other magazines. He has also co-written three short films. He has been a writer to the “Observer” on popular music, culture and astrology. He seems to have the credentials to discuss aspects of astrology. There is nothing in WP:Fringe that seems to be contravened in this topic, and if it is, it can be corrected, but if anything is to be excluded from any such corrections, it would be the reference to the work of Neil Spencer. Wikipedia does not expect a standard of evidence in a pseudoscience topic for the concepts presented to be identical to the standards of an empirical topic.Terry Macro (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Google "Neil Spencer" for me.2601:1C0:5003:541:6979:761E:4AE9:40BB (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
"Nowhere does he state in his book that he is an astrologer or that anything he is presenting in the book is his own material (if he is an astrologer)." If he does not attribute it to others, how can it not be considered his own work? 2601:1C0:5003:541:6979:761E:4AE9:40BB (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The fact that astrology is a pseudo-science is well established at the astrology topic, but this topic is not the astrology topic but the Age of Aquarius. Certainly it can have a statement but if people want to find out about astrology, and they do, they can find out all about its pseudo-science status at the astrology topic. The inclusion of information by Neil Spencer is highly relevant to the topic and follows Wiki guidelines for how to provide information on fringe theories and pseudo-scientific topics. If the same information provided by Neil Spencer can be sourced from a better source, then that is the ideal solution. In its absence, there is no consensus to make any change. The fact that you are an experienced editor hiding behind an anonymous IP address suggests that any dishonesty that is appearing in this discussion is coming from you? Terry Macro (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Ad hominem is childish. No one is suggesting anyone is being dishonest, and this is not a personal attack. Arguing that there is a consensus either way also seems pretty silly given that there is not a lot of activity here and as far as this issue goes, it's just us talking. Whether Neil (or any other author listed) is relevant to the topic is not the issue at hand, the issue is that he is not a reliable third party source for his own work, or for astrology in general. What has been done with this article is to collect as many different books or opinions about the matter as possible, citing them directly. If you read WP:NOR, or WP:RS, it is very clear that this is a violation of Wikipedia policies. If you feel like this article is good as it is (and presumably that the maintenance tag was placed in error), then we should probably go to dispute resolution with this. I'll even dig up my login for the occasion, if you like. 2601:1C0:5003:541:A916:A55:1E5A:E912 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I have moved this section to the bottom, because that is the usual way that talk pages are organized. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion[edit]

A Third Opinion has been requested. I see lengthy discussion, but am not sure what the question is. Is it about whether mention of Neil Spencer and his comments on the timing of the Age of Aquarius should be included? If so, in my opinion, yes, because his comments appear to be just as reliable or unreliable as the above comments, all of which are unreliable to one whose background is astronomy, and I have no idea how reliable they are in terms of modern astrology. I am leaving the question up because that might not be the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC) I will offer the third opinion that the presentation of the arguments by the multiple astrologers as to the timing is poorly organized and poorly written, but you didn't ask me for that opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I am removing the Third Opinion because it had to do with Neil Spencer and Neil Spencer, and multiple other astrologers, have been deleted in a large-scale editing. If other editors disagree with the trimming of the article, they may read the dispute resolution policy, and request moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard, formal mediation, or a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Needs disclaimer about non-scientific nature of astrology[edit]

Nowhere in this article (and probably on other Wiki articles on astrology) is a disclaimer pointing out that astrology is a pseudo-science, with zero scientific validity. Although astronomic positioning of stars and planets is of course real, and can be described in geometric terms as groupings of stars as constellations and relative positioning of planets relative to the constellations, the impact of such positionings on human behavior and political systems has long since been disputed and discredited by the scientific community. This should at least be mentioned in the article, either as a statement of fact or as a mention of dispute. Otherwise, readers may take this article as "gospel", which is not in the tradition of what Wikipedia is all about! Tony (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

why don't you prepare on this talk page for review or insert into the topic the standard disclaimer you are talking about?
Wikipedia articles don't use, and don't need, disclaimers. The overall disclaimers at WP:DISCLAIMER are already sufficient. That said, WP:FRINGE requires us to present fringe science as fringe science, or attribute outlandish statements to their sources without stating them as facts in Wikipedia's narrative voice. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I just drastically edited that section, turning it into a shorter comparative list of astrologer opinions, and removing mention of non-notable astrologers (but keeping their views). ~Amatulić (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Amatulic, it certainly presents better following your editing.Terry Macro (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)