Talk:Astrological age

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

Dubiosity about Gemini dubiosity[edit]

Someone else doubted the following "Age of Gemini" (6450-4300 BC) statements:

  • "writing developed" ― No! First attested usage of a sumerian proto-cuneiform occurred c:a 3500 BC, and first precursors to egyptian proto-hieroglyphs in the next few 100 years or so.
  • "polytheistic Gods first occurred now" ― is virtually impossible to state.

Now, are we really intending this Astrological ages article to be a factual history theory, or should we instead try to collect the various claims from sources out there? Me myself is regarding astrology as wild-run systemism without (attested) reality foundation, and when reading the article, I'm much more interested what people believe, not so much what I know to be true/false/unknown.

I propose the age descriptions are taken as individual beliefs, that must be sourced, rather than factual reality claims. The "[dubious - discuss]" tags should instead be "[citation needed]":s, and the article should be more written like "X believes[1]", "Y believes[2]", etc.. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It really does not matter if the age descriptions are beliefs or facts - provided they are adequately sourced. You are quite right with your comments on writing not fitting into the Gemini age (though many astrological books state this as fact) - but the polytheistic religions are on more solid grounds. I have definitely seen reliable sources to support that argument but if it is not reliably sourced here in this topic then you have every right to delete if if you want to. Terry Macro (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents, the Dispilio Tablet and the Tărtăria tablets have been dated well into the Geminian age. Whether the scribblings on them are actual writing remains controversial however. Tai Ferret (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Aries Ram Names[edit]

I am not an expert in astrology, but I have had training in linguistics. The section on the age of Aries says that an attribute of the age is that there where many names with ram in them and that the battering ram was used to great effect. The connection of course being that the ram is the symbol of Aries. This connection is very strange given that ram is an English word of Germanic origin, and battering ram is the English name for it. This section in fact only makes sense to someone who only speaks English. That section needs complete revision by someone who knows about astrology and can come up with something less spurious than coincidental phonetic similarities between a few people's names and the name of an animal and the term for something that knocks down gates in a language that was not to be spoken for another 1000-3000 years. -sandy (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

yes, it's up there with Herbert W. Armstrong and British Israelism. In fact, you know that astrology is silly, right? Why tilt at one tiny windmill? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
the "ram" linguistics is not referenced and therefore should not be included anyway as it looks like WP:OR. I did a lot of work on this topic some years ago but I think I ran out of steam before i got to that section. However, FYI, a 'battering ram' conforms to an archetype belonging to Aries irregardless of the actual name given to the device, however I could not find any reference to it in any text. Terry Macro (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Age of pisces overview is not what it should be.[edit]

The age of pisces overview as the "age of deception" is highly dubious and doesnt seem to be grounded in any evidence but general superstition of governing forces, which hardly makes this age any different from any other. the source is questionable, and the statement cannot be considered as based on any academic grounds.

this is what is currently says: The Age of Pisces could be called the “Age of Deception”. Some of the keywords symbolizing Pisces are: deception, illusion, hidden, misled, confusion, fraudulent schemes, fantasy world, secrets, false, fake, mysteries, drugs/alcohol and on the positive side, kind, intuitive, and gentle. It rules the arts and humanities. You can see the “deception” and “illusion” in every aspect of your life; appearance, finances, communication, your home, entertainment, health, the foods you consume, drugs, government, and religion.

  • the relevant issue is it has no reference and you certainly could delete this even though on astrological grounds, I would agree with the statement. From memory, it was a fairly recent addition. This topic needs to be improved by having reasonably reliable sources for all statements etc. Terry Macro (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This page is extremely dubious, lacks references in many places, and includes more personal opinions than facts.[edit]

I agree. There are plenty of books that can provide reasonable insights in all the areas included in this topic. All statements etc should cite reliable sources with the understanding that reliable sources for this topic is not limited to academic sources due to the paucity of academic sources in many areas. Terry Macro (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

footnote missing text[edit]

There is a footnote with name=age that is missing text, resulting in "Cite error: The named reference age was invoked but never defined". Paul2520 (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The Age of Pisces marked the birth of Jesus the Christ and the Age of Aquarius marks the Second Coming[edit]

I added... The Age of Pisces marked the birth of Jesus the Christ and the Age of Aquarius marks the Second Coming. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:B413:D7AA:C0B9:9DC0 (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Two bad entries here ...[edit]

References 21 and 22 have this: 21. Robert Hand is reputed to be one of the world's most famous and renowned astrologers, and received the Regulus Award for his life's work at the "United Astrology Conference" in Denver in 2008. 22. Robert Hand, Cardinal Points, 1997 The first doesn't belong for hopefully obvious reasons and the second doesn't seem to exist. Jimini Cricket72.253.70.70 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I removed the whole paragraph. I checked Google Scholar and Google Books and I cannot find anything that matches this citation. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This topic is plagued by Original Research[edit]

Just because astrology is classified as a pseudo science does not mean this topic is exempt from the standard Wiki rules. Too much content lacks references or citations, let alone to reliable sources. My suggestion is that editors should first focus on removing content without any kind of references or citations as the initial step in correcting this topic. I have started the ball rolling. Terry Macro (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Mayan connection is an interpretation and should be listed as such[edit]

The connection of the Mayans to the zodiac is not a well-documented historical fact, and therefore implying that the Mayans were using any form of this system is misleading. I've therefore altered mentions of the Mayans to clarify this. Wickedjacob (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

An astrological age is a time period in astrologic theology[edit]

The statement "An astrological age is a time period in astrologic theology" is incorrect as this would only be correct if only astrologers referred to them. Archeoastronomers and varying other academics refer to the astrological ages without being astrologers. Furthermore, the term "astrologic theology" is a term i have never seen before and is "astrologic" even a word? Perhaps the lede should commence with "An astrological age is a large time period based on the slow movement of the stars and constellations in a 26,000 years cycle divided into twelve ages based on astrological principles" Terry Macro (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)