Talk:Hindu astrology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Jyotiṣa)
Jump to: navigation, search

Ravinder Kumar Soni[edit]

This author doesn't meet our criteria as a reliable source. His article has been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravinder Kumar Soni. Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

proposed external link: "Vedic Astrology -- critically examined"[edit]

I'd like to propose the following external link: "Vedic Astrology -- critically examinied" for addition to the article.--Other Choices (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's an unreliable source, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Archive old stuff?[edit]

Recently the entire contents of the talk page were archived. I reverted that -- it's excessive. However, I would favor archiving really old stuff. If we archive everything before 2009 (for example), that would get rid of three fourths of the current page, leaving SOMETHING for editors to glance at and quickly gauge the level of activity on this page.--Other Choices (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's been more than a year since the last post, and I don't see any point in keeping long concluded threads visible. By your reasong, if an editor were to glance at this talk page and see nothing, and quickly gauge that the level of activity was very low or non-existant, they wouldn't be too far off the mark, if at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I like to glance through the talk page and get a sense of what type of discussion has come up before, and also how much discussion has gone before. I suspect that this article is rather unusual in that there has been quite a lot of editing on the actual article, with almost no talk.
At the very least, we should keep the four or five most recent sections. That seems to be standard procedure on other talk pages.--Other Choices (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Glance through the archives. its the same difference. Because you reverted me without telling me, I've now created a duplicate archive. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Complements only[edit]

I added "Rather astrologers generally prefer to only predict generic complementary things to specific individuals", the source says "the golden rule seems to be “predict only those things which please the listener’s ego." IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I have two problems with the proposed sentence. First of all, the use of the word "generic" contradicts the source's earlier statement that Hindu astrologers make SPECIFIC predictions about outer-world events (which should be easily amenable to scientific testing). Secondly, the source uses the phrase SEEMS TO BE. By attempting to insert what follows that all-important qualifier into the article -- without also inserting the qualifier -- you transform a statement of subjective personal impression into a statement of fact. In other words, the deleted sentence isn't true to the source.--Other Choices (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed external link - AIFAS[edit]

I agree that this article, and "external links", is not the place for a list of commercial astrologers, but it seems to me that it would be appropriate to link to the professional organization: "All India Federation of Astrologers' Societies" Also at footnote 31 reference is made to the "Indian Astrologers Federation" (circa 1982), which because AIFAS was founded in 2001, must be a different organization, but which if it has an explanatory web page should also deserve a link. --Bejnar (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Having laid this before the editors of this article for two weeks, and no objections having been stated, I will go forward and add the external link, not because of any personal belief in astrology, I agree that it is a pseudo-science at best, but because the linked website is evidence of Indian belief or, to take a negative approach, evidence of chicanery in this area. --Bejnar (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Status of astrology[edit]

The section on "Status of astrology" is not about whether or not astrology is a science, there is a separate section "Science" for that discussion. The section is about how astrology is regarded, particularly among Hindus. On 23 March 2014, editor Jim1138 reverted an edit to this section stating the Times of India is not RS on what is or is not science. Neither is the Supreme Court. I agree with that statement, but the The Times of India was not used as a citation for the fact that astrology is a science, but for the statement that some held the belief that it was a "science" (scare quotes). In other words, that in India some hold a belief that astrology is a "science". While the edit was restored, the current version, in an effort to avoid insinuations that astrology is a science does not clarify the extent of such belief in India. I would call upon neutral editors, such as Other Choices, to rectify this omission. I should note that this belief is not unique to India, see, e.g., "More and More Americans Think Astrology Is Science" (February 2014) citing an NSF survey. --Bejnar (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, the earlier version didn't clarify the extent of such belief in India, either, as nobody has brought forward relevant reliable sources. Also, we have to be careful not to use wikipedia's voice to report as fact an assertion (such as the conclusion that astrology is science) that is reported in a reliable source. Especially on subjects like astrology, where wikipedia has come down very definitely in favor of the conclusion that astrology is "pseudo-science." That's just the way it is; it's part of the environment here at wikipedia.--Other Choices (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

confusion between hinduism and India[edit]

Reading this article seems like Hinduism is limited within India only. But Hinduism is one of the main religion in Nepal also. Here indian astrology and Hinduism are used as analogy And is Modern India suitable in this article? AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I would think it OK. To avoid the article being "India-centric", it would be best to have other countries included. You could add a "Modern Nepal" section. It would need to be wp:sourced, of course. Any other countries that should be included? This would seem to be pertinent: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Huge removal of content[edit]

[1], [2] have removed a lot content that was added much before to this article. It is related with the subject. Regarding its removal, I would like to hear more from User:Amrit Ghimire Ranjit. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how the context of Modern India is related with the topic of Astrology .

It is just making the article India-centric when demography shows Nepal contain more percentage of Hindus than in India but even This article is totally concentrating on India as if Hinduism is of India only. User:Bladesmulti AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"Nepal contain more percentage of Hindus". Eh? There are about 20 million hindus in Nepal, but nearly 1 billion in India. Clearly there are vastly more hindus in India, Second Quantization (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I am talking of percentage not of number. Next minority doesnot mean their absence Hinduism is not of India only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talkcontribs) 02:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not really any good reason to remove those long term changes. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
But making a religion nation centric must be either edited or removed and I am doing the same. Why are u undoing it repeatedly? I hope it will be cleaned. User:Bladesmulti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talkcontribs) 10:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware that you picked percentages as a measure, it's a rather silly measurement of importance for Hinduism. Anyway, the criteria on wikipedia is reliable sources (WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT), and it's sourced content you appear to be removing. Second Quantization (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You mean any India related sourced information can be added to a page of religion?

I am not using percentage for importance but I am using it to indicate that Hinduism is not only in India AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed[edit]

Category:Pseudoscience as redundant, on the grounds that both the article Astrology and Category:Astrology are placed in Category:Pseudoscience. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please substantiate[edit]

"Following a judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2001, which favoured astrology, some Indian universities offer advanced degrees in astrology" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passingon (talkcontribs) 08:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

However, historical documentation shows that horoscopic astrology in the Indian subcontinent came from Hellenistic influences, post-dating the Vedic period.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passingon (talkcontribs) 08:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Basic material to restore[edit]

Once upon a time this was a pretty good, comprehensive article, but now it's obvious that a whole bunch of stuff was removed at some point. For example see Hindu_astrology#Elements, where vargas are mentioned and then it just cuts off. Going back through the history, one finds these deletions from three years ago, which can be viewed as this big diff. The deletions are in fact some very basic tenets of Jyotish that belong in a good online encyclopedia — it's not as if we lack the space for those additional bytes of text. If the article becomes too long then new articles can simply be spun off. Anyway, it may take some time to repair the damage but it's totally doable. --I A Huasca (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@I A Huasca: you can add whatever you find to be relevant, any of us can check afterwards. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hindu astrology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)