Talk:Astrology

Please read before starting First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Astrology article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Joseph John Dewey, born in 1945

This is simply to supply the full name of this person - and to avoid a mix-up with John Dewey. --rpd (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Research methods

Can we find a way to edit in how some astrologers find the research methods of the scientists questionable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.228.86 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive a poor newby, but I couldn't resist trying to get in on the action, even though I barely have a clue about your protocols. After reading the section on "Research" in the astrology article, I am dubious about the claim that Gauquelin's hypothesis about the "Mars Effect" has actually been "refuted". Is this in the new journalistic sense I've run across lately, where "refute" is used as a synonym for "disagree with"? Do the references cited actually refute Gauquelin's work? From what I know, reference #52 should not be included as support. Please see the article by Dennis Rawlins in Fate, (34, October, 1981). This whole effort by CSICOP was a fiasco, and a black eye to science. In fact, this failed attempt to rig the results against astrology deserve some mention in this article, since it shows that science is a human enterprise. Worse still was the attempt the organization made to cover up the initial fraud. I have not yet been able to find the other two references cited to support this "refutation". Any responses? Kevinl.8creamynougat (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am trying another way to post a comment on this page. Please bear with this poor newby. The claim in the "Research" section that Gauquelin's hypothesis of the "Mars effect" has been refuted seems quite dubious to me, given one of the source listed, with no further comment ["Since its original publication... which refute it...."]. I refer to reference note #52, the 1977 article in The Humanist. This paper has been thoroughly discredited as science, and so has the subsequent conspiracy to cover up the original errors and misguided claims. See the long article sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins in Fate (34, October, 1981). I have not yet had a chance to read the other two articles, but I now wonder if anyone else has either, or if it is enough that they attack astrology. Science is never served by bad science, no matter how seeming deserving its targets seem to be. Quite the contrary, when scientists misuse the status of science, they undermine the belief of the public, i.e., non-scientists.(Kevinl.8creamynougat (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Dennis Rawlins article has been addressed and refuted by Philiph J Klass. See the aptly titled article, crybaby [1]. 59.92.59.31 (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Gauquelin was not an astrologer, has not become one, and he never will. As for the self-entitled "skeptic", all of them are just raw materialists and narrow-minded petits-bourgeoises. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Core Beliefs suggestion

The graphic illustrating the astrological symbols for the plants still lists Pluto as a planet. Does anyone have a more updated graphic illustrating the symbols sans Pluto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.203.130 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

About Pluto – afaik, astrologers haven't discarded it as signficant body, although in astronomy its planetary status was changed. For that matter, the moon signifies as does the sun and neither are planets. Is there any update on this? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Julia is right. Astrologers still treat Pluto as a 'planet' in the same broad way that the Sun and Moon are treated as 'planets'. The current astronomical status of Pluto has little relevance here, as the distinction is considered to be more or less arbitrary by the astrological community. Unless we plan on updating the main Wikipedia pages on all of the planets to include some astrological information, which is currently kept separate at this point, then we should keep the two domains of study separate from each other in this area as well. --Chris Brennan (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Biblical references

I was quite surprised to see no mention of Biblical references to astrology here, as I'm sure that these would be of interest to many people. Has there been a past consensus to exclude these? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to know the reason for the absence of biblical reference. If there was any at all discussions previously also. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hermeticism??

What's the deal with this novelty? I don't think most astrologers are hermetics. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Doubtful etymology

I suggest that the entire segment "(From Greek: etc)" must be removed and remain absent until it can be written by someone who knows for example the meaning of "nominative" and "accusative", or the differences between Ancient Greek and Modern Greek. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)