Talk:Horoscope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Horoscope article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Astrology WikiProject This article is part of the Astrology WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the astrological content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


  • After a false start with completely wrong information, I've taken a second kick at the constellation Leo.
  • This would be a good opportunity to point out that I view my contributions to this article as descriptive of a major tool of astrology. It is not my intention to use the article as a vehicle for debating the merits of astrology, or the lack thereof. Similarly, it is not my intention take a stand in disputes among astrologers about which methods are preferable to others. ---user:Eclecticology
I've got no problem with that. Could I make another criticism of the article: you've described a horoscope as a tool used by an astrologer to help them make predictions. I would argue that the popular definition includes (or is exclusively) the predictions made by the use of the star charts. This article should ideally discuss how astrologers go from the chart to predictions of the future (admittedly, I'm making what I regard as a fairly generous assumption that they're not just making it up as they go), and common characteristics of those predictions. --Robert Merkel
  • This is a problem of definition. My Oxford Paperback Dictionary (convenient for quick look-ups) gives both interpretation: 1. the diagram, and 2. the derivative forcast. I suppose that the safe choice is to stick to the relatively non-controversial first definition. The points that you raised are particularly valid, and definitely should be discussed somewhere, but probably in a separate article. There is indeed a corpus of common knowledge upon which the orthodox astrologer bases his reading of a horoscope. In the west this draws deeply on Graeco-Roman myth, but there is also an intuitive element which, from some perspectives, is very much akin to making it up as you go along.I also have problems with the word "prediction". Astrology as prediction imposes a preconception about the nature of astrology. It sets up an easily defeated straw-man argument then uses that defeat in a logical fallacy to discredit all of astrology. I'd love to attempt what you ask, but not here.
Please do! Such an article would be a great addition to wikipedia. If you feel that's the best way to structure articles in this area, that's fine with me. As to the word "prediction", I'm not trying to be inflammatory here. Please do discuss the nature of astrologers' analyses and use whatever terminology accurately reflects what astrologers actually do.
Please note that I will make the point that astrology is considered nonsense by virtually all scientists and established religions in any such article, and explain why, in such an article - in accordance with the neutral point of view policy. I want an article that we both, and other users and readers, can accept. --Robert Merkel
user:Slartibartfast: Hello. For some reason, both on this talk page, and on the article proper, upon attempting to edit these pages, I suddenly discovered there was a lot of these pages missing that was only visible in the editing-box, but not in my browser or even in the source code. Which explains why I didn't know I was posting redundant information to that astrology article, at least. But not why I ramble. --the rambling Slartibartfast

--

Slarti again. Well, now I can see the entire talk page in the browser, now that I saved my changes to the page. I wonder why? I didn't do anything except add to the bottom of the page.

I guess I somehow need to thank you for drawing attention to the fact that what was appearing in the article was not the same as what was written. The last change on this article had been a minor one because of disambiguation of the word "house", yet the system blew out most of the article some time since March. You are right that the edit text was different, and it did include my previous minor edit.
Regarding the astrology article. I tend to watch it and some of the related articles fairly closely with the understanding that it could easily be put into chaos by some strongly opinionated individual who may be overenthusiastic in either his support or opposition of the subject. "Numbered" contributors are sometimes viewed with a particular suspicion. So when I read the first few sentences that you added, and saw them incorporating a grab-bag of concepts I was understandably concerned about what appeared as incoherent rambling. Eclecticology

Ecelecticology, could we please have a discussion before you delete large chunks of text? I've reverted it to get back the text I'd added. The version that I was responding to did not have a neutral point of view. It read like an attempt to use wikipedia to legitimize the pseudoscience of astrology. Re your comment,

Removing argumentative comments; this article is about the technical aspects of astrology, and says nothing about interpretation

I have two disagreements. (1) It is not "argumentative" to give two different points of view. The version of the article I was responding to was one-sided and credulous. (2) A common characteristic of pseudoscience is to attempt to use the prestige of science without subjecting oneself to the rigorous criticism of the scientific method. If the article is supposed to be "technical," does that imply that it's "technical" in the same sense as atomic physics? Sorry, but I'm not buying it. It's like saying, "I'm writing a purely technical article on how to detect witches and burn them at the stake," or "I'm writing a purely technical article on how to avoid bad luck."

Eclecticology, please discuss this here rather than continuing to delete my text over and over again. Your comment,

Reverting to remove introduced controversy

doesn't make sense. The subject is inherently controversial. Before I edited it, the article was one-sided and credulous, rather than having a neutral point of view. There is also controversy among astrologers, since they don't agree on how to make a horoscope.

Believers in astrology consider the construction of a horoscope to be a highly complex and technical skill, and today they usually carry out this task using computer software. Skeptics, however, point out that empirically, there is zero correlation of the kind that astrologers claim exists between the heavens and earthly affairs (see the article on western astrology and external links therein). Thus, there is no objective method that can be used to determine which method of casting a horoscope is correct, and disagreements among practitioners can only be settled by using anecdotal evidence or appeals to authority. Practitioners of western and Chinese astrology, for example, do not agree on how to cast horoscopes. The remainder of this article describes the use of horoscopes in western astrology.
This paragraph introduces conflict which didn't exist before. There was nothing in the article before your edits which made any claims about the validity of astrology. By opposing something that wasn't there you are making it one-sided. The article said nothing about "believers"; it said nothing in support of a correlation between heaven and earth; it suggested no way to resolve disagreements among practiotioners. There is no dispute between Western and Chinese astrology; each is content to let the other co-exist on the understanding that they underlain by entirely different cultural contexts.
I also have not used a straw-man argument by expanding a questionable charzcteristic of astrology into evidence of its complete invalidity. As for "appeals to authority", I'm not the one using the phrase "scientists say..." in order to prove a point. "Technical" was used in its proper dictionary sense: (quoting the Oxford) "of or relating to a particular subject, art or craft, or its techniques". I can't see how that relates to atomic physics.
To the extent that I agreed with your changes, I left them there. Yes, computer software has become common in drafting horoscopes. Yes, there is no objective method to determine which system is correct, And yes the rest of the article was focused on western astrology, but not the use of birth details which is one thing that is common to all astrologies. Eclecticology 01:04 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)
"This paragraph introduces conflict which didn't exist before." It introduces a neutral point of view, which didn't exist before. What you seem to want is a one-sided article.
No, it introduces a discussion of the merits of Astrology which didn't exist before. If the article didn't even mention merits, you can't possibly say the article was one-sided. It would be like going to the article about mars bars and adding all the horrible things that heart disease and diabetes can do, on the basis that people should be able to make an informed decision about whether to eat chocolate or not. Chances are most readers already know the complete lack of science in Astrology, and the chances are that most of them know the bad side-effects of eating chocolate, and just want to find out more about the history of the mars bar. As separate articles, definitely, but not on a dispassionate description of astrology. Are you going to go through every single page about the Roman, Greek and Egyptian gods saying how ridiculous those religions were? Is every historical reference to an irrational belief somehow not neutral because it fails to also debunk that belief in the same article?
"There was nothing in the article before your edits which made any claims about the validity of astrology." This is disingenuous. An article on the techniques of psychotherapy would discuss how the techniques were developed, and how -- or whether -- we know that they work in practice. If there was controversy about the techniques, the article would acknowledge that. If a certain technique had been thoroughly discredited by empirical evidence -- as, e.g., Freudian analysis has -- then the article would say that. -- User:Bcrowell
If you want to outline how astrological techniques were developed, by all means do so. What controversial technique are you talking about? All I see in the POV that you introduced is closed-minded hostility to astrology. I'm not competent to discuss what's creditable or discredited in freudian analysis, so I'll have to keep an open mind on the subject. It's irrelevent here anyway. Eclecticology 08:11 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)

++ Actually ...some hindu systems are capable of working with time of conception: Ritualized conception.

Errecting an accurate chart by hand is an exacting 67 step series of calculations using logs and correction factors to compensate for all the various motions of the earth in space. And that's just for the house cusps. Planets are easier :I can do that in my head.

Asking which Technique is the correct one is like akin to asking which is correct among quantum mechanics, reletivity and newtonian mechanics

++ Mav this is how the first three paragraphs read since you "restored lost content":

In astrology, a horoscope is a chart or diagram representing the positions of the planets and other celestial bodies at the time of an event. The event is most commonly a person's birth. The term horoscope is derived from Greek words meaning, "a look at the hours."

Modern astrologers consider the construction of a horoscope to be a complex but purely technical skill, and today they usually carry out this task using computer software. Some elements of a chart can be calculated in different ways, but there is no objective method that can be used to determine which method of casting a horoscope is correct. What follows describes the use of horoscopes in western astrology.

Using an ephemeris and a table of houses an astrologer calculates relative positions of the sun, the moon, and the planets for specific time and place in order to errect a horoscope. This diagram, called a chart is a stylized map of the heavens. The sun or the earth is placed in the centre with the remaining elements around the outside depending on wheather the ephemeris was heliocentric or geocentric. Different systems of tri-secting arcs produce houses of different size. The calculation of a horoscope is a complex but purely technical skill normally carried out computer software.

Did you look at the history ? Did you read this talk page? Did you read the new posting before you "restored lost content"? Did you proof read the article afterwards? Please remove the redundancy. And slow down! You can't be doing good work on every article at the speeds you're posting today! p.s. your talk page stack is full .It beeps and will not accept new messages 216.129.198.41

I'd like to ask people to stop editing without logging on. Lots and lots of the comments on the talk page are also from users who aren't logged in. Please be up-front about your identities.--User:Bcrowell

Sorry, 216.129.198.41, but when you say

please remember NPOV

you have to realize that "neutral" doesn't mean the same thing as "credulous." These articles shouldn't be a platform for true believers in astrology to legitimize their superstition, while suppressing the voices of skeptics. Why are the true believers so scared of hearing the voice of a skeptic? What's so threatening about a skeptical point of view? Please note that I haven't deleted any of the text from the believers in astrology; I've only added text from the skeptical point of view, in order give some kind of balance.--User:Bcrowell --- User:two16 pasted this exchange from Bcrowell's talk page. Here might be be a better home:

216.129.198.41 I am building npov articles. Look, if alchemy can be written npov and be celabrated for it (brilliant prose) there is absolutely no reason that horoscope can't as well. Use talk:astrology and post to it again. Historians of science remain npov writing about babylonain methods of weather prediction which used astrology.

but part of the problem is that nobody believes in alchemy or babylonian weather predictions -- yet astrology still reels in the credulous in their millions. -- Tarquin 17:31 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)
         ==

User:two16 your own desire to protect the credulous causes your edits to lose npov. Surely the innocents can be protected using npov

NPOV is what I'm trying to restore. People read wikipedia articles for information. If all they get is information from one side -- believers in astrology -- then they're not getting the information they need. I respect the readers' ability to examine both points of view and make a decision. In contrast, the repetitive deletion of my skeptical text shows that some people do not trust the reader, and want to prevent a skeptical voice from being heard. -- User:Bcrowell

User:two16 Surely the innocents can be protected using npov

User:two16 There is much redundancy in the present edit. I will examine this starting with the third paragraph:

Using an ephemeris and a table of houses an astrologer calculates relative positions of the sun, the moon, and the planets for specific time and place in order to errect a horoscope. This diagram, called a chart is a stylized map of the heavens. The sun or the earth is placed in the centre with the remaining elements around the outside depending on wheather the ephemeris was heliocentric or geocentric. Different systems of tri-secting arcs produce houses of different size. The calculation of a horoscope is a complex but purely technical skill normally carried out computer software.

This writing is concise. It opens important entries needed to understand astrology. It can be built upon. It And it does an adequte job of NPOV.

In astrology, .... strongly implied by astologer

a horoscope is a chart or diagram representing the positions of the planets and other celestial bodies at the time of an event ... compare... with calculates relative positions of the sun, the moon, and the planets for specific time and place in order to errect a horoscope. This diagram, called a chart is a stylized map of the heavens.

In western astrology, the event is most commonly a person's birth...underinformative. True but trite The term horoscope is derived from Greek words meaning, "a look at the hours."...OK but clunky

Believers in astrology consider the construction of a horoscope to be a highly complex and technical skill ... actually it is: differential calculus, logarithms, sexigesimal mathematical notation, corrections of ephemeris data for latitude, longitude, time zone, sidereal time, the tilt of earth's axis. This sentence makes me imagine Barbie saying "Math Is Hard" hardly npov

and today they usually carry out this task using computer software ... yes! eliminate those tedious exacting calculations ( many in a base 60 numerical system so a calculator will not be helpful) because the rote mathematic is tedious.

Skeptics, however, point out that empirically, there is zero correlation of the kind that astrologers claim exists between the heavens and earthly affairs (see the article on western astrology and external links therein) ... many astologers do not subscribe to this metaphysic; therefore it is a category error. Noble as this attempt to save the innocents might be, it needs to be revamped because it reduces astrology to a monolithic pseudo-science. What ever it is - it certainly is not monolithic.

Thus, there is no objective method that can be used to determine which method of casting a horoscope is correct.....Asking which Technique is the correct one is the pseudoscience equivalant of asking which is correct among quantum mechanics, reletivity and newtonian mechanics.

and disagreements among practitioners can only be settled by using anecdotal evidence or appeals to authority.....those astrologers must be rubes if they can't find any other way to resovle their differences. NPOV

Practitioners of western and Chinese astrology, for example, do not agree on how to cast horoscopes....the important thing is that they use planetary positions to errect a 2-dimentional representation of the heavens that has meaning to them. They use different techniques, start with different philosophies and have differing emphasis. The phrasing is clunky

The remainder of this article describes the use of horoscopes in western astrology.----OK

I hope that my format is acceptable.

I've taken a stab at writing an introduction that even-handedly addresses the controversial nature of astrology. --User:bcrowell

If you want to upload a collection of your essay go to meta. Your edit to promoting your own point of view. I waited for comments before I because the has been much contention. Nothing that I have written can be concidered as promoting astrology (unless not openly loudly dismissing astrology can be considered promotion.) Please see my other even handed postings on astrological issues If I might make a sugestion : calling for help to maintain a post in this biased NPOV condition shows that you might not be incapable of expressing neutral point of veiw on this issue at all. It certainly shows that you are not willing to colaborate. Start a page against astrology and you will be able to move your postings over with no edit!

OK, first of all, who are you? Please sign your postings. Second, I can't understand what you wrote because you seem to have garbled it in your editor somehow. Please clarify. --User:Bcrowell
"Please see my other even handed postings on astrological issues"
I might have more luck locating these if I knew who you were.--User:Bcrowell
When you write
"Nothing that I have written can be concidered as promoting astrology ",
there is no way to evaluate this statement without knowing who you are.--User:Bcrowell

[[User:Two16] I wrote astrologer , table of houses ,ephemeris and the best paragraph in horoscope.

Re this,
"Start a page against astrology and you will be able to move your postings over with no edit!"
I see no reason why pro-astrology statements should be allowed in the actual astrology articles, while skeptical views should be relegated to some location where they'll never be seen.--User:Bcrowell

User:Two16 I dont see any reason for pro or anti to intrude in every single paragraph. I'm not interested reading propaganda of any strip!

"calling for help to maintain a post in this biased NPOV condition shows that you might not be incapable of expressing neutral point of veiw on this issue at all."

User:Two16should we look at the timetable of events ?

The problem is that my NPOV text kept getting deleted by a non-POV partisan of astrology. Frankly, I consider it abusive behavior. I was having trouble dealing with it all on my own.--User:Bcrowell

User:Two16 Part of the problem is that you think your posts are npov. Why on Earth did you open another can of worms instead of fixing the post according to those of my criticisms that you did not object to

User:Two16 this was posted to astrology I have placed it here for discussion and am considering getting administrive help on neutrality based on the record of changes Firstly entries ussually start with some kind of definition (Bcrowell 's) posting buries the definition 7 paragraphs in. He actually forces us to read through sloppy writing of muddled astrolocial pillory before we get to the article definition. Do people need to be reminded on every astrological page of (bcrowell's) ideology of scientific reductionism. If it didnt get in the way I wouldn't care but it does. Maybe read enties in other encyclopedia to find even handed treatment.

This article discusses a certain set of techniques used in western astrology. To decide what set of techniques to present and how to discuss them, it is necessary to consider the controversial nature of astrology. As discussed in more detail below, practitioners of western astrology do not agree about all of their techniques. There is also little in common between the methods of western astrology and chinese astrology. Finally, many consider astrology to be a pseudoscience, whose techniques are fabricated purely from the imaginations of its originators without any contact with empirical reality.

To address these controversies, it is necessary to define astrology's goals; how can it be determined --- or can it be determined at all --- whether one set of astrological techniques actually works better than another? One extreme view would be that astrology is a form of fiction or entertainment. At the other extreme, it can be thought of as a system for predicting the future; one syndicated newspaper horoscope column, for example, bills itself as an "astrological forecast." If astrology is to be treated as a science similar to meteorology, then the merits of its techniques need to be judged by the same criteria as any other science, e.g., predictive power. As discussed in the western astrology article, western astrology fails these tests, and one therefore cannot use empirical observation to determine which set of astrological techniques is correct. Furthermore, astrology lacks any method such as the correspondence principle, which would allow one set of techniques to complement another in a scientific manner.

The remainder of this article describes one commonly used method of constructing horoscopes in western astrology.

The introductory material to this article has becomes hopelessly confused as a result of Bcrowell's insistence on a particular POV. He has, nevertheless, made a few interesting points that I would like to take into account in any possible re-write. I'll wait a couple of days before doing so to give others a chance to comment.
I do agree with him about unlogged-in and un-signed comments comments. It can make it very difficult to follow who is saying what in a discussion, especially when more than two people are participating. Of course, logging in can be on whatever pseudonym you choose. Eclecticology 04:07 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

Two16 wrote: "read talk :horoscope, read the article, look at the versions before changing. It is not enough to repost the first two paragraph from last version. If won't read any of the things don't edit it."

Now why the hell would I have to read an article's talk just to remerge (not revert) some text? And who are you to lecture me on just what I can and can not do? Unbelievable. I didn't see anything which was a major duplication when I restored what I saw as a decent introductory paragraph. BTW, both of your deletetions were marked as minor edits which is a banable offense. If I were in as a foul mood as I am now when I saw it I would have followed the letter of policy and blocked your IP. Eclecticology please do do a rewrite, the current article is a major mess and all the above talk is sapping people's efforts to write brilliant prose. --mav
Mav, according to which policy is deleting text as a minor edit a "bannable offense"? --Eloquence
Sneaky act to destroy the work of others = vandalism = banable offense. Deleting large chunks of text can never be viewed as minor and stating so is a express attempt at deception. This is an unwritten policy that follows from practice (like most of our policies). --mav
Well, I think the definition of "minor" is fairly flexible. Some people make all edits to talk pages minor, others think that copyediting is minor by definition (and for some of those, copyediting is more than one might expect) etc. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about whether a move from a content page to a talk page is a major or minor edit. And then, again, you could view "minor" as describing the amount of work the user has invested ;-). I wouldn't take this distinction too seriously, especially as we have bot-filtering now and nobody should have to filter minor edits to get a useful Recent Changes page.--Eloquence

Contents

[edit] Grammar, and definitions

Just did a major copy edit, but hope I did so without offending anyone's sensibilities or removing anything important. Some of the English was quite poor and confused. And some of those definitions of astrological terms are still quite clumsy and need a bit more work on them, which I might come back to later. Shantavira 16:31, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I've removed all external links. None of them gave any additional information about horoscopes - they were to horoscope software providers, (commercial) online astrology pages, etc. See User:ALargeElk/Spam for my personal view of what external links should and shouldn't do. -- ALargeElk | Talk 09:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The How To section should be in Wikibooks

I contend that a step by step guide on how to cast a horoscope should not be in an encyclopædia. Its proper place is Wikibooks.

This article should describe what a horoscope is, give an example of what one looks like (image) etc. I would not like to see Wikipedia becoming an instruction manual. Lumos3 08:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Also even if it isnt moved this sentence should be edited.

"In order to understand and visualize the spherical geometry of the construction of a horoscope, we need to begin with some basic terms"

The highlight being the "we" it makes it sound like the author is partnered with the reader in helping them. As an encyclopedia it should say some basic terms should be understood or something. Im not sure so i wont edit it but just getting it out there. sorry to hijack. edit if you wish Jesus On Wheels 12:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] How many signs does a person have?

Do any of you know how many zodiac signs does a person have? Cuz ive heard that everyone has three: one related to the sun, one with the moon and one ascendant.

  • Add Jupiter to that trio. All 12 zodiac signs represent the style or mode of one's expression. The "houses" represent the arenas of one's life. The planets represent the components of one's psychology. StarHeart 09:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/r/Talk%7EHoroscope_af15.html"