Talk:History of astrology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rg Veda

I removed the entire section on Rg Veda astrology. I have no doubt that there may be (and probably is) some star lore in this early Veda. However, the author from whom the material for this section was drawn, is claiming that comparison of Vishnu to a Lion or as a "Friend of Man" refers to the constellations Leo and Aquarius respectively. If there is to be a section on astrology in the Vedas, it should cover more obvious data such as the system of nakshatras (lunar mansions) used for ritualistic purposes. As a part of the history of science project, this article does not seem to receive much attention from historians of science who have read the relevant material on archeoastronomy. Zeusnoos 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 02:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move: History of astrology → History of western astrology

• History of astrology → History of western astrology

Rationale: The article only covers western astrology, from the Middle East and Europe – 70.55.84.153 15:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

===Votes===Many people believe in horoscopes

• Oppose. Add the Eastern astrology, if needed--FoxyProxy 23:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The history of astrology involves cultural interactions, even to China. Limiting it to 'western' does not allow the bigger picture to emerge and could isolate non-western history forks from editorial attention to such historical interactions. Besides, would we call contributions to astrology from modern Iran and Iraq 'Western'? Zeusnoos 00:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Add Eastern astrology. If it gets too big, maybe we can discuss a separation, but as it stands, Zeusnoos is right, the interactions between East and West are crucial.--TurabianNights 05:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support the article is 38kB long, too long to add Eastern astrology. 132.205.93.88 15:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• if needed? Why wouldn't Eastern astrology be needed? That would make this a POV article that excludes other astrology not of the Western tradition, as unimportant and not necessary to the general history of astrology. 132.205.93.88 15:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV

There is virtually no mention of astrology outside of the western tradition (Middle East, Mediterranean, European, and Euro colonists). This cannot be a history of astrology without mention of Vedic and Chinese astrologies at the very least. 132.205.93.19 04:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be bold! I don't think anyone is opposing the addition of other astrological traditions.--TurabianNights 05:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

With the revised article, this is much better, but it also greatly increased the weight of the Western Astrology bit... especially everything about astrology in modern times, proponents and opponents. It now more than ever looks like a history of western astrology article. It's also getting long... so maybe it should be split into a history of western astrology, and then massively shorten western astrology here. (like moving all the 20th century western astrology, proponents and opponents of western astrology off to the history of western astrology section) 132.205.93.89 01:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Combine this page with other like pages

There is already a Western_astrology page and an Astrology_and_astronomy page. Furthermore, to those who say that this page should stand alone because it compares and contrasts the merge of Western and Eastern ideas, please take note that of the following sections in this article: "Chinese Astrology -- This section is a stub. You can help by adding to it. Chinese Astrology & Geomancy. Japanese Astrology & Geomancy. Vedic Astrology -- This section is a stub. You can help by adding to it." This page should really be combined with those other pages that compare and contrast astronomy and astrology and the history of such from a Western viewpoint. Especially as some of the above named pages directly contradict one another. When information is actually obtained showing how, historically, Western and Eastern astrology actually were integrated, rather than merely pointing out historical examples of people like Aleister Crowley who sought to master "everything", then we can begin to debate on whether these pages should actually be seperated. Banaticus 01:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Astrology began as calender creation

from my Poview, the history of astrology should be removed from a dispute status at Wikipedia and organized as an early and active earthly observation of cyclical behavior used for calender creation. Astrology cyclical observation was and is the history of things that repeat, and thus a calender or agenda based science. It is not an area for dispute at Wiki pedia, but a calender observation process to facilitate human agenda allocation through the calendar method. mca5516 12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mca5516 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

African Astrology

Astronomy and Astrology start during Classical African Civilization, Kemet (Egypt) c. 4200 b.C.E. with the earliest know astrology chart in recorded history created by Imhotep.

Cultural Literacy Minute: Wikipedia in articles related to history usually is missing the African historical contributions to subject mater.

They are getting better and I and other wikipedians have corrected some of the errors. The Astrology article needs work in this area.

Indian astrology, Hindu astrology, and of late, Vedic astrology). It has three branches:[1]

You will note African Astrology is missing from this 3 branch view of Astrology.

With the introduction of Greek culture into Egypt, both astronomy and astrology were actively cultivated in the region of the Nile during the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

A Culturally Poisoning Alert: Kemet (Egypt) influenced the Geeks regarding astrology not the other way around.

Later in the same article it points to Kemetic Astrology c. 4200 B.C.E. and that the signs of astrology come from Kemet and that the pyramids were the first known astrological calculator.

Wikipedia is a remarkable place, one of the few where you can find the historical exclusion errors and their corrections on the same page, LoL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunk (talk • contribs) 03:30, 26 February, 2008

The 4200 bce figure is wrong, there are no star charts (as claimed on various websites including Wikipedia at some point) dating to then.Doug Weller (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr Aunk (talk • contribs) do you have any proof (from a reliable source) of how the Egypsies influenced the Greeks ?? . If you have no real proof then i suggest you better close your mouth and please keep your proud egyptian patriotic feelings only for yourself...--79.166.11.150 (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdated And Inaccurate

This page is out of date for many reasons. Firstly and most importantly, ancient astrology was very different from modern Astrology and had different forms in different places. Secondly, the development of astrology went hand in hand with the development of astronomy and both started long before 1600 BCE. Also the idea that Babylon is the origin of Western Astrology is only part of the truth. The whole truth is that Western astrology as we know it today, is something that has been synthesized from many different traditions by the Greeks in Egypt. Prior to this there was no such thing as Western Astrology, as "the West" did not exist and those cultures who did practice astrology in ancient times were not "Western". In reality much of what we call Western or Modern Astrology has its origins in Egypt.

The following are ideas relevant to the topic but not often listed in discussions on the subject. Such omissions make it hard to believe that there is a comprehensive understanding on the history of astrology and astronomy in general.

In Egypt you have the earliest association between childbirth and time keeping and heavenly bodies. The time keeping of ancient Egypt was through hour watchers in the day and night. By definition horoscope means hour or time watcher of the heavenly bodies. Therefore, the coffin decan star lists are some of the earliest horoscopes in existence. These maps being in coffins, under the sign of nut also shows the circle of life itself, from time and moment of birth to time and moment of death as part of the great cycle of sunrise and sunset, being born from the womb and returning to it. Evidence of some of the earliest star charts were found in Egypt from around 2100 B.C. and are most likely part of a tradition that is far older.

Examples of such can be seen here:

http://www.culturediff.org/english/stellarclocks1.htm

hor·o·scope [ háwrə skp ] (plural hor·o·scopes)

noun Definition:

1. astrological forecast: an astrologer's description of the personality and future of a person based on the position of the planets in relation to the sign of the zodiac under which the person was born

2. diagram of planetary relationship: the positions of the stars or planets relative to each another at a specific moment, especially the time of somebody's birth, or a diagram of these positions

[Pre-12th century. Via Latin< Greek hōroskopos "time observer" < hōra "time, hour" (of birth)]

From: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861618762/horoscope.html

The hour watchers ultimately were responsible for watching for the changes of seasons and forecasting upcoming events according to the calendar. The most significant being the arrival of the time of planting. Success in forecasting and watching for the arrival of the "sign" of the time for planting and the inundation, became a way of forecasting a successful planting season and harvest. Therefore, time keeping (hour watching) becomes a way of "forecasting" times of plenty and prosperity and life. It also becomes a way of "forecasting" the time of death, the season of dryness and shallow rivers. Hence, all the elements for what determine the course of human existence in terms of life and death, success or failure, prosperity or poverty were at a very early time associated with "horoscopes" or hour charts and associated with heavenly bodies. As an extension of this, the Pharaoh as the living sun became the embodiment of these principles and therefore his sunrise and sunset were most important for the country and as living horus, the hours of his life became the basis of the fate of the country. This association with the movements of the pharoah as the living "sun" in his day and night barques became the basis of the special 'horoscopes' (timekeeping) embodied in the regnal calendars for each pharaoh. Therefore, the symbolic birth of the "sun" was an important event, marking the time of the pharaoh ascending to the throne, symbolically born of the gods from "nut" or whatever deity they chose. Of course, as the fate of the country was tied to the course of the pharaoh in life, foretelling the rising of the "sun" and the potential for plenty became a key aspect of the pharaohs life.

Therefore, the horoscopes or watching of the heavens and movements of the heavenly bodies were not just important at childbirth but throughout their lifetimes, down to the hour and minute. As every moment was related to some movement of the heavenly bodies and the horoscope.

In Egypt you have some of the earliest images of patterns of stars superimposed onto anthropomorphic entities of some sort, meaning the earliest constellations. These constellations developed around the stars and other "heavenly bodies" that were observed as part of the tradition of time keeping in Egypt.

Meshkenet, early deity of fate and child birth:

In Ancient Egyptian mythology, Meskhenet, (also spelt Mesenet, Meskhent, and Meshkent) was the goddess of childbirth, and the creator of each child's Ka, a part of their soul, which she breathed into them at the moment of birth. She was worshipped from the earliest of times by Egyptians.

In ancient Egypt, women delivered babies while squatting on a pair of bricks, known as birth bricks, and Meskhenet was the goddess associated with this form of delivery. Consequently, in art, she sometimes was depicted as a brick with a woman's head, wearing a cow's uterus upon it. At other times she was depicted as a woman with a symbolic cow's uterus on her headdress.

Since she was responsible for creating the Ka, she was associated with fate. Thus later she sometimes was said to be paired with Shai, who became a god of destiny after the deity evolved out of an abstract concept.

It was said that Meskhenet was present at the birth of triplets, and foretold in their fates, that they would each be pharaohs - the triplets in question were Sahure, Userkaf, and Neferirkare Kakai, who were the first pharaohs in the fifth dynasty (although Userkaf was not the sibling of the other two, but their father).

Meskhenet also was believed to be the earliest wife of Andjety the god of rebirth in the underworld. Andjety appears to have been worshipped since pre-dynastic times at Andjet, and is thought by most Egyptologists to be the god who eventually became Osiris.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meskhenet

Renenet by Micha F. Lindemans The Egyptian personification of Fortune. Her name and that of Shai (Fate) are usually found coupled. They are said to be in the hands of Thoth, the divine intelligence of of the gods. Rameses II boasted that he himself is "lord of Shai and creator of Renenet." According to the Pyramid Texts, she was the goddess of plenty, good fortune, and the like; subsequently there was no distinction made between these deities and the abstract ideas the represented.

Renenet is accompanied by Meskhenet, who acted as midwife and presided over the birth-chamber.

From: http: //www.pantheon.org/articles/r/renenet.html

In her role of fertility goddess, Renenutet was known as the "Lady of Fertile Fields" and "Lady of Granaries". She was thought to be responsible for looking after the harvest (this was probably because the Egyptians saw snakes hiding in the fields at harvest time), especially in the city of Dja (Modern Medinet Madi, Greek Narmouthis) where an annual festival was dedicated to her where she was offered the best yields of the crops. There was also often a shrine dedicated to her near a wine press or vat, so she could receive the offerings of the wine makers. She was both linked to Sobek and Osiris, and thought to be linked with Isis in her role as mother of Horus. She was believed to be the mother of Nepri, god of grain. She was also linked to the coming of the inundation and to Hapi, the god of the Nile:

I will make the Nile swell for you, without there being a year of lack and exhaustion in the whole land, so the plants will flourish, bending under their fruit. Renenutet is in all things - everything will be brought forth by the million and everybody ...... in whose granary there had been dearth. The land of Egypt is beginning to stir again, the shores are shining wonderfully, and wealth and well-being dwell with them, as it had been before.

-- Famine Stele on the Island of Sehel

As her name might suggest, she was also though to be the goddess who gave a child his or her 'true name'. The Egyptian for name - rn - are the same hieroglyphs used at the start of Renenutet, and so she could also be called "She who is in the Name". To the Egyptians, as shown by the story of Ra's secret name (which Isis manages to find out, through trickery), if someone knew the true name of a person, then that person has power over the other - a name was very important to the ancient Egyptians.

It was believed that if both the image of the dead and the name of the dead was obliterated, then the deceased's souls would also be destroyed. It was because of this that she also became a goddess of fortune. Her name, and the name of the god of destiny, Shai, were often found together in the Book of the Dead. Ramsses II even called himself "Lord of Shai and Creator of Renenutet". She was also seen in the Book of the Dead at the judgement of the deceased together with Meskhenet, a goddess of childbirth. Where Meskhenet presided over the actual birth itself, Renenutet looked after the newborn child; She offered her protection, nurtured the child and gave the child his or her secret name.

The Temple of Renenutet at Medinet MaadiShai was originally the deity who "decreed" what should happen to a man, and Renenutet, as may be seen from the pyramid texts, was the goddess of plenty, good fortune, and the like; subsequently no distinction was made between these deities and the abstract ideas which they represented.

From: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/renenutet.htm

Some of the oldest traditions of oracles and fortune tellers came from Egypt, including the great Oracle of Amun, which was visited by Alexander the Great. Of course the point here is that the tradition of prophecy concerning the rise of kings in Egypt as the newborn "sun" was an ancient tradition and Alexander knew about it.

This tradition of horoscopes (ie. charts of the movements of the heavenly bodies) evolved over time in Egypt, first occurring in coffin lids (as far as the evidence we have), and then moving to the tops of the tombs themselves. It is the tomb ceilings of the 18th dynasty during which more advanced forms of the star charts from the Middle Kingdom are seen. And it is during this period that we see some of the earliest examples of movements of the heavenly bodies depicted in the form of a pie chart, or circle divided into sections. From this we can see clearly the pattern of association between the movement of the heavenly bodies and circles subdivided into sections, which would lead ultimately to representing the hours of the day in circular form on clock faces. This association is also part of an important step that led to or was part of the concept of astrological houses, where movements of certain constellations are represented on a subdivided circle representing various heavenly bodies. Ultimately, this tradition of putting star charts and scar clocks or "hour scopes, hour charts" on the ceilings of tombs and temples, as well as using subdivided circles to represent such movements and bodies, led to the development of the astronomical ceiling found on the temple of Denderah, which is where the modern Zodiac originated.

Examples of star charts and hour charts (horoscopes) on the ceilings of Senmut's tomb, from the 18th dynasty:

http://homepage.mac.com/pete.boardman/24hourclock/history/index.html

Big-dynamo (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If ancient astrology was very different from modern astrology, how are you defining astrology to encompass both?

The Egyptians were a very practical people. They used their observations of the stars, sun, moon etc. to predict sunrise for religious rituals, various times of the year, etc. This is not astrology as I understand it nor are the charts you mention above horoscopes. Dendera's zodiac ceiling is only there (or rather in the Louvre now) because of Hellenistic influence, it's not some sort of straight line development from Senmut I's cenotaph (not a tomb, and it was explained to me by an archaeologist working on it while I was sitting looking at the actual ceiling.

What is the relationship between an oracle and astrology? The Oracle of Amun made the god's will (or the priests' will) clear, it didn't predict.

Babylonian astrology provided portents, indications of the intentions of the gods and future possibilities. Egyptian 'astronomers' made practical predictions. That's not astrology.Doug Weller (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The development of civilization is itself a matter of practicality, concerning the development of writing, the arts, science, math and agriculture. All ancient civilizations were practical in that sense and ancient Egypt was no different. But ancient Egyptian culture also featured a very ancient and very sophisticated system of cosmology, that enveloped all areas of human activity, which means that everything in Egypt was not practical. There is no practical reason for putting artwork and books and star charts in tombs or coffin lids. Therefore, the ancient Egyptians were just as superstitious as any other ancient culture, but unique in their own way.

A cenotaph is still a tomb and the point is that the tradition of putting such star charts in tombs from the time of Senmut goes back to the charts on the coffin lids of earlier dynasties. They are part of the same tradition. Since most of the ceilings from temples prior to the GrecoRoman period no longer exist, we cannot say for sure whether they had any sorts of star charts in them, but the likelihood is quite obvious. The imagery and depiction of star charts in ancient Egyptian monuments is ancient and the ceiling of Dendera was part of this tradition, not separate from it.

As for portents and indications of future prosperity, such things are found in all cultures and all ancient cultures. Mesopotamia is not unique in this respect. Ancient Egypt has tales like the Phrophecy of Neferti detailing portents of future kings. As posted, looking to the heavens for "signs" signaling the future arrival of times of plenty or times of poverty were all found in ancient Egypt from a very early period and such forecasts based on the movement of the heavenly bodies were very significant in the development of what we now call astrology.

Big-dynamo (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The point I am making is that Astrology as now practiced is made up of various elements that were taken from various places and can be traced back to the melding of these elements by the Greeks in Egypt. You are speaking of predictions as being all that is part of modern Astrology, but actually that is not correct. That isn't all that modern astrology is. Early astrology was based on observing and predicting movements of the 'heavenly bodies' relative to events on earth and developing charts and diagrams for mapping such movements. The charts derived from such observations were used to relate earthly events with the movements of the 'heavenly bodies', in other words for tracking time. Therefore, consulting hour charts was an early form of time keeping and the consulting of such charts in relationship to the key events in the cycle of human life, birth and death, are found in Egypt at a very early time. These are all elements of modern astrology not just predictions. Not only that, but these early charts clearly show patterns of stars associated with anthropomorphic entities at an early period in Egypt as well, with many of these entities being associated with various energies in life. So, the importance of using such charts of the heavens to record the time of birth were a direct ancestor of modern astrology. The key difference that I am discussing is that many more esoteric notions on the 'energies' and 'meanings' of the various movements of the heavens and heavenly bodies are the result of associations and meanings that were not present 3,000 years ago and have accumulated since then.

And, how is the fact of the Egyptian practice of putting hour charts or charts of the 'heavenly bodies' not a tradition which led to the development of the ceiling of Denderah? They are the same thing, the only difference being one is circular (Denderah) and the others are rectilinear, along with Denderah including many more constellations as known 1,000 years after the ceiling of Senmut. But the concept is the same, they are both maps of the 'heavenly bodies' based on the knowledge of the people at a given time and all of them are derived from the ancient observations of the heavens for the telling of time.

American Federation of Astrologists statement on early Astrology:

Babylonian Beginnings The Babylonians are generally credited with the birth of astrology. Their astrological charts enabled them to predict the recurrence of seasons and certain celestial events. So, in the beginning and for more than 2,000 years, astrology and astronomy were the same science.

Babylonian astrology was introduced to the Greeks early in the 4th century B.C. and, through the studies of Plato, Aristotle, and others, astrology came to be highly regarded as a science. It was soon embraced by the Romans (the Roman names for the zodiacal signs are still used today) and the Arabs and later spread throughout the entire world.

While earliest astrology was used to bring a sense of order out of apparent chaos, it was soon utilized to predict weather patterns, primarily for agricultural purposes. It was eventually broadened to include forecasts of natural disasters and war and other events in the course of human affairs. Amassing successes in these fields, it was a natural progression for astrology to be used as counsel for kings and emperors and, in time, for all of us.

From: http://www.astrologers.com/history/

But again, if the science of ancient astrology was basically related to astronomy and making star charts or hour charts (horoscopes) then Egypt was one of the places where the evidence for such activities is most ancient. Big-dynamo (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to write more, but it is clear that you and the American Federation of Astrologists disagree, and your position is basically Original Research by you. Interesting, but not appropriate for Wikipedia I'm afraid. Do you really not see any basic difference between what the Babylonians did and the Egyptians?Doug Weller (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

These are all points of discussion, which is why they are posted on the talk page not the main page. However, the facts are clear. The American Association of Anthropology states clearly that the earliest forms of astrology were no different than astronomy. Ancient Egypt has some of the oldest traditions of star charts and hour maps (horoscopes) in existence. And none of this is original research by me. I am only posting references and sources available on the web for discussion not the result of any research into textual sources outside of the internet.

To reiterate the key points so as they are not to be confused:

Elements of astrology:

1) star charts for time keeping based on the observations of 'heavenly bodies'
2) anthromorphic entities superimposed on stars and other 'heavenly bodies'
3) Consulting such charts for tracking the time of key events: (birth, death, harvest, etc).
4) Energies associated with the various heavenly bodies which have an affect on human events.
5) Associations between the positions of the heavenly bodies at time of birth to the fate of the individual
6) Associations between the position of the heavenly bodies and times of plenty and times of death
7) Making prophecies and foretelling based on the position of the heavenly bodies at any given time

All of these elements were found in ancient Egypt at a very early time, but the last element is the one that is most often emphasized as part of the modern tradition of astrology, with Babylon given as the place of origin. However, elements 1 through 6 are not just found in Babylon and are as much a part of the development of modern astrology as any tradition of foretelling from Babylon.

Big-dynamo (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet the American Federation of Astrologers says astrology originated in Babylon. You appear to be doing a synthesis of things you have found (and I don't agree with them all anyway), and that is still original research. If you find an academic publication that agrees with you, you may have found a POV that can be included, but only as a minority point of view.Doug Weller (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I posted the quote from the web page is to show the double talk surrounding the "official" supposed origin of astrology. They say that the earliest Astrology was astronomy, where the movement of the heavenly bodies were observed and recorded. However, Egypt has some of the oldest extant examples of any sort of astronomy in existence, going back to the star maps in the coffin lids of the middle kingdom. Therefore, what they are saying is that astronomy started in Babylon and not in Egypt, which is incorrect. Show me an example of a Babylonian or Mesopotamian star chart from the time of the Ceiling of Senmut. The point is that Egyptian traditions related to the fields of astronomy are being omitted from the discussion of star charts and star maps, the oldest of which are found in Egypt, not Babylon. The sources of Babylonian Astrology go back to the Enuma anu enlil, which is a compendium of many different astronomical events, weather preditions and omens. However, this is not astrology as we know it, which is based on a person's birth date (birth house) along with the alignment of the planets on a given day. It is a set of general omens and predictions based on various phenomena, not the daily sort of horoscope based on a person's birth month as we know it today. But in Egypt all of the earliest star charts we have crouched within the symbolism of the cycle of birth, death and new life. Nut, the star goddess, was always depicted in these Egyptian star maps and the symbolism of cycles of the rising of the sun and other key heavenly bodies was associated with being born and dying. Therefore, hour charts and time keeping relative to the cycles of a person's life, meaning birth, death and new life are clearly established very early in ancient Egypt, with no parallel in Babylon. Likewise, the Deities Shia, Renenutet and others makes it clear that foretelling fate associated with someone's birth were concepts clearly seen in Egypt at a very early date. Also keep in mind that this early association of the woman's body with the cycles of time, birth, death, harvest and new life are also reflective of the nature of child birth and the woman's monthly cycle, which also portends to periods of fertility and life.

Another example of the differences between modern and ancient astrology and the omission of important Egyptian precedents is the concept of houses. A house is a circle divided up into sections with a stellar body or planet assigned to each sector. Such a concept did not exist in early Babylonian star charts, yet they are clearly seen in the early star charts of ancient Egypt. The ceiling of Senmut shows 12 such wheels in it's horoscope (hour chart). Therefore, one cannot claim that representing heavenly bodies in a circle subdivided into sections is something that originated in Babylon. Yet this is something that is a key part of modern astrology. Likewise, no horoscopes meaning stellar clocks or star maps for telling time based on the positions of the heavenly bodies existed in Babylon until fairly late. However, such horoscopes are seen quite early in ancient Egypt, in the coffin lids of the Middle Kingdom and the ceiling of Senmut. Those are the earliest horoscopes ever found. Likewise, no zodiacs wheels existed in ancient Babylon until relatively late and the earliest modern zodiac was found in Egypt at Denderah. However, the concept of the zodiac wheel again goes back to the subdivision of a circle as a way of representing astronomical relationships. The earliest such examples of such a wheels are those found in the astronomical ceiling of Senmut. And as far as astronomical ceilings of any sort, there is no tradition as ancient as that of Egypt and therefore it cannot be said that the idea of putting a star chart on the ceiling of a temple is something that was imported into Egypt when the Denderah ceiling was created. The Denderah Zodiac is a zodiac wheel, with various Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian constellations superimposed on it. But the concept of star charts, star wheels and the like on the ceilings of Egyptian monuments was not new in any sense. So again, as I was posting earlier, what you have in modern astrology is the combination of various elements of astronomical traditions from Egypt, Babylon and elsewhere under the Greeks in Egypt, forming the basis for our modern form of astrology.

Again, if none of these facts can be contended, especially the early star charts and hour charts of Egypt along with the symbolism of birth associated with them, then it doesn't matter whether academics agree or not.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horoscope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enuma_anu_enlil

http://theabysmal.wordpress.com/category/constellations/

http://www.geocities.com/astrologyomens/index.htm

http://www.geocities.com/astrologyzodiacs/index.htm Big-dynamo (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It matters very much for Wikipedia whether or not this is your opinion based on your synthesis of other stuff or whether you can source this from reliable sources.Doug Weller (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just realised that you are presumably new to Wikipedia as a user, you might want to read Wikipedia:No original research and maybe Wikipedia:Verifiability.Doug Weller (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, this is why I posted it on the talk page. These are points for discussion.

However, the coffin lids of the Middle Kingdom and the ceiling of Senmut are not theories, they are fact. The definition of horoscope as a star chart or hour chart based on the position of the planets is not theory but fact. The fact is that the ceiling of Senmut shows planets and is a star chart or hour chart for calculating time and features 12 circles divided into 24 sections each. It is, by definition, a horoscope. All modern Astrology is based on finding the position of planets and other bodies from a star chart based on date, then using those positions to determine the energies and their impacts on a person's life. But you can't have astrology without the star charts. And the definition of horoscope as a star chart or consulting of such charts to determine time hark back to the antiquity of such devices for timekeeping, even without the forecasting that has become part of modern astrology. The ceiling of senmut is one of the earliest examples of such a chart in existence. The relevant Babylonian tablets are called the venus tablets of ammisaduqa which document the rising and setting of the planet venus. However, if this is documented as astronomy and is only given a range of dates from somewhere in the 2nd millenium B.C. then why is the earlier evidence of Egyptian observations of Sirius not considered an earlier example of astronomy. The coffin lids of the Middle Kingdom certainly show charts of the planets and stars as the basis for timekeeping far earlier than the Venus tablets. These coffin lids are facts. That they contain astronomical information is also fact. Therefore, if it isn't considered relevant to early astronomy/astrology, then there is something wrong with the scholarship. If I as a layman can see this than the so called experts should be able to see it as well and if they are omitting these facts from their discussions of astrology and astronomy, the problem is with the scholarship, not me. If an expert in the field does not see the early association between a woman's body, the stars, birth and death and the movement of the heavenly bodies from ancient Egypt as relevant to a discussion on astrology, then the problem is with them, not me, especially when many other later texts of astrology feature very similar motifs. However, some people will argue from authority on everything, even if that authority is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_tablets_of_Ammisaduqa

But I am not pretending to resolve that here. As I said, this is a talk page and I am only recommending points for further research in possibly updating the main page. Big-dynamo (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As for Senmut there are two memorial "tombs" one is actually a "tomb" in that it is subterranean and most likely not open to the public and the other is the shrine. TT353 is the subterranean structure in which the astronomical ceiling is found. TT71 is the cenotaph.

http://www.maat-ka-ra.de/english/personen/senenmut/sen_grab.htm http://www.maat-ka-ra.de/english/personen/senenmut/sen_tt71.htm http://www.maat-ka-ra.de/english/personen/senenmut/sen_t353.htm

http://www.kennyzen.com/ae_senmut_sah.htm

The following link is to a current research project on the Senenmuts monmuments:

http://www.institutoestudiosantiguoegipto.com/senenmut/en/senenmut.shtml

Textual references on Senenmut's astronomical ceiling:

* BEDMAN, T.: Hapuseneb y Senenmut: los valedores de una reina. RESME, 2. México, 1996.
* CASAL ARETXABALETA, B. Del.: Hatshepsut. La primogénita del dios Amon. Madrid, 1998.
* DORMAN, P. F., "The Monuments of Senenmut.", 1988.
* DORMAN, P. F., "The Tombs of Senenmut. The Architecture and Decoration of Tombs 71 and 353.", Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition, 1991.
* GRAEFE, E., Das sogenannte Senenmut-Kryptogramm." GM 38, 1980.
* HABACHI; L., "Two Graffiti at Sehêl from the Reign of Queen Hatshepsut.", JNES 16, 1957.
* HAYES, W., "Varia From the Time of Hatshepsut.", MDAIK 15, 1957.
* HELCK, W., "Die Opferstiftung des Senenmut", ZÄS 85, 1960. Meyer, Chr., "Senenmut: eine prosopographische Untersuchung", 1982.
* NIEDZIÓLKA, D., "Some Remarks on the Graffito of Senenmut at Aswan",Egyptology I, 1999.
* SILIOTTI, A.: El Valle de los Reyes y los templos de la necrópolis tebana. Barcelona, 1997.

http://books.google.com/books?id=v9tCdieiiKkC&pg=PP13&lpg=PP13&dq=Meyer+egyptian&source=web&ots=Qgb4GGJ5iI&sig=ktm--_fLmSdR7eoC2MV2v6gGtV0&hl=en#PPP1,M1

The recently discovered astronomical ceiling-decoration in the tomb of Senmut (XVIIIth dynasty; about 1500 B.C.) follows, in general, the same prototype as the well-known ceiling in the Ramesseum (XIXth dynasty; about 1250 B.C.); the ceiling of Seti I (XIXth dynasty; about 1300 B.C.) follows a different tradition. Both traditions contain elements of different antiquity. Important new features of the Senmut ceiling are the 12 monthly circles subdivided into 24 hourly sectors (unfinished ≪ monthly star-charts ≫ ?), and the two ≪ meridian cords ≫ (connected with the ceremony of the ≪ stretching of the cord ≫ involving the observation of an upper culmination of Zeta Ursae Majoris?). For a tentative identification of several stars and constellations represented in the circumpolar group of the northern panel or mentioned in the decanologue of the southern panel, a celestial globe was used. The precession of the equinoxes was taken care of by the drilling of several pairs of polar holes; the latitude of Thebes was taken as the altitude of the pole. A repetition of the experiment in a Zeiss planetarium is suggested. The possibility of an exact dating of the three ceilings of the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties by the use of their planetary data is pointed out.

From: http://www.jstor.org/pss/224678

As can be seen above the Senenmut ceiling contains some of the earliest horoscopes, ie. hour charts, in existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.117.171 (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Astronomical Inscriptions on the Coffins of Heny (XIth Dynasty?), by A. Pogo © 1932 The History of Science Society. Abstract The fragments of the coffins of Ḥeny (XIth dynasty?) were discovered at Asyut in 1922 (see G. A. Wainwright and Battiscombe Gunn, Annales du service des antiquités de l'Égypte, 26, 160-71, 1926). These fragments confirm the hypothesis (see Isis, XIV, 306, 1930) that the astronomical ceiling decorations in the tombs originated as astronomical inscriptions on coffins. The essential features of both the northern and the southern panel are identified on the Ḥeny/eb fragments. The orientation of the panels is discussed.

From: http://www.jstor.org/pss/224476

As I can see my account has been disabled, I can only suppose this is because some people cannot stand the truth (big-dynamo).

76.99.117.171 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence that your account has been disabled. However, you need try to understand a bit more how Wikipedia actually works, and note that the guideline for Talk pages such as this says "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Which is of course what you are doing here. Your infodump above is interesting but irrelevant to your argument. Of course there is a fantastic ceiling in Senenmut's cenotaph, I've been in there and seen it and had it explained to me by the archaeologists working on it. But all these facts (far too many for a talk page) are irrelevant. Like it or not, articles on Wikipedia require references and there are guidelines for the types of references preferred. You are trying to cast your own opinions on how these 'facts' should be interpreted and argue that the article should be rewritten to represent your point of view. But until you can show that your point of view is shared by a substantial number of reliable sources, it is irrelevant.

Note that you are extremely unlikely to get blocked without any warning. And you've had no warnings, there is no block on you that I can see, so maybe you should reboot your PC or something.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Account problems aside. The "info dump" as posted has not been addressed. The references have been given. The most relevant part being that some scholars have referenced the wheels in Senenmut's ceilings as hour charts based on the movements of the planets. As posted, a horoscope is defined as a hour chart or star chart based on the movement of the planets for time keeping. This is what a clock face is based on. Those are not my opinions those are citations from published scholars. Therefore, you cannot try and pretend this is a personal view because it isn't. As I said, this is a question of omission in my opinion, not a question of personal scholarship. The relevant scholarship is there and there is no scholar that denies that Senenmut's ceiling is not an astronomical chart or containing diagrams of the hours of the day. Also, as I have cited, there is no earlier evidence of such hour charts represented in any way where constellations are superimposed on anthropomorphic figures or circles subdivided into 24 sections representing hours as seen in the ceiling of Senenmut found in Babylon. Therefore, as I have said, I suggest that this article be updated to refer to this omitted data that has been published. The Zodiac ceiling of Denderah was developed in Egypt as a merging of older astronomical, mythical, cosmological and iconographic traditions of Egypt, Greece, Babylon and elsewhere, which means modern astrology is not simply derived from Babylonian omen texts. Omen texts are not horoscopes. Horoscopes are based on star charts. The idea of associating star charts with the concept of childbirth originates in Egypt and are clearly observed in the most ancient depictions and mythologies around the goddess Nut, not in Babylon. Therefore, it cannot be suggested that such a concept originated in Babylon. Those are facts, not opinions and the scholarly articles are readily available for those who serious about researching it. I would do it, but I don't have the time. It isn't hard, the references are there and this isn't personal opinion. If you or anyone else is serious about the subject then look into it for yourself. But don't claim you are ignoring it because of "wikipedia standards" because that is an excuse for continued omission of relevant facts, not any sort of scholarly debate.

The sky goddess Nut has been associated with childbirth and the stars in Egypt since the old kingdom, there is nothing about it that was imported from Babylon. The Egyptians have been associating childbirth with the movement of the stars since the very beginning of Egypt and such a concept is very important to astrology and is not something that simply came from Babylon as a concept. This along with the godesses Renenutet and Mekhenet shows that the movement of the heavens, child birth, prosperity and plenty as well as "fate" have been found in Egyptian cosmology from a very early period and such a concept is not seen in Babylon until much later.

http://touregypt.net/featurestories/sky.htm
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/renenutet.htm
http://touregypt.net/godsofegypt/meskhenet.htm

The fact that these things are not found in a discussion of astrology and astronomy constitutes an omission and not simply my personal opinion as numerous scholars have documented these concepts in Egypt and there is nobody that doubts the astronomical and cosmological symbolism within them. 76.99.117.171 (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole truth is that Western astrology as we know it today, is something that has been synthesized from many different traditions by the Greeks in Egypt. Prior to this there was no such thing as Western Astrology, as "the West" did not exist and those cultures who did practice astrology in ancient times were not "Western".

That's an interesting argument. I think you're talking about horoscopic astrology, which is mentioned in the Hellenistic Astrology section. I'm aware of some research that puts the use of diagonal star clocks in Egypt back into the 2nd millennium BC at least. Unfortunately it's work in progress - and not mine. This means I cannot cite it because of the Verifiability policy. There's certainly masses of research waiting to be done on Egyptian sky watching, but to what extent this is astronomy or astrology is also a matter of Original Research, and Wikipedia isn't the place to publish that. I'd suggest approaching the American Federation of Astrologers and possibly a few other similar societies and persuade them to change their pages. If they do then there's then a strong case for changing the Wikipedia entry. Alun Salt (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian decan charts, or diagonal star clocks are some of the oldest such texts in existence. This is not original research as Otto Neugebauer published his interperetations of such decan lists many years ago. Again, it is a question of omission not original research. The point being that any discussion of Astrology starts with the Babylonians as watchers of the stars, but omits the fact that the earliest actual evidence of star charts astronomical texts are found in Egypt and the Goddess nut was always the cosmological embodiment of the starry sky, which implies that the cycles of the season, the rising of the sun, the cycle of birth and death were always associated with the movement of time and the cycles of the decans (time) in Egyptian cosmology.

All of this is documented and the research on this was published 40 years ago by Richard Parker and Otto Neugebauer in Egyptian Astronomical Texts volumes 1 through 3. It is also documented in Ancient Egyptian Science Volume II by Marshall Claggett. So the idea that evidence for astronomy in Egypt and symbolism associated with Nut the cycle of birth, death and the movement of the time, star charts, decan hours and seasons is not original research at all. It is an omission as stated. This stuff is not new and has been known about for many years.

A good summary of the research on diagonal "star clocks" in all periods of Egyptian history as well as the relationship to the goddess Nut and later Zodiacs are seen here, with references to various works, including Neugebauer and Parker.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/gtosiris/page11-18.html

76.99.117.171 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC) (big-dynamo)

http://books.google.com/books?id=xKKPUpDOTKAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ancient+Egyptian+science&sig=eqKUnQK106BhdNXkEBzozdhn8ic

76.99.117.171 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's handy, but have you noticed that they don't talk about astrology much? Some of the work over the past forty years looking at the social side of how these things were used as well as refining the dating, which is not entirely settled. One upshot of this is that it's not certain this is astrology. For instance you have Symons' work asking if a star clock is a clock or something else. At the same time cosmology and astrology are not the same thing, so it's not cut 'n' dried. Wikipedia reflects mainstream opinion, it doesn't set it, hence the suggestion that you persuade astrologers that the Egyptian material is Astrology. If the AFA agree with you then you'll be able to cite them and get round the OR problem.

If you're interested Tamsyn Barton's Ancient Astrology published by Routledge in 1994 may be of help as an introductory text to more recent thought on the subject. There's also Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination edited by Swerdlow in 1999 (MIT). Neugebauer's Exact Sciences in Antiquity is also clear on the Mesopotamian origin of Astrology. It's on page 100 with a more detailed reasoning on page 188 in the Dover Edition. Hope this helps. Alun Salt (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well understood, however the point is that no culture had astrology as we know it until fairly late. Therefore, to say that the Egyptian decanal star clocks are not astrology is to miss the point. The point is that the decanal star charts are horoscopes, meaning hour charts or charts of the decan stars which were used to tell time. Horoscope means hour watcher or charts related to hour watching and the decanal charts of ancient Egypt are some of the oldest in existence. And most of the charts from Egypt are based on movements of the decans and the associated constellations. This is where the word hour scope, horus scope or horoscope comes from and it did not originally mean astrology it meant hour watcher. Obviously, the point is that the development of timekeeping and subdividing the day into hours through the observance of hour watchers is ancient in Egypt and part of the traditions that eventually led to what we now call astrology. But no culture in 2,000 B.C had astrology as we know it today. Therefore, arguments over whether these early decan charts are accurate are irrelevant to the fact that they represent the earliest evidence of the concept of star charts for tracking and telling time based on observations of the stars as well as associating patterns of stars with anthropomorphic entities, what we call constellations. There are no Babylonian constellations we have evidence for from 2,000 B.C. But we do have examples of constellations from ancient Egypt in 2,000 B.C in the form of Sah and Mesketiu, all of which is documented by mainstream scholars. The Babylonians did not have anything approaching modern astrology in 2,000 B.C. Books of omens are not horoscopes. Horoscopes predicting a persons fate based on time and date of birth were later concepts. What they are given credit for as part of the development of astrology is the idea that they observed the stars and developed calendars which is astronomy. So we are talking about an early period in time when astronomy and astrology were one in the same. But ancient Egypt had been developing calendars and observing the stars for telling time since a very early period. Therefore, any discussion of early astronomy that does not discuss ancient Egypt is omitting facts, not original research and mainstream archaeologists have already conceded that the early star charts are evidence of astronomical activity in ancient Egypt. The fact that they differ in the details does not change this. What star charts are there from Babylon that we can use as clocks and are accurate going back to 2,000 B.C.? As I said, the original meaning of horoscope was for time keeping, not predictions as we know it today. What I am saying is that over time the Egyptian decanal system evolved, their cosmology surrounding it evolved, just as the omen texts and traditions surrounding such in Babylon evolved. With the Greeks came even more evolved mechanisms for accurate tracking and predictions of movements of heavenly bodies, which they combined with older Babylonian and Egyptian concepts and constellations into the precursor for modern Astrology.

Again, this is about omission because if you notice there is also no topic on Wikipedia under astronomy covering Egyptian astronomy either. Again an obvious omission. At the same token, I lay the blame for these omissions on the laps of the same scholars who published the material on Ancient Egyptian astronomy, as they seem unable to give credit to the Egyptians for anything, even when the evidence from Egypt is earlier than that from anywhere else. This is why I started the section as inaccurate and outdated, because it is.

76.99.117.171 (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• The civil calendars used in Sumer (Mesopotamia) in the 3rd millenium BC identified 12 lunar months per year with the months named after the 12 zodiacal constellations in the correct order and month placement as the modern passage of the sun through the zodiacal signs. I don't have a book reference handy but if anyone is interested i will dig down into my research papers to find it.

• there seems to be confusion about what is and is not astrology, astronomy and time keeping. Astrology is the correlation of astronomical phenomena with terrestial events related to a person, nation or world and does not need a horoscope to do this. For example no horoscope is involved with the astrological ages or the predictions of mundane astrologers based on eclipses, slow moving planets, lunation cycles etc. To be astrology the technique must have some predictability element included. All astrology before about 500 BC excluded horoscopes as we know them. Horoscopic astrology is just one branch of astrology. This topic should not be defining what is or is not astrology, you should refer to the Astrology topic for the definition and debate the nature of astrology there.

• the way to deal with different points of views in the area of the history of astrology is to note what is ambiguous or unclear and what has consensus or widespread support. Ideas from more than one source but not attaining concensus or majority point of view can be classified as a minority point of view. Individual points of views with only one source should be considered a fringe idea. The majority of resources of this topic should be devoted to the consensus and majority point of view. Minority points of view should be mentioned but fringe ideas should be isolated into a fringe theory section. I have recently adopted this approach to the Astrological Ages topic and it has helped tremendously in sorting out claims, counter claims and the myriad fringe ideas. However even fringe ideas need a book reference. Minority ideas would need book references from three or more different sources to rate as a minority idea. Majority ideas would have numerous book references from many sources probably over a reasonable period of time. Consensus ideas are basically undisputed or so strong that a whacko fringe theorist does not detract from the consensus view. I have used this approach in the Astrological Ages topic and it may solve some of your problems here. I do not specialise in the history of astrology in my research, but because I have been researching the Astrological Ages for over 20 years, I have come across a lot of archeoastronomy, archeoastrology and ancient astrology facts and information. In general disputed material should be moved down the totem pole in both space allocated and relevance to the topic history of Astrology

Terry MacKinnell (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• The ancient Egyptian calendar dates back to at least 3000 B.C. if not prior. Therefore, it is an omission to speak of calendars and stellar observations and not to mention Egypt, as the evidence shows the Egyptian calendars to be among the oldest.

• The point I am making is that there was no Astrology as we know it today in 2,000 B.C. However, the elements of what would later become astrology were found in various places. And the earliest examples of a constellation is not found in Mesopotamia, it is found in Egypt. And the earliest examples of hour charts, with constellations and planets is in Egypt as well, not in Mesopotamia. Horo-scope means hour chart, not predictions, which is intended to show that the modern horoscope developed from early hour charts, which themselves were based on astronomical observation.

• I understand what you mean about consensus, but facts are facts and stand on their own. Egypt has some of the earliest examples of calendars and constellations anywhere on earth as well as some of the oldest cosmological and symbolic associations between time keeping, child birth and the stars. Sothis, Sopdet, Hathor, Mesketiu and many other deities from the very old kingdom have stellar aspects and also have an association with child birth. Again, these are facts that many scholars have already documented and published. And finally, the modern system of astrology was developed in Egypt, which means many of these traditions were directly ancestral to the modern practice of Astrology and not simply imports from Mesopotamia.

Examples of modern horoscopes showing astrological houses in a wheel chart. http://lessons.astrology.com/course/show/Beginners-Astrology/513-The-Wheel-of-Houses

Site showing the ceiling from the tomb of senenmut, with imagery that is also found in the later ceiling of Denderah, with Greek, Egyptian and Babylonian constellations superimposed on each other in a circular wheel, which itself is also an evolution from the imagery of the wheels on the ceiling of Senenmut's tomb. http://www.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al1.htm

There were no other circular zodiacs anywhere else on earth at this time.

Another site showing examples of constellations from Senenmut's tomb, which are also found on the Denderah zodiac. However, these are not the oldest examples of constellations in existence. The oldest are found in the coffin lids of the middle kingdom, which gave rise to the imagery on Senenmut's tomb.

http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/~gtosiris/page11-19.html

All of these are verified and documented facts and need no consensus.

Big-dynamo (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Antiquity of Egyptian Astrological Tradition

There is no issue with the addition of material on ancient Egyptian astrological practices provided adequate references to reliable external sources are included. Big-dynamo may be convinced about the legitimacy of the antquity of ancient Egyptian astrological practices but all the reliable references i have read indicate the consensus point of view is that the source of astrology is Mesopotamia. This does not mean alternative points of view can not be tendered.

Re your "And finally, the modern system of astrology was developed in Egypt" is not correct as it was produced by the Hellenistic astrologers, some of whom may have been resident in Alexandria but Hellenistic astrology was not translated from Egyptian, it was written in the ancient Greek language. If you deviate from the consensus path you will have to provide very clear references and citations otherwise your material will only be your personal POV. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I never intended to make the case that modern Astrology originated in Egypt, nor that the ancient Egyptians had astrology as we now know it. My point was that modern astrology was developed by the Greeks in Egypt as a fusion of various cultural practices, including Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Babylonian. None of these cultures practiced Astrology as we know it prior to that time. Therefore, to say that modern Astrology originated in Mesopotamia is not accurate as many of the elements we consider as modern Astrology did not exist in Mesopotamia. Omen texts, circular zodiacs and other such aspects of modern Astrology did not exist in Mesopotamia in 2000 BC. Those things were relatively late developments that were incorporated by the Greeks into the system we now call modern astrology. That the article presents Mesopotamia as the origin of modern astrology, with all the modern trappings of what we now call Astrology is simply incorrect.

Omen texts from Babylon are considered by some the precursor to what we call astrology, but they are not the same thing at all:

http://www.geocities.com/astrologyomens/index.htm

http://www.etana.org/abzu/coretext.pl?RC=20491

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3281359/Jastrow-Babylonian-Assyrian-BirthOmens-

Big-dynamo (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Text taken verbatim from a Victorian encyclopedia

One reason that material here is outdated and inaccurate is that text from the Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, has been rather uncritically incorporated verbatim. At the very least, the century-old language should be rewritten for consistency of tone in this encyclopedia. More critically, some assertions are simply false (e.g. that Gaffarel was the last Kabbalist, refuted in the article Kabbalah that is linked immediately after); and assertions of fact should severally be explicitly sourced, the general "text is incorporated" template in the references is not sufficient.Bn (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Using freeread.com as a source or link

This site is owned by Joseph John (JJ) Dewey though the registration record does not actually mention his name but refers to RMC Internet Services. Detail is on http://www.freeread.com/archives/about.php including promoting the yahoo group to discuss his book. The site exists to promote his books and no warranty as to accuracy or contents is given for texts and essays he includes. The site fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO and should not be added to any article not specifically about him and his publications.—Ash (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

President Aurial?

Under "noted predictions" it speaks of a "President Aurial" building a "Noah's ark". I can not find reference to such a person with this name anywhere else online. I looked back at the page history and mention of him in the article goes back at least 2 years, so I chose not to delete the sentence and bring it up here. Is this old vandalism that never got corrected? Shoddy Research or writing? Should this sentence be deleted? 86.43.208.240 (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It might have been President Auriol of France? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Kabbalistic, Christian?

I put a "dubious" tag on, because I don't think medieval Christians followed kabbalistic thinking. Correct me if you have a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of unreferenced content

In light of recent suggestions that changes on the astrology page cannot be undertaken without referring to all sub-pages, I announce my intention to delete all unreferenced content from this page within seven days. This is in line with Wikipedia principles about verifiable content. Wikipedia pages are not sandboxes for personal opinions, views or discussions. Please add necessary citations for every assertion made. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 22:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No one has said anything about changes on the astrology page not being able to be made without referring to all sub-pages - you have taken a sensible point out of all reason and context to suggest that. The main astrology page should summarise the daughter pages it links to, according to WP policy. That means that we refer to this page to sumarise its main points in the main astrology article.

What you are suggesting is not inline with Wikipedia policy, because it is not WP policy that every piece of content need be referenced, only that which is likely to be challenged, and for all quotations "but in practice you do not need to attribute everything". You would certainly be working against the spirit of the WP principle by stripping articles of content instead of placing 'citation needed' requests and helping to provide those citations yourself.

Remember that one of the five pillars Wp rests upon is that "Wikipedia does not have firm rules: Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone ... The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule."

To do this at the same time as making similar requests on related pages which are likely to involve the same editors is wholly unreasonable. Especially since you have simultaneously raised deletion requests for major astrological articles today - including (so far):

Horoscopic astrology

Babylonian astrology

Hellenistic astrology

What are your motives in trying to destroy so much astrological content like this ? Zac Δ talk 00:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I tagged for improvement of references. That seems to be the way forward. I wouldn't like to see too much material removed in one go. There are some scholarly works on the history of astrology (and history of astronomy before the astrology/astronomy gulf widened), and we should use them, weaning the article off works about what astrologers believe/practice today. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have seen other examples in the past, where deleting large chunks of unreferenced material was by far the quickest way to see that material come back WITH sources. Putting an article up for deletion, may work even better to wake it from a long sleep. Without drastic action, an article not rarely sinks into a kind of complacency where sources are promised, but never brought. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right that this is often the solution, and also that a wake-up is needed. I do believe in the power of Wikiprojects to co-ordinate improvement. Here, we should at least try going through WikiProject Astrology. It will all be less painful if we can keep communication channels open between those who love astrology and those who hate it. Note that History of astrology is a topic for historians to write on. Neither astronomers nor astrologists are our main authorities. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has been staying up late at night over too long a period to provide references where they are needed, I can guarantee that another wake up call is not needed at this time and it doesn't help to create this much pressure at once whilst simultaneously creating needless talk page controversy. The effect it is having upon me as a wikipedian, is that I'm close to leaving this project altogether. I would like to know if either Peter S Strempel or Makesense64 , would match their concern about having comments referenced by putting in the effort required to attend to the task. In fact, have either of these editors, who tag and raise AdF requests so freely, ever submitted any citation to improve an article like this? If not, why not, when the matter gives them such concern ? Zac Δ talk 08:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have sometimes wondered whether you, Zac, were an extraordinarily gifted man, or just fuelled by caffeine. I do have to sleep sometimes, but that doesn't make me wrong. My assertions make me wrong or right, and you have always been careful to avoid picking anything in my assertions, other than making them, as lying at the root of your difficulty with my perspective. Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's something any of us can do. The Barton book in Further reading is published by Routledge 1994, ergo scholarly and recent. Yet still unused in the text. Let's see what we can get from that. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Just when I was softening I get smacked in the head with this. Gibber-jabber. Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So you know I am not ignoring your suggestion Itsmejudith, as I've stated elsewhere I'll be away for the next week. I admire the way you are contributing and wish I could be more support in the short term Zac Δ talk 11:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine Zac. I am not going to do everything on this, just try and move things forward a bit. Peter, what do you mean? What is Gibber-jabber? My post? The Routledge-published history? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to Zac's recent comments. Please, have a look at WP:SLEEP and WP:VOLUNTEER.
Our tagging articles does not put any "pressure" on you, since you are not the owner of any article on WP, and there are thousands of other editors who can solve problems indicated by a certain tag. You cannot demand that Peter and me should bring any citations or sources, because editing WP is done voluntarily and if we chose to just tag articles with problems then we can freely do so. Do you have any questions on those points?
There is a WP principle that states that the burden of proof (source / citation) is on the person who adds or restores certain material to an article. The burden of proof is not on the editor who tags the article or statement for lack of sources or citations. I think by logical extension we can also say that the burden of proof is also on the editor who insists on keeping certain unsourced material in an article. Then he either brings a source or the material gets removed (and can always be brought back in if a source is found later on). Some time can be given, but not weeks or months. Clear?
Certain statements may have been in article for a long time, without any proper source. There may not be any source for it, or source may have disappeared if it was based on some online source. Searching for a source would in such cases amount to trying to find a needle in a haystack while you are not even sure if there IS any needle in the haystack.
In such cases, if a google search does not lead to a credible source quickly, then it is better to just remove the material and start rebuilding the article with newly sourced statements. That is a more effective use of our time. As far as I can see that was the intention of Peter's "razor".
If a lot of material gets removed that way, then I think it would be good form to list the removed sentences in a special section on the Talk page. This gives other editors the chance to find sources for some of these materials, and then it can be reintroduced in the article. That would be fair to all involved editors, while not stopping the article from getting cleaned-up. Done in that way, I don't see how anybody can reasonably to object to Peter's razor removing unsourced stuff and giving the article a fresh start. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I gave my personal experience as an example of how editors who make unreasonable suggestions have the opposite effect to that you claim. As a member of the Wikipedia astrology project I am happy to contribute towards improving WP's coverage of astrology-related topics. It's only pointless back-page discussions that pursue disruption through bickering that I consider to be demoralising and a waste of good time. If you want to spend yours finding references to WP policies to substantiate your discussion-page arguments, rather than finding references to content you say is in need of reference, that's your choice. Zac Δ talk 14:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

New 'Early origins' section

I created this new section because I felt it was difficult to substantiate the subsequent sections without at least some brief outline of what is known about the roots of astrological development. This introduction should create an easy link to then exploring how astrology was developed further in the Middle Eastern regions. Zac Δ talk 14:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed redefintion of content covering the ancient and Hellenistic period

Since this is an article which has been rated as having 'high-importance' to its projects; and since it is in need of substantial references, I would like to propose introducing new content, based on verifiable sources, which will entail a significant change for the section currently entitled "Middle East and Europe"

This follows on from the section called 'Early origins' so I would like to rename the next section "Astrology in the ancient world", and then follow this with "Astrology in the Hellenistic World". The theme will then pick up the content as it moves into a discussion of astrology in the Islamic world and then into Medieval and Renaissance Europe.

This will give the page a much better flow of content from one major astrological period to another. Would anyone object if I approached the restructuring of content in this way.? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive?

How is it possible to archive older discussions that are no longer relevant and years old. Anyone know? For now I have collapsed content from 2009 and before. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Medieval and Renaissance Europe

Most of the content of this section was pretty rubbish so I've replaced most of it with new text that is referenced and can be more easily developed. It is still far from ideal, but it's a start. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ann Geneva

Giving a little more info on Ann Geneva, as I have just removed the 'who is' from her name by adding 'historian of science' to the text. She has a doctorate in the history of science and early modern english history from the State University of New York.

review of Ann Geneva's book here, and another one here

--Other Choices (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of redirect from Mundane astrology

The most significant edit I made to this article yesterday was to take out the section called "Mundane Astrology". Below, in total, was the text that I removed:

Mundane astrology is the application of astrology to world affairs and world events, taking its name from the Latin word mundus, meaning "the World". It is widely believed by astrological historians to be the most ancient branch of astrology.[1] Astrological practices of divination and planetary interpretation have been used for millennia to answer political questions. It was, however, only with the gradual emergence of horoscopic astrology from the sixth century B.C. that astrology developed into two distinct branches, mundane astrology and natal astrology.[2][3]

Those who know about astrology will understand why I took this text out of this page. Mundane astrology is a branch of astrology, a certain type of technique, and not a period of astrological history. The text had been placed here after a recent proposal to delete the page Mundane astrology (which was in a pretty bad shape) closed with the suggestion to rescue what was referenced and merge the content into this page.

Rather than have a redirect point to the wrong place I have recreated Mundane astrology as its own page, in accordance with policies which say this can be done if new content is added to reubild the page. I have added some extra information to it now which hopefully resolves the problems it had before. This allows this page to briefly make reference to mundane astrology as one of its oldest branches, and other pages can wiki-link to it in reference to its use as an astrological technique. I'll now add a litle comment back into the article to explain its historical importance. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Zac, sorry, you are wasting your own time and ours. Baigent is a fringe writer of pseudohistory. Tetrabiblos is primary. I thought you understood. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, mundane astrology IS one of the traditional fundamental divisions of astrology, so it makes sense to have an article devoted to the topic, even if some of the sources currently used are open to question. Baigent is an astrologer as well as a fringe pseudohistorian, and his book on mundane astrology was co-written with Campion (who has mainstream academic credentials) and Harvey (a respected astrologer).--Other Choices (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Judith, the material with the Baigent ref (not now on this page) was nothing to do with me. To clarify, it was placed onto this page by some other editor as rescued content from the Mundane astrology page. I have developed that earlier content a little on that page - feel free to improve it. Not sure that ref is so necessary now since I've added a ref to Koch-Westenholz's work and it's not a controversial point. With regard to primary sources, the guideline is we use them only where necessary and appropiate. We can make references to well known academic translations of important and notable historical texts under appropriate circumstances. They are not prohibited, but obviously we prefer reference to secondary sources for potentially controversial assesments, where synth or OR might be a problem. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes but now we have article that doesn't have a single reliable secondary source. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I presume you are still talking about Mundane astrology? Why not use that page's tale-page? But in answer ot your point of course it does, you are surely not questioning the Koch-Westenholz reference I added to it? That's a secure and reputable as they come. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent amendments

It's always a bit of a shocker, after spending time trying to fix problems and improve the content quality of articles, when some editor wants to undo every change without explanation. I have twice undone an attempt to undo all recent amendments without any kind of discussion other than an edit-summary suggesting I need to get consensus first from all you other (non-existent?) talk-page contributors.

A reminder of the situation. The article was rescued from deletion in July last year due to its many problems, including outdated Edwardian-style text and having barely any references. I made a commitment to improve the article (as seen above) and did some work at that time, but then real life forced a wiki-break. I’m aware that there hasn’t been any significant content development since I made my last edit in August last year. Nor has there been anyone contributing to the notices and requests for discussion I’ve made here on the talk page. It would be very good to get more discussion and input so if anyone has any points to make, please do.

The editorial policy on WP, as I understand it, is that I have the right as an editor (with good knowledge of this subject) to make improvements to the page, (especially when they are quite obviously necessary and tagged for attention). However, if anyone has a problem with any particular edit please revert that particular edit and create a talk-page discussion specifying your concerns here so they can be appropriately addressed. They need to be legitimate concerns and properly explained, not just based on the fact that you object to someone taking the liberty of dawokrking on this page. That will allow me and anyone else who has an interest to consider the problem and make sure the content is appropriate, or make amendments as necessary with regard to that particular concern.

When I have time I intend to overhaul the content again for grammatical structure and will keep adding references to points that can be substatiated as and when I am able. I will also work through the list of references for consistency of style. There are areas that obviously still need a lot of development and hopefully the content of some of the sections will continue to be adapated as necessary to make sure the focus goes to the notable points of astrology's history over time. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Zac, DV has asked for my opinion on your changes. You've made so many edits that it will take me some time to work out which I agree with and which I don't. Expect to have justify many of them here. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Two points come to mind. One, the Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics is supposed to be available online. While it is a bit outdated, it is also true that a lot of the material for this basically historical article that it might contain would probably still be accurate. Second, I am going to try to get ahold of the Lindsay Jones/Mircea Eliade Encyclopedia of Religion again tomorrow, which is thought to be one of if not the best reference source for religion and related material in the English language. I think that both sources should prove useful in figuring out what to include in this article. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks John, it will be great to have your contribution (yours too Judith). That second source of reference sounds especially useful. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 20:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zac. I looked over the additions to some degree now. I'd like to examine them in more depth in the future, but as far as I can tell right now, some additions are probably positive, while others could probably be improved (and/or need discussion). I've seen a lot of edit warring on this article and others involving your edits, and I'd really appreciate if we could get past that WP:EW mentality and on to more discussion. Now that there's a fair amount of attention on these edits, how about we go through them and figure out what's best for the article. Here are a couple areas I think we could improve, for starters:

1. There appear to be a couple instances of WP:SYNTH in your additions. As one example: "Although now defined as a pseudoscience which has no scientific validity[ref Bennett] statistics show that belief and interest in astrology remains high amongst the general public.[ref Zarka]" Neither the Zarka nor the Bennett source (AFAICT) discuss both ideas at once, but we're directly linking them with the "Although X, Zarka says Y" language. We're also contrasting the scientific acceptance of astrology with public reception in a way that the latter implicitly undermines the former. I think that idea (as one example) needs to be fleshed out and worded better.
2. There are a couple issues with undue weight. As one example: "Historian of the exact sciences in antiquity David Pingree said of astrology...All of these subjects...were or are sciences within the contexts of the cultures in which they once flourished or now are practiced. As such they deserve to be studied by historians of science with as serious and thorough a purpose as are the topics that we usually find discussed in history of science classrooms." This is a long passage, alongside other similar passages, which is only very briefly contrasted with a short mention that Astrology is a pseudoscience. The takeaway from this section would appear to be that "some people say it's pseudoscience, but it's really very serious, has a long history of science, and should really be considered a science." I don't think that's what we mean to say, or what the literature supports, so I think we should rethink how we're phrasing this section, as one example, so it properly conveys the literature... in particular the scientific literature (since that's the subject being discussed.)
3. There are some controversial changes, which probably would have benefited from prior discussion. For instance, the removal of Mundane astrology was done contrary to some previous editorial decisions (made here and at AfD), and has garnered some subsequent interest in the section below. I would have hoped that this would have been discussed before being boldly undertaken. I'd like to see this idea fleshed out in a bit more detail before the section is removed again.
4. There were some strange removals of sourced content. It's really hard to tell from the flurry of editing why these sections were removed. Could we perhaps discuss them?

Thanks Zac. I'd really appreciate the input from DV as well, to see if his review of everything identified any other areas we could work on. I appreciate the help, here!   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Jess, I have made a personal response on your talk-page and I'll answer your comments succintly here:

• You say "as far as I can tell right now, some additions are probably positive, while others could probably be improved (and/or need discussion)." - I don't doubt this, whilst it is also obvious that the effect of my contributions is to significantly improve the content and take it forward. To return it to its previous state is to return the page to a state in which it becomes eligible for deletion. So that makes no sense; unless someone has a reason to want this kind of content to remain in poor state.
• You say "I've seen a lot of edit warring on this article and others involving your edits, and I'd really appreciate if we could get past that WP:EW mentality and on to more discussion." There is no edit warring on this article - there is only the disruptive editorial behaviour of DV's attempt to undo everything, and his canvassing of your support for this. Are you suggesting, as DV does, that if I dare to contribute, despite his constant reversals of my content here and elsewhere, I must be displaying an obstinate, edit-warring mentality? Stand back and take a look at the bigger picture - can you honestly and in good conscience suggest that the page is better off as it was, the state you would have it returned to? The state where it was put up for deletion? I'm sure you don't. Let's just move forwards.
• The psuedoscience comment was extracted from the main astrology page; and I placed it in the lede to ensure that ths page does not get targetted by editors on with an anti-astrology bias. I am happy to remove that. If can be omitted altogether or if you want to propose an alternative please do. My intention was 1) to eliminate the potential for any concerns (re astrology v mainstream) and 2) qualify the importance of the subject matter of the page by showing that astrology is known to be still very popular and (as the Pingree quote shows) that its history is worthy of serious interest. The latter is a point well made in the introduction to this page, but there is no problem to remove that addition also if you deem it controversial. The subject of who is studying this topic and why, along with what books and resources are respected and most influential is perhaps something that should be added as a section at the end of the article. If we can move onwards.
• Mundane astrology - explained in full below, an obvious improvement. Even ItsmeJudith's concern about there not being one cast-iron reliable reference is answered by the fact that I had added one myself.
• "There were some strange removals of sourced content. It's really hard to tell from the flurry of editing why these sections were removed. Could we perhaps discuss them?" - certainly. I tried to be very careful to retain anything that had references, unless it was obviously misplaced or innapropriate for some obvious reason. But of course, everything remains easily accesible in the page history so any removed content that you would prefer to have included can easily be added back in. Note the talk-page section that identifies text I removed and placed here for discussion and evaluation. I would say, just add it back to the article anything that you feel offers benefit to the reader and improves the article. Easier to do that than reinstate everything to worst case scenario and I'm unlikely to object to any contributions that other editors make, if they have actually looked at the material and deemed to be useful.

I will return the content and make the alterations that you and Mistymorn have suggested, so we have something in reasonable shape to be working from. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening lede sentence

The opening text of the lede has been changed from:

Astrology, the belief in a connection between the cosmos and terrestrial matters has played an important part in human history, influencing world-views, language and many elements of social culture.

to:

Astrological beliefs in causal connections between cosmic observations and terrestrial events have influenced various aspects of human history, including world-views, language and many elements of social culture.

This can't be correct though, since it implies that astrology is only about causal connections, and as the article explains, the subject extends beyond that in many ways. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your objection. Different astrological traditions have been relevant in different cultural spheres in many different ways, agreed. To my knowledge, all the different traditional systems share an implicit belief that observed celestial phenomena can somehow directly influence human events (as distinct from indirect influences linked to the belief itself - eg [1], [2]/[3]). As I understand it, this shared property provides the basis for considering "astrology" as a single topic. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I have just made an edit to try to combine the two versions, so it now reads: "Astrology, the belief in a connection between the cosmos and terrestrial matters, has influenced various aspects of human history, including world-views, language and many elements of social culture."

My concern is that we don't suggest that astrology is only about causal connections. Of course it involves them, but it's not exclusive to them. If you feel strongly feel free to change as you see fit since I've made the point of my concern. Regards, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of astrology which doesn't assume some sort of belief in causal connections?

No offence meant, but to me the phrase "a connection between the cosmos and terrestrial matters" seems so vague as to be effectively meaningless.

What sort of connection? Between what and what? Surely there was always a shared belief that phenomena observed in celestial star patterns exert some sort of direct influence on events of human interest?

Regards, —MistyMorn (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I've only been able to view the abstracts but those links look fascinating. When I find time I'd like to read those papers properly. Astrology does not ignore causality; it definitely considers any sort of direct influence and includes that within its 'bag of tools'. But causality is not a fundamental principle. I am copying firstly below from the Core principles section of the main astrology page, and then from one of the quotes given at the end of the secion on Medieval and Renaissance Europe on this article page to show how difficult it is to try to define astrology as something that can be bracketed into any kind of precise definition with regard to cause and effect (the emboldening is mine). I can find more if you need it, but I hope this shows that, in regard to the lede comment, it's more reliable not to imply that causality is an essential principle of astrology .

A central principle of astrology is integration within the cosmos.[12] The individual, Earth, and its environment are viewed as a single organism, all parts of which are correlated with each other.[13] Cycles of change that are observed in the heavens are therefore said to be reflective (not causative) of similar cycles of change observed on earth and within the individual.[14] This relationship is expressed in the Hermetic maxim "as above, so below; as below, so above", which postulates symmetry between the individual as a microcosm and the celestial environment as a macrocosm.[15]

Historian of science Ann Geneva reports: "Astrology in seventeenth cenury England was not a science. It was not a Religion. It was not magic. Nor was it astronomy, mathematics, puritanism, neo Platism, psychology, meterology, alchemy or witchcraft. It used some of these as tools; it held tenets in common with others; and some people were adept at several of these skills. But in the final analysis it was only itself: a unique divinatory and prognostic art embodying centuries of accreted methodology and tradition".[49]

-- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

@MistyMorn, thank you for bringing up the reasonable supposition that astrology "assumes some sort of belief in causal connections" between celestial phenomena and human affairs. This is a common point of confusion when non-astrologers try to understand astrology. In the past century, the dominant trend in western astrology has been away from any belief in such a causal connection. Rather, modern astrologers posit an acausal connecting principle, often citing Jung's synchronicity as a philosophical explanation. (The general idea of an acausal connecting principle between internal mental states and external events appears earlier in the well-known Monadology of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 00:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Modern trends aside, I do agree that a History article such as this should aim to represent appropriately the original belief systems and how they were experienced. In that spirit, I've reworded the opening statement to try to make it a bit more specific and inclusive:

Astrological beliefs in correspondences between celestial observations and terrestrial events have influenced...

—MistyMorn (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I see that Makesense64, a previous contributor, has worked over the lede to move it torwards a more neutral style. I wonder if it was the lede that caused so much concern - I really didn't give that a lot of thought so edits by others are very useful. Rather than begin a new section on the lede whilst this ongoing, I'll move my previous post up to sit under this.

For my own part, I think the lede is better now for the removal of the text Jess had issues with. Sometimes less is more. With regard to the lede: I contributed some text from other pages in order to give this page a lede because all it had by way of introduction beforehand was a tag stating that the page needed citations. I am not personally attached to the content of the lede. If anyone thinks it can be improved then I hope they realise the best policy is to make the change, and not just undo every constructive edit that has been made to the article. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC) -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I also support building an NPOV lede for this History article. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)