Talk:Natal chart

Untitled

Seems to me like people just want to attack astrology who are attacking the article. The point of this article is not to be scientifically accurate. The point of this article is to record what current beliefs about the subject are, and if you hamper a person who believes in it from responding with what they believe in then it won't be recorded accurately. If you want to start an article that disputes the legitimacy of astrology then it should be made on a separate page. Your views on the subject are very ethnocentric and people who use science to attack astrology are much like closed minded religious people who attack everyone who does not believe in what they believe in. I believe the point of science was never to attack any belief system, but to broaden the mind and our horizons in a very neutral and logical way. To focus on why a flower blooms and not how it wasn't made by God. In short it doesn't seem like you are making a point of how this article is not neutral, but at the incorrectness of astrology in the first place and the criticism of anyone who would believe in it. Well it exists, people still believe in it, and its not for you to say what people to believe in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.83.253 (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Legitimate astrology

"The natal/astrological chart is the basis of legitimate astrology..." ...what is legitimate astrology? 24.107.41.65 06:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

That was my comment when I wasn't signed in. Ardric47 06:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a serious NPOVing. Especially considering that the "professional" astrologers' predictions don't even pass statistical muster on agreed-upon tests (see this for a pointer to thre relevant studies. Furthermore, what is a "licensed ... astrologer"?Btyner 02:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! I don't know anything about astrology, though, so I'm flagging the article so that someone might notice it. Ardric47 06:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the above contributors have missed the point. "...legitimate astrology" is simply drawing a distinction between astrology done with conviction and that done for entertainment purposes. If a community of individuals has developed licenses for such use, that's their business. The statistical/empirical merits of astrology have no bearing on this entry; the definition of "natal chart" is the issue at hand. Get a grip.

Fair enough, but the article should explain that. In any case, that entire paragraph contains overly defensive language that is not NPOV. It would be nice if there were an article about the "professional licenses," but again, I don't know anything about the subject. Ardric47 23:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The text is written entirely from the point of view of an obvious believer. The style is not formal enough and quite disturbing for the eyes of an objective scientist.SYS64738 18:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's almost 2010 now and I see that the same problem exists as mentioned in 2006. This article postures astrology as some kind of legitimate science despite the fact that it offers no explanation as to how planets can impact human personality at the moment of birth. There is also no discussion about the time differences ... if nothing can travel faster than light, then each planet would have to "do its thing" a few minutes BEFORE the exact time of birth... since light travels at 186,000 miles per second and takes about 3 minutes to get from the sun to earth. LemonBerry (talk)

A peer review

Okay, for one thing, I suggest we deep-six the whole "legitimate" astrology vs. "Sun-sign" astrology paragraph. That's interesting for astrologers to argue about, but I don't see its relevance to an article on the natal chart. Firstly, it's a leap, and does not help define the natal chart. Someone looking for an explanation of the concept of the "natal chart" needs to see an article clearly defining it, not an argument about sun-signs. Secondly, it's argumentative, and as Ardric47 quite rightly points out, why indulge in defensive language in this context? I do think a separate article on "Sun-sign astrology" would be a very good addtion to Wiki and these issues might be fairly exposed there. Another fairly minor suggestion is that "horoscope" is not the natal chart, strictly. "Horoskopos" was the Greek term for the marker of the time of birth, and as such, has come to be associated with the Ascendant--but as a point in the chart, not necessarily as the time of birth. A Lot, such as the Lot of Fortune, could be used as a "horoskopos"--in place of the Ascendant--to use the resulting house placements to help delineate issues specific to that Lot, and this sort of thing was frequently done in Hellenistic times. The language is certainly not a POV issue otherwise. Does anyone object to these suggestions? NaySay 17:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Random Question

What would happen with respect to the birth chart if someone was bon somewhere other than on Earth (Eg on the Inrternational space station or the Moon, or somewhere else entirely)? Cryomaniac 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a six year old question, but you can find a rather neat attempt at natal charts for the Martian rovers here--66.61.118.205 (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

EXTERNAL LINKS - This page has been vandalized

It seems this page Natal BirthChart has been open to vandalism; in response to this blatant link selling astrosoftware - ALL external links have been suspended. The reason cited to wikipedia is :- due to some astrosoftware company trying to sneak a link in this page to sell their goods, contravening WIKEPEDIA rules; if they attempt to insert any link in wikipedia again that is selling services or selling their software they will be barred permanently. This is a warning to that company.

An anonymous user removed all the links after a blatant attempt at increasing her site's traffic. The nature of this topic is so prone to that sort of thing I felt it was better to allow it and remove the heading instead of having to explain why one was kept and another was deleted, especially considering the ones that were kept advertise paid services in addition to free ones. Sam 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[addition by 66.176.64.120 removed by them]

I'm not sure what you mean, but please stop replacing the Astrodienst link with your own website. Astrodienst is at least providing a very extensive and free service; yours on the other hand is entirely for-pay and you offer no substantial resource. It would also be preferred if you used your registered account instead of contributing with your IP. Sam 13:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ with you it is you who is replacing my link with all three of your links which are all connected and inter-related. I do write extensively and offer more than enough resources. I have always given away the Natal charts free of charge my enitre 20 year professional career. I provide very popular horoscopes and articles which the thousands of visitors to my website enjoy. How about I announce it on my website to the thousands of readers that I am being harrassed here on wikipedia. Wake up all of the sites listed are for profit. It is a neccessary evil but there is room for everyone. Let the public decide. not you.

I don't mean to come off as pedantic and tyrannical and I don't have any animosity towards you, so I apologize if you got that impression.

I never replaced your link with anything; all of my edits concerning your link have been reversions. Please note that your link has been removed by two other users, and if you feel you're being harassed, you may contact those in authority here on Wikipedia.

In the future, please refrain from removing or editing others' additions to talk pages. It is considered vandalism.

Sam 23:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you know I don't offer free services, I calculate ever chart myself, it takes alot of my time and my assistant's time three types for FREE, the online computer generated charts are all flawed and in alot of cases incorrect anyone who really knows knows that. The three compnaies (all for profit) are all realted that's why my link and my link only keeps getting removed and yes I have already made a complaint and it is being monitored. Complaints file, arbitration requested and page monitored requested, Legal proceedings possible

I would rather not get into debate over the value of your link. The fact that it has been reverted by multiple users now should be an indicator to you that my view is not a minority one. In any case, please stop removing the interwiki from the page. Sam 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, none of the external links on this page do really add unbiased reliable information to the content of the wikipedia article. I do think that the commecial aspects of these websites should disqualify them from being listed. Wikipedia is not a 'yahoo' or 'google'. Rwos (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links - Commercial Sites

Removed Blue-Moon.com as it offers no free services and it is not a reference. Smptoday (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/66.176.64.120

User:66.176.64.120 has requested assistance in a dispute over the editing of this article. It appears that the dispute is over the use of external links in the article. 66.176.64.120 is keen to include a link to a site run by Terry Nazon. Other editors are not so keen. I would be interested to hear people's comments. External links can be a cause of concern for editors, especially when deciding which links to include out of a potential crowd. Guidance can be sought here: Wikipedia:External links. I don't know enough about the Natal chart topic to comment, however I did note that a google search did reveal a bunch of online natal chart services, and that the Wiki ethos would be that the most popular ones would be the ones to select. Also, in "Links normally to be avoided" in the External links guideline, point 6 is "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content." The Terry Nazon site requires an email registration. However, I can imagine that a counter argument would be that the online sites provide a poor service, and that the more detailed service provided by the Terry Nazon site is worth considering. I would suggest that some discussion on the subject here on this talk page might resolve the issue more conclusively than a continued revert war. SilkTork 19:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Without even considering the link, on Wikipedia:External links it states, "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked."

Now, considering the link: It is quite clearly a site for commercial purposes. While it may be claimed that she provides a natal chart service free of charge, I can't seem to find any mention of such a thing. If it does exist, it doesn't seem easily accessible. In fact, when following the sidebar link to "How to get a personal birthchart", it leads to how much each service costs, completely absent of any mention of a free service. Her link has been reverted multiple times on multiple pages, indicating to me that I am not the only one who feels it isn't a useful addition.

Comparing with the other links:

• Astro.com provides a very extensive chart calculation service. On the other hand they also offer quite a few commercial services.
• Planetarypositions.com has a Java applet which calculates a chart free of charge. I can't verify this as I don't have Java installed. As far as I can tell, they don't offer any substantial for-pay service.
• Alabe.com offers a chart calculation service free of charge. In addition they also have paid services.

Regarding the claim of harassment: I think it's quite clear nothing even close to harassment has occurred here. She has filed a AMA request but has yet to actually fill it out. Sam 23:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a counter argument that the Terry Nazon site provides a free, personally prepared chart. There is a simple click through link leading to an easy to complete form. The link provides an alternative to the three similar computer generated chart links. To overcome concerns that 66.176.64.120 is linking to her own website, I will enter the link myself. We are then only dealing with the issue of the genuine value of the link, rather than breaking any policy guidelines. I want to make it clear that I am not advocating the link should be on the article. I am, rather, advocating that the link is given a fair hearing, and that decisions regarding inclusion or not are clear and understandable. SilkTork 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to help in the matter. I would also at this time like to remove myself from any future discussions/actions concerning her link; this is exasperating. Sam 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:66.176.64.120 has again edited the link to the disputed website. As the user's advocate I am trying to present her case as strongly as I can. I have advised the user not to edit the link as there is a question of the website being a commercial website, and the user being the owner of the website. I have asked the user to enter into a dialogue here. I have again overwritten the user's contribution, so as it stands the link has been entered by myself and not by 66.176.64.120. I would ask that the link remain as it is until we have resolved this issue to the satisfaction of all concerned. SilkTork 00:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Link removed as commercial. User:66.176.64.120 failed to respond to requests to discuss. SilkTork 23:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

At the time of the dispute I went onto the Terry Nation website and requested a free chart to be emailed to me. Three months later it has arrived. There is no explanation with the chart. However there is this message: "If you don’t understand your natal chart or you just need help at this time in your life, you can get consultation with Terry directly at 1-888-334-7785 for only $3.99/min or an email consultation for only $45.00" and "Understand Your Chart Natal Report Special Pricing only $30.00". If a link to her site appears again it should be deleted. If people have problems regarding this they can get in touch with me. SilkTork 17:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Example

I would like to suggest replacing the current example of a natal chart with a well-known nativity. The current chart does not necessarily exemplify the concept of a natal chart because it isn't for anyone notable enough to distinguish between a horoscope drawn for any moment and an actual birth. A more famed nativity would be a better choice. Sam 22:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why I removed the paragraph

This is the paragraph I removed:

"It should be noted that as a division of astrology, a natal chart is part of a mythic system of divination based on a much-outdated and largely inaccurate system of celestial computations, and in any case has never been shown to have scientific meaning or relevance. Nevertheless, modern fascination with this mythology continues."

This is why I removed:

• a natal chart is not a division of astrology; it is a mean
• a natal chart is an accurate system of celestial computation (the paragraph states it is inaccurate) based on a conventional (not outdated as stated in the paragraph) division of the celestial sphere; this convention is clearly and deeply treated in the article Zodiac; the article Zodiac also explains why the conventional zodiac of western astrology is different from the zodiac of modern astronomy
• also: the article Astrology explains why a natal chart has no scientific meaning

The whole paragraph provides wrong informations together with some other information that is mostly relevant to other topics of astrology rather than the natal chart itself. Sorry, I revert again; this is not a plain rollback, just a suggestion to rewrite the paragraph in a more correct way.

--Achillu (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Rectification paragraph

I just stumbled upon this via the disambiguation page for rectification, and thought I'd learn what this term means in astrology. Instead, I get 2 paragraphs of long-winded waffling about the obvious fact that terms like "conception" and "birth" are ambiguous when applied to non-biological entities, followed by what looks like a severe case of cut-and-paste errors, followed (finally!) by the non-explanation "Rectification [...] is the process whereby a more accurate time for the coming into existence of an astrological chart is determined starting from a less accurate time for the coming into being of that astrological chart."

Count me confused. We appear to have moved into meta-astrology (the natal chart for an astrological chart?) without any prior warning, and there is no information at all about *how* rectification is done. Surely some astrology fan here can do better than this? 115.70.84.146 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do. If that really was what they intended to say, it's nothing like "rectification" as I know it! Wombat140 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Chart picture

"The picture to the above-right is a modern example of a natal chart as a modern Western astrologer would most likely view it"... It's nothing of the sort. It's a fancy mediaeval chart of a type I never recall seeing before. Can someone deal with this? Wombat140 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Replaced the chart with a modern computer-generated chart that shows the features that are described in the article. Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede section

Cleaned up the lede section. Edited to remove redundancies and wordiness, added several WP links, and introduced some terms required to understand a natal chart. Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources et al.

I have removed the supplied ref from...

"The accurate birth time (generally agreed upon as the first breath or intake of air) and location are necessary for the calculation of..."

Per...

1. WP:PRIMARY: That Kepler was stating something "generally agreed upon" is not a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."
2. WP:OR: Given the age and obliqueness of Kepler's works a secondary source is needed for almost any quotation not to be considered original research.
3. WP:RS: The "translated excerpts by Dr. Kenneth G. Negus" from C.U.R.A. The International Astrology Research Center are not a reliable source for the translation or interpretation of Kepler's writings.

— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Junior synonym of Horoscope

Since this term is just one of many junior synonyms of Horoscope, a better-cited article, there seems no possible reason why the articles should not immediately be merged. I'm therefore redirecting it now; if there is anything here that is reliably cited and that isn't already in that article (or in Astrology, again far better-cited, with which it also overlaps, then feel free to merge it to the appropriate section. There can't be much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)