Talk:Hindu astrology

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

proposed external link: "Vedic Astrology -- critically examined"
I'd like to propose the following external link: "Vedic Astrology -- critically examinied" for addition to the article.--Other Choices (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an unreliable source, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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


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

Complements only
I added "Rather astrologers generally prefer to only predict generic complementary things to specific individuals", the source says "the golden rule seems to be “predict only those things which please the listener’s ego." IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have two problems with the proposed sentence. First of all, the use of the word "generic" contradicts the source's earlier statement that Hindu astrologers make SPECIFIC predictions about outer-world events (which should be easily amenable to scientific testing).  Secondly, the source uses the phrase SEEMS TO BE.  By attempting to insert what follows that all-important qualifier into the article -- without also inserting the qualifier -- you transform a statement of subjective personal impression into a statement of fact.  In other words, the deleted sentence isn't true to the source.--Other Choices (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed external link - AIFAS
I agree that this article, and "external links", is not the place for a list of commercial astrologers, but it seems to me that it would be appropriate to link to the professional organization: "All India Federation of Astrologers' Societies" http://www.aifas.com/federation/about-aifas  Also at footnote 31 reference is made to the "Indian Astrologers Federation" (circa 1982), which because AIFAS was founded in 2001, must be a different organization, but which if it has an explanatory web page should also deserve a link. --Bejnar (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Having laid this before the editors of this article for two weeks, and no objections having been stated, I will go forward and add the external link, not because of any personal belief in astrology, I agree that it is a pseudo-science at best, but because the linked website is evidence of Indian belief or, to take a negative approach, evidence of chicanery in this area. --Bejnar (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Status of astrology
The section on "Status of astrology" is not about whether or not astrology is a science, there is a separate section "Science" for that discussion. The section is about how astrology is regarded, particularly among Hindus. On 23 March 2014, editor Jim1138 reverted an edit to this section stating ''the Times of India is not RS on what is or is not science. Neither is the Supreme Court. I agree with that statement, but the The Times of India was not used as a citation for the fact that astrology is a science, but for the statement that some''  held the belief that it was a "science" (scare quotes). In other words, that in India some hold a belief that astrology is a "science". While the edit was restored, the current version, in an effort to avoid insinuations that astrology is a science does not clarify the extent of such belief in India. I would call upon neutral editors, such as Other Choices, to rectify this omission. I should note that this belief is not unique to India, see, e.g., "More and More Americans Think Astrology Is Science" (February 2014) citing an NSF survey. --Bejnar (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the earlier version didn't clarify the extent of such belief in India, either, as nobody has brought forward relevant reliable sources. Also, we have to be careful not to use wikipedia's voice to report as fact an assertion (such as the conclusion that astrology is science) that is reported in a reliable source.  Especially on subjects like astrology, where wikipedia has come down very definitely in favor of the conclusion that astrology is "pseudo-science."  That's just the way it is; it's part of the environment here at wikipedia.--Other Choices (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

confusion between hinduism and India
Reading this article seems like Hinduism is limited within India only. But Hinduism is one of the main religion in Nepal also. Here indian astrology and Hinduism are used as analogy And is Modern India suitable in this article? AmRit GhiMire &#39;Ranjit&#39; (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think it OK. To avoid the article being "India-centric", it would be best to have other countries included. You could add a "Modern Nepal" section. It would need to be wp:sourced, of course. Any other countries that should be included? This would seem to be pertinent: WikiProject Countering systemic bias Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Huge removal of content
, have removed a lot content that was added much before to this article. It is related with the subject. Regarding its removal, I would like to hear more from User:Amrit Ghimire Ranjit. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how the context of Modern India is related with the topic of Astrology.

It is just making the article India-centric when demography shows Nepal contain more percentage of Hindus than in India but even This article is totally concentrating on India as if Hinduism is of India only. User:Bladesmulti AmRit GhiMire &#39;Ranjit&#39; (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Nepal contain more percentage of Hindus". Eh? There are about 20 million hindus in Nepal, but nearly 1 billion in India. Clearly there are vastly more hindus in India, Second Quantization (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am talking of percentage not of number. Next minority doesnot mean their absence Hinduism is not of India only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not really any good reason to remove those long term changes. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But making a religion nation centric must be either edited or removed and I am doing the same. Why are u undoing it repeatedly? I hope it will be cleaned. User:Bladesmulti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talk • contribs) 10:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that you picked percentages as a measure, it's a rather silly measurement of importance for Hinduism. Anyway, the criteria on wikipedia is reliable sources (WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT), and it's sourced content you appear to be removing. Second Quantization (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean any India related sourced information can be added to a page of religion?

I am not using percentage for importance but I am using it to indicate that Hinduism is not only in India AmRit GhiMire &#39;Ranjit&#39; (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Actually, that is parroted frequently and I once believed it, but we really do not know. Judging by the existence of physiognomy in very old Mesopotamian, Persian and even Jewish texts (Qumran Caves), the idea of a link between an individual's natal chart and their body/tempermant/destiny is probably much older and more Eastern than Greek astrology. In fact it's in the oldest astrolog texts we have (Sumerian). What authors like David Pingree are actually noting is that during the Hellenic period after Alexander the Great came to India there was a faster diffusion of ideas between these cultures as notable in Indian texts on astrology that have titles suggesting greek authors. Early orientalists were only too happy to accuse India of borrowing its culture from the Greeks without asking where the Greeks learned the zodiac (it's a lot older than Ptolemy), or why all the most famous innovative 'Greek' philosophers came from asia minor with Persian ideas. Any indologist will tell you the oldest extant text on any topic in India likely records traditions that are much older but were taught orally. It would be remarkable if every culture on every side of India had horoscopy thousands of years before India herself.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Basic material to restore
Once upon a time this was a pretty good, comprehensive article, but now it's obvious that a whole bunch of stuff was removed at some point. For example see Hindu_astrology, where vargas are mentioned and then it just cuts off. Going back through the history, one finds these deletions from three years ago, which can be viewed as this big diff. The deletions are in fact some very basic tenets of Jyotish that belong in a good online encyclopedia — it's not as if we lack the space for those additional bytes of text. If the article becomes too long then new articles can simply be spun off. Anyway, it may take some time to repair the damage but it's totally doable. --I A Huasca (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * you can add whatever you find to be relevant, any of us can check afterwards. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hindu astrology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628004005/http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl1812/18120970.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl1812/18120970.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/allahabad/Set-up-Vedic-university-to-promote-astrology/articleshow/18411238.cms

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hindu astrology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312031320/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hindu_Chronology to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hindu_Chronology

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

my edit of the testing section
re my edit of testing section. A precis of the article could be ' some people  did a test somewhere at some time and it proved that astrology doesn’t work' Hardly an enlightened or in depth critique of JyotishI  I initially added my text to previous text to give some balance to the article, however my edit was deleted. The previous text is totally dismissive of the subject, unbalanced unfair, vague, random and insulting to the many modern day researchers in the field (B.a.v.a. , C.V.A. ,A.C.V.A. and many other organisations researching the field) Does the author have any experience and understanding of the subject. The aim of the article seems to be only to decry and denigrate the  validity of jyotish which is part of the ancient vedic knowledge bank which also includes ayurveda stapatyaveda(Architecture) and other branches of knowledge. As the heading of this section is 'Testing' then it is obvious that the testing should be of the validity of process in terms of the correlation of predicted events versus actual life events and timings  thereof of. This is done by drawing up the individual  chart  for the person according to the methodology of jyotish. , and making an analysis of  the of predicted timing and nature of events in the life of the person and the actual life experience of the person. An example of this analysis is provided in ‘Light on life’ a book by Hart de Fouw (a highly respected vedic astrologer) .It should be up to the individual to weigh up evidence and make their own decision as to the veracity and validity of the predictive system. Surely the purpose of wikapedia is to provide information which will allow readers to investigate and form their own conclusions, and not to present entrenched opinions and beliefs (i.e. astrology has no relevance or basis) as facts. Kahouna Dreaming (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see wp:FALSEBALANCE, and wp:FRINGE; what constitutes a wp:reliable source and what does not: wp:NOTRS. Also, please see Talk:Hindu astrology/Archive 1 and Talk:Astrology as well as the extensive archives on Talk:Astrology. The accuracy and testability of astrology has been discussed ad nauseam.
 * As an aside: Try doing a chart on these fellows on list of rampage killers and Lists of murders. Does it predict their spree? If it does, why don't all police forces use astrology to find them or at least narrow the list of suspects? I image some police might, but if it worked, why not all police forces? Jim1138 (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also see: Astrology and science. However, the source you cited is not considered reliable.  We need secondary non-self-published scholarly sources, which are the ones we then summarize.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is my comment previously posted on Jim1138 talk page. I will answer the last point about my source ,please check the facts before you make untrue assertions the book is Light on life authors Hart de Fouw; Robert Svoboda published by Lotus books Lotus Press facebook page. It is most definativel not self published! As for your aside I will reply to that later when I have time. I have not seen your reply to the below points about testing section of the hindu astrology page.The section is unbalanced; not every one shares your skeptic stance. There are many national associations of vedic astrology. they are composed of dedicated researchers into the subject of Jyotish. Many of these people have high academic qualifications (i.e. David Frawley, Dennis Flaherty .Ronnie Gale Dreyer Gary Gomes,Karina Weil,Dennis M. Harness. I could continue... These are just a small sample. This subject (Jyotish) with its vedic traditions should be treated more respectfully and not dismissed, with no counter argument, by an author who probably has little or no interest in and probably not much knowledge of the subject (after all why would you bother researching a subject which you consider worthless!) The so called RS source which you quote in your 27 astrologers article would not meet any scientific criterion of a valid test. Over half of the astrologers used were amateurs (hobbyists as described  ) the children used in the experiment were chosen by members of the skeptic organisation and lastly no accurate birth data was used (birth times did not come from birth certificates) It amazes me that you (or somebody) considers this as RS! Your source Dr Jayant Narlikar betrays his motives. He tries to maintain that Jyotish probably came to India from Greece and has no place in the vedic tradition as no mention is made in the four vedas (yajur,Sama, Rig and atharva) as a matter of fact neither do they mention ayurveda(which now has received acceptance in medical circles) stapatyaveda, bhagavad gita ,puranas, bramha sutras and many other works including Parashara (the founder of Jyotish). Parashara is the atributed author of certain sections of the Ṛigveda i.e.   verses 1.65-73 which are all in praise of Agni (the sacred fire), and part of 9.97 (v.31-44) which is in praise of Soma. This links Jyotish to the Rig veda via Parashara. To suggest that this classic work, written in sanskrit somehow came from Greece is laughable. Dr Jayant Narlikar wished to separate Jyotish from the vedic pantheon so that he may more easily dismiss it. The vedic philosophy and all of its branches of knowledge is held in reverence in India. Many universities offer degree courses in Jyotish. People with skeptic views will probably find this an anathema, however the lack of balance being demonstrated in this article does nothing to improve the current lack of credibility which wikipedia is experiencing. I look forward to seeing your response to this comment, and why I you think should not make the proposed amendments to the testing section of the article.Kahouna Dreaming (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed 's nor my issues above. Content on Wikipedia is based on what wp:reliable sources state. It is not based on what your, mine, nor others' opinion is. Nor is it based on what is popular, i.e. "held in reverence in India" - argumentum ad populum. The world is full of adherents claiming their beliefs are valid. See category:Fringe theory for a list of lists.
 * Please list sources of tests/trials/experiments using scientific method-based scientific testing that has resulted in a significant result. Beware of fringe journals. Jim1138 (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If you read the above carefully you will see that I have addressed most of the points you listed except your olice question. Kahouna Dreaming (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As PaleoNeonate stated, your sources are not RS. Skeptical Inquirer is considered RS. Perhaps you should take your argument to wp:RSN. Jim1138 (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

"Science" section - does it even belong in this article?
I'm relatively new to editing, but the "Science" section in this article seems a bit exhaustive, I could understand a short sentence noting that there is no scientific evidence for claims made by Hindu astrologers, but an entire section attempting to debunk astrology as a whole in what should be an informative article on a specific sect of astrology? It seems irrelevant & unnecessary, especially with the "Status of astrology" section already linking to the Astrology and Science article. Cota-b (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The wording leaves much to be desired, but an accounting of the failures of astrologers to make good on their claims seems to be a recurrent theme in reliable sources on this subject. Removal of the section would be wrong. Renaming it to something like, "Unsubstantiated claims and failed predictions" might be better. jps (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Greece influences
Heavily Grecro centric assertions are worthy of discussion but cannot be considerd as facts. Greek Astrology had influence over Indian Jyotisha but cannot be said to be its Mother due to significant Astronomical data found in Vedic age literature and heavily different styles of computing and interpreting Birth Horoscopes one such example is Dasha which is very important in Jyotisha but isnt found in Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4043:2099:17C5:AD61:AC3:EC02:82A0 (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS and WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge from Jyotisha
Merge tag added by User:Dbachmann.
 * Support merger into Hindu astrology. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism by James G. Lochtefeld equates Jyotisha and astrology. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is very obvious merge suggestion by . The practitioners of Hindu astrology are called Jyotisha. Jyotisha is an unnecessary duplication of the content and should be immediately merged. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Misleading use of sources in intro
The sources cited at the end give the impression that they link to sources concerning "protest from the scientific community" regarding "a judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2001". None of the sources provide such information. They only provide information on why scientists consider "astrology" - not even considering variations in astrology, which is important for a clarify article like this - to be a pseudo-science.

Hindu astrology status as "pseudo-science" may or may not be established, regardless, this paragraph misleads the reader into thinking that the "protest from the scientific community that astrology is a pseudoscience" regarding "a judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2001" is being cited, instead it is unrelated articles. None of the articles mention the Andhra Pradesh ruling and especially the scientific communities' response to THAT event.

MrOllie stated in changed Title is literally "Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience". I would like to again point to the fact NONE OF THE CITED ARTICLES 1) point to the Andhra Pradesh judgement itself this remains unsourced. There is no sources that the Andhra Pradesh ruling was protested by the scientific community, or protest against advanced degrees in Hindu Astrology. All the sources say is that Astrology is a pseudo-science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygxqaxqorgkernthlk (talk • contribs) 03:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Deliberate misspelling/Lead cleanup
Deliberate misspelling of Vedanga Jyotisa as ‘Jyotishya’ aimed at making it look like VJ is about Astrology. And second paragraph in the Lead look like a total mess. ChandlerMinh (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

A new book
Was reading Le discours du destin: La pratique de l’astrologie à Bénarès —keeping me occupied for the last few days— and wonder, if this article is worth salvaging. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Citations reviewing Western astrology and proclaiming it a psuedoscience are not relevant to a page about Hindu astrology.
Sources are meant to back up and reflect the claims being made. SpruceyWind (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Hindu astrology is a subset of astrology, and statements about astrology as a whole clearly include it - there is nothing in Hindu astrology that makes it unique. Secondly, the last source cited in the lede explicitly discussed Hindu astrology as a pseudoscience (I haven't looked further, other sources may well do to). And lastly, given attempts by the Indian government to portray 'Vedic astrology' as science, in direct opposition to overwhelming scientific consensus, there is no question that the description is entirely accurate for contemporary Hindu astrology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)