Talk:Vedic astrology

The NDA/UGC flap
So far, I have some media references for this, e.g They could do at a pinch, but better ones are needed to cover the affai r properly. rudra (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * HS Virk in Current Science
 * SC decision in the Hindu
 * Article in Frontline

I do not understand why you separated this for Jyotisha, seeing that "Vedic astrology" is simply a term for Jyotisha in popular usage. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose of this article is to document the neologism, not the astrology. This by now possibly effective renaming of Jyotisha is notable in its own right, if not at least as a sociological process (mediated by the feel-good vibes that the adjective "vedic" was calculated to convey -- I mean really, who are we kidding here?)  It has also figured in controversies (the UGC flap, the ongoing tug-of-war with various vedic-come-lately things, like "vedic science", "vedic mathematics", etc.)  And none of this is really topical for an article on Jyotisha (which is the focus of Jyotisha), as opposed to being "about" it instead -- and that too because of its newfound "vedicity".  Do we really need a crufty section about this supposed vedicity in the Jyotisha article, which is enough of a disaster area already?  We can cleanly document all those bogus claims (Frawley, et al) here. rudra (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read about OR. Odin 85th gen (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles on neologisms are about the terms and their usage. Please find a better argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. rudra (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is your own personal theory. It has no place on Wikipedia. Odin 85th gen (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The links to this name do not concern nomenclature, but simply intend Hindu astrology, and so this gets expanded by people expecting to find a full article on the subject. At best this would be at "Vedic astrology (term)", with "Vedic astrology" being a redirect to the main article, but IMO there is not enough material to warrant a separate article regardless. — kwami (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This article has major problems
There are three major problems with this article:


 * 1. It violates Wikipedia editorial rules. It not only is based on OR but it is also POV, with a branding argument. As it now stands, the article implies that the adjective Hindu is the appropriate one for the astrology coming out of India given the many arguments against the more popular adjective Vedic. Moreover, the main argument about 'branding' is not only one sided and controversial, but it comes without citations. Who has ever heard about this argument before? Fittingly, there is no mention of or references that would support an opposing point of view.
 * 2. Mostly, the material here is a content fork
 * 3. There are sections that don't belong here and are covered elsewhere. First, the argument about the origin of Indian astrology is already covered in the History of astrology article. Second, the section on Indian Universities is already discussed in the main article.

A logical solution would be to simply delete this article and merge the 'nomer/misnomer' issue into the main article on Jyotisa - to the extent that the description conforms to Wikipedia editorial rules. Odin 85th gen (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merged; moved to Hindu astrology per WP:English and NPOV. — kwami (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)