Talk:Horoscope

Astrology Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occult

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Avoid ambiguous language

If there is a clear scientific consensus the phrasing must be clear as well. I changed the phrase "the methods used to make interpretations are generally considered pseudoscientific" to "the methods used to make interpretations are pseudoscientific". The information that there is a consensus is available in the first source to linked after this quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.175.235 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs adjustment for NPOV

I second the notion that this article needs some adjustment to achieve neutrality. As I read it, there doesn't seem to by anything in this article that would indicate to the reader that horoscopes are not broadly accepted as scientific. Perhaps a section could be added entitled "criticism?" Jminthorne (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather insulted that wikipedia even HAS articles on Horoscope and Astrology with even the slightest hint of a serious tone to it. This crap isn't a pseudoscience. It's nonsense.Tgm1024 (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Including criticism is fine and appropriate. (Don't use an inflammatory tone, tho'; try to be neutral; vicious rants of "Astrology is f***" are unprofessional and will turn people away from Wikipedia.) Btw, I removed Category:Pseudoscience as redundant (both the article Astrology and Category:Astrology are included in said category). Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hora

Hi,
I'm concerned about this. The source says that "The root word for Greek word Hora is derived from Tamil word Orai." This looks like folk etymology to me - it seems very unlikely that Tamil loanwords would have appeared in ancient Greek, although there is evidence of more recent loanwords travelling in the opposite direction. bobrayner (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek Hora comes from the Egyptian Horus. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

horoscopes and actual meaning to be included

add clear content 102.80.105.147 (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]