Talk:Walter Berg (astrologer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Astronomer?[edit]

How is he an astronomer? There is nothing aboout astronomy in this article. Does he have a degree in astronomy? Is he working as an astronomer? Did he publish articles in astronomy? 84.0.117.252 (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The internets say that his name is Barry Parkinson and that he is an astronomer. Walter Berg is just the pen name he uses when he writes about astrology. But I haven't found anything reliable backing this up. --dab (𒁳) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The internets on this topic all reference an older version of the Wikipedia article exclusively. There are no publications or affiliations attributable to him, which is enough to safely say "not an astronomer". However, maybe one should look up his book in the library and see if there's information on the jacket. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are right. Strictly speaking, we don't have solid evidence to equate Walter Berg (ウォルター バーグ) with Barry Parkinson (バリー パーキンソン); both publish astrology books with Fusosha and I suppose it is clear in Japan that one is the pen name of the other, but since I do not speak Japanese I cannot really do much research on this (I have to rely on google translate). --dab (𒁳) 11:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Web archive[edit]

Thanks to archive.org, here is a defunct homepage: [1]. It seems this went offline in 2007. December 2006 ....After 18 years this will be my last monthly ‘Evening Sky’ feature. In any case, this explains where the unreferenced bio information came from. But no confirmation of the Parkinson-identity yet.

He states that his 13 Signs of the Zodiac "attracted much media interest" in 1995. Of course the media generating the "interest" based on Mr. Kunkle is incapable of remebering that "much interest" had already been generated 15 years earlier.

original research?[edit]

The part about 13 sign zodiac appears to be original research. Needs quality sources to support that part of the article. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Is it really ok to have a Wikipedia article listed as a source for a Wikipedia article? That puts even http://xkcd.com/978/ to shame... Ojh2 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]