Talk:Astrology/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about Astrology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

References for the pseudo-science comments in the lede

I have started to apply style guidelines to the footnotes and list of sources - as a result I am checking through all the references given, to make sure that the reference reinforces the comment made. There are a number of problems with the references attached to the final paragraph of the lede which relates to the pseudoscience issue. Since can this become a controversial issue I want to check every point before making a copy edit. My first problem is with this comment:

The scientific community bases astrology's pseudoscientific status in its making predictive claims which either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved.

None of the following footnotes in the paragraph make this point, so I'm adding a citation request. The only one of the paragraph's 7 footnotes which relates to the criteria by which astrology is defined as a pseudoscience is the Thagard one attached to the following sentence - and even then the definition given here is not the one that Thagard presents.* To keep things simple and avoid a rewrite, can anyone here produce a reference which qualifies the comment as it is written above?

Thagard Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience

Zac Δ talk 01:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to consider very carefully whether Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience effectively prevents you from raising the issue here. The arbitrators have effectively ruled that for Wikipedia's purposes, astrology is pseudoscience (indeed, it is almost an archetype for this) - so if you want to argue that it isn't, you need to do it there, not here. I can see no objection for asking for references over this, but any attempt to remove the assertion from the lede is likely to be problematic. Whether this is a just or reasonable situation is of course open to debate (though not here), but that is the reality of the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

AndytheGrump - if you think there is any policy that prevents me from asking the question I have asked then you better go straight ahead and report me to someone. Alternatively you could re-read what I just posted with your blinkers off. Zac Δ talk 02:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you can't ask the question. All I'm doing is pointing out that not getting an answer might not permit you (according the the arbitration ruling) from doing anything much about it. However, I think this is entirely a hypothetical situation, as finding a citation that backs up the scientific community's rejection of astrology as pseudoscience will surely not be much of a task. If nobody steps in, I'll have a look myself tomorrow - I should be in bed by now... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

OK - this can wait. I am not trying to delete the comment, I am trying to substantiate it. I'm sure it won't be hard to reference. The comment says it is a pseudoscience "because it makes claims which either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved". This is where a reference is necessary, because the ones we have so far don't show that this is the reason. Thagard gives quite a different account of why astrology is a pseudoscience.

Whilst we are on this point, your comment above "it is almost an archetype for this" bears resemblance to the one on the page which says "In its modern form, it is a classic example of pseudoscience". I have added a citation request for that comment too. Like the general reader I have less experience of the sources on this issue (except the ones linked to on this page), and I don't see any of them making the suggestion that astrology is "a classic example of a pseudo-science". They mention it along with many other subjects without any particular spotlight thrown on astrology. For example, ref 8 mentions 10 pseudoscience topics

"Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body."

We need a reference to support the view that astrology is a "classic example"; otherwise the comment should say something like "In [year] astrology was categorised as a pseudoscience by [?]"(ref.) Or at least something that can be qualified by a reference to a reliable source. To use unnecessary and unqualified adjectives goes against WP guidelines on content. We report just the verifyable facts as supported by independent reliable sources, without puffing them up because of something that Wikipedia has ruled. Zac Δ talk 02:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Zac, I realize that you are pursuing good editorial policy and normally this would be a valid question to pursue. However, given that every nuance of the pseudoscience reference has been debated at great length earlier this year, is it possible to leave this controversial point and work on improving other parts of the article? Robert Currey talk 09:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem with me. I don't think it should be necessary for me to have to state this, but for the record, it was not in my thinking that the comments should be deleted. My objective is to see the quality of this article improved so it becomes a featured article on Wikipedia. Its a long-term objective; for it to happen the article must explain the relevant criticisms (but all comments need to adhere to WP standards). It's unfortunate that those pseudo-science references in the lede need attention because I was hoping to tidy up the lede as it stands right now. Some of the references are very poor and don't connect to the point being made. On the other hand others are very credible. So what's the policy here when, say, we have 4 references supposedly justifying one comment, but only two of them are directly relevant and of a 'reliable' standard? Isn't it better to remove questionable material of any form (even if it is a footnote) so that the attention goes to those that are significant?

I'll continue to add citation requests for comments that make definite remarks without qualification. I want to move beyond the lede myself and will procede as if walking on eggshells - at the same time we can't behave as if we are blind to any of the article's flaws. Zac Δ talk 10:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have moved this topic off the bottom of the page. Robert Currey talk 10:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

'Psychology' as a part of astrology.

I have removed the reference to psychology as being involved in astrological study. This is not only unreferenced, but looks like an attempt to get around the arbitration ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience) by linking astrology to a defined scientific field which rejects the very premises that astrology supports. If anyone attempts to reinsert this dubious claim, I reserve the right to take this to arbitration, with the intent of getting the ruling enforced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

AndytheGrump I think this is a bit ridiculous. Your edit revert comment said "removed thoroughly - misleading claim that astrology uses the science of psychology (as our linked article correctly describes it"

The lede said "As a practice, astrology is a combination of basic astronomy, numerology, divination and psychology". There was no stress on the word 'science' - no mention of the "science of psychology"; just as there was no mention of the "science of astronomy".

And how can you say it was unreferenced when there are so many references to the psychological relevancy of astrology already on the page. It is very easy for me to add a reference to qualify the comment, so why didn't you just add a "citation needed" tag?

I wonder if you actually bother to read the talk page discussions, because this has already been discussed enough to leave no logical reason for you to declare it to be a 'dubious claim'. I am going to copy below some of the comments I have already made on this myself. Please feel free to counter the arguments if you have valid points to make which are based on reliable sources and not your own preference for seeing the matter exactly how you want to see it.

[Peters S Strempel said] AndyTheGrump is right to ask for references, and I don’t think Robert will have difficulty finding citations for linking Carl Jung’s concept of synchronicity to some astrological discussion and practice.

[I replied: 10:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)] I’ve covered the gap identified in the 'clarification-needed' tag. But it seems to me that the page is already full of ample references to demonstrate the point.

With regard to psychology, Jung’s own words were

“Obviously astrology has much to offer psychology, but what the latter can offer its elder sister is less evident” (Jung, C.G., Letters, op.cit., 'Letter to André Baubault, 26 May 1954', p.174)

Is it necessary to add that to the page? The point seems to be demonstrated sufficiently already. To me it’s bizarre that editors here question the traditional association between astrology and psychology. Apart from the fact that there are notable astrological associations which specialize their focus on astrology as a means to explore psychology (for example: CPA – The Centre for Psychological Astrology); Jung’s reference to astrology as the elder sister of psychology demonstrates his knowledge of how astrology has always been involved in the exploration of the psyche, and that the classical philosophical discussions of astrology concerned the role of the anima, as the psychological probing of the universal and individual soul-mind.

We have clear references to this in masses of traditional astrological texts, going back to the most ancient sources which talk about assessment of the anima and how to use astrological techniques to determine behavioural predisposition and character. We find this in the astrological works of Ptolemy and Alkindi and many, many others. Indeed, Alkindi’s name is notable in the history of psychology as being one of the first to formalize the study of psychology: see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-kindi/ for how his argument “consists entirely of supposed quotes from Greek authorities – Plato, Pythagoras, and Aristotle – about the nature of the soul”.

Hence when ancient Greek and medieval and renaissance astrological texts give instruction on how to determine the quality of the soul, they are engaging in psychology. There is no question that the study of psychology contributes to the study of astrology; this is well established in both the historical and contemporary understanding of the word.Zac Δ talk 10:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

So please explain to me why you hold to your view that astrology does not, and has not always, involved psychological assesment of temperament and character. (And if you are not prepared to present an argument, then don't edit the content of the page as if there are not others here who already have). Zac Δ talk 13:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Psychology is a science - one that has expressly rejected the claims of astrology. That practitioners of astrology can drag up past links between the subjects is irrelevant. Anyone practising astrology now is not using psychology as it is currently defined, and to claim otherwise is misleading. Or can you point to reputable institutions that teach astrology as a part of psychological practice? Astrology is a pseudoscience, psychology is a science (one that rejects astrology as unscientific), and any attempt to conflate the two is contrary to the arbitration ruling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

AndytheGrump - have you read the comment at the top of this page - where psychology is defined as 'questionable science' which some criticise for being a pseudoscience? I think I understand better the point you are making now - but what do you suggest as a solution to this? The fact is that astrology entails psychological profiling and it has a long-established history in the development of the study of psychology. However, I agree with you that the study of astrology should not be made to look directly comparable to the modern study of psychology. Yes, that would be wrong. On the other hand there are many qualified Jungian analysts, all properly trained in the modern 'science' of psychology, and they do use astrology as the vehicle of expression of their psychological technique. So it is not possible to discuss astrology without acknowledging its psychological element. So what do you recommend as the way to deal with this ? Zac Δ talk 14:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User AndytheGrump writes: "I have removed the reference to psychology as being involved in astrological study." Can I ask; if there are psychologists that employ astrology in conjunction with their psychology or psychological practice specifically to gain psychological insight in their work does this count as a form of astrological/psychological connection being involved together in astrological "study?"Logical 1 (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read that again. It is psychoanalysis that is defined as 'questionable science'. This is beside the point though. If you are going to claim that astrology has a 'psychological element' you need to clarify how. Certainly, the science of psychology is useful in understanding why astrology is seen by some to work - as the lede makes clear when it discusses cognitive bias - but if you are going to assert that it is 'using' psychology you need to provide evidence that directly links the methods of psychological study with the methods of astrology. I think much of the problem revolves around the rather loose way the term 'psychology' is often used - in a crude sense, everyone uses it all the time, but as a science psychology proper requires an objectivity and verifiability that is singularly lacking in astrology. Perhaps what we need is a term for the 'folk-psychology' that is involved in everyday human discourse - I've no objection to that being included as part of the 'study' - indeed, I think that it has a role in a sense that the 'stars' don't (something which psycological science seems to also imply). What is clearly wrong though is to simply use the term 'psychology', with an internal link to an article which describes it in the strict 'scientific' meaning, rather than the 'folk' one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is this section named "psychology as part of astronomy"? Don't you mean "psychology as part of astrology"?

In his preface in his book "The Astrologer's Guide to Counselling" psychotherapist Bernard Rosenblum, MD writes the following:

This book is written from the point of view of a psychotherapist who believes that good astrology can make a profound contribution to the growth of the spirit and consciousness of people today. It can be of significant assistance to the psychotherapist in particular, and in various ways, the most important being the excellent psychological overview of the patient that it provides.

Just as many astronomers reject astrology so do many psychologists. Are we going to claim next that astronomy, because it is a science, cannot be a part of astrology and all references to it should be removed? Even if we argue that astrology is not a science, or even that psychology is not a science, what has that to do with astrologers incorporating ideas from psychology or psychologists incorporating ideas from astrology? This seems to be another case of an editor wishing to advance a personal agenda against a subject's validity, as discussed by the concerns of Paul Quigley (July 15). Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about this. Certainly astrology makes use of basic astronomy, though it's pre-scientific astronomy, from the days before they were separate fields. It addresses some of the same issues as psychology, but does not make use of what we currently think of as psychology. Perhaps it would be better to reverse things, and rather than saying it makes use of either astronomy or psychology, make a statement to the effect that both astronomy and (partially) psychology grew out of astrology? — kwami (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to argue about whether astrology is a science or not. Arbitration has ruled that it isn't, and those that think otherwise will either have to argue (not here) that this ruling be overturned, or argue their case off-Wikipedia. And can we not have weasel words about how 'many' astronomers reject astrology etc. This is pure humbug. The overwhelming majority of astronomers consider astrology bunk, as do the overwhelming majority of psychologists. As for having a 'personal agenda', yes I have one - to contribute towards making Wikipedia an encyclopaedia that discusses subjects objectively, and doesn't allow dubious linkages between science and pseudoscience to be inserted into articles by proponents of said pseudoscience.

(Thanks for pointing out the error in the section title by the way - pure incompetence on my part) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ken McRitchie, I agree with most of your post but not the last comment. At first I thought the same myself but I get the point now. I was looking at the word in its loose meaning but outside of that I would agree this AtG's objection is based on a valid argument. @AndytheGrump - Thanks for clarifying that, and apologies for calling it 'a bit ridiculous' earlier. I don't think it is but it needs some thought. I hope you continue to input and help us find an appropriate solution. I'm off away from the computer now. Cheers Zac Δ talk 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, one last comment to Kwami. Astrology uses astronomy; astronomy as a study underwent changes in the 17th century and its modern form, which is no longer directly relevant to astrology, is called 'cosmobiology'. But there could be something in what you say. The psychology insert has already been reversed so maybe this is the theme to think about over the next week: to see if we can collectively come up with the right way to express this. Zac Δ talk 15:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, I think you mean 'cosmology'. Back on topic, or at least back on what I intended the topic to be when I started the section, is it ok for me to change the header from 'astronomy' to 'astrology' as I originally intended, or have I so thouroughly confused everyone (including myself) that I'd best leave it as is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, yes cosmology! (You started this.) Zac Δ talk 17:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I did it. I didn't even notice you wrote "astronomy", since it was so obvious what you meant from context.

As for Zac's point, simple astronomy today—not cosmology—is much more than what astrology uses. Which is why we use the word "basic". But thinking of it along the lines of psychology, I think it would be more accurate to say that they share a common core than that astrology "makes use of" astronomy. AFAIK it doesn't, outside of that historically common core. AFAIK the only additions are observations we make with telescopes, such as adding Pluto and asteroids, which isn't so much science as just observation, and would have been in astrology from the beginning if the Greeks etc. had known about them. — kwami (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I am just trying to get my head around the arguments here. Is anyone still suggesting that because astrology 'is generally considered' pseudoscience and psychology is science, there can be no link between the two fields? Presumably the argument is that any link has to be supported by evidence.

Logical 1 - I can't answer for andythegrump, but if you can show evidence that "psychologists employ astrology in conjunction with their psychology or psychological practice specifically to gain psychological insight" this would of course, support the link. However, since this claim is challenged, your evidence could not be isolated examples and must come from an independently verifiable source. Robert Currey talk 10:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

On a related point, can editors here take a look at reference 11: Objections to Astrology and the Strange Case of Astrology: This is given as qualification for the comment "Psychology explains much of the continued faith in astrology as a matter of cognitive biases".

The webpage this reference leads to has no connection to the point being made. It gives a PDF link to an important document which is extremely relevant to several other points made in this article. But it's not in any way relevant here. Anyone who doubts this please check. Unless someone can see a connection that I have missed and can present an argument why that document supports the view that Psychology explains faith in astrology to be a matter of cognitive biases, I intend to remove reference 11, whilst leaving the the document linked to the other places where it is pertinent.Zac Δ talk 11:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto reference 10: http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology3.html#defense - this is a bad refrence anyway, being little more than one man's unreferenced blog-style argument.Zac Δ talk 12:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Groan... after checking, ref 13 Scientists dump cold water on astrology holds no connection to the point either. There is another reference given later to this same study, which is a much more authoritative reference; but neither connect to the issue of cognitive bias.

Reference 12 is also unsuitable The case for and against astrology - it sort of covers the point but not in a way that relates directly to the comment being made. We could use this due to the fact that it says "Your sun sign and birth chart may fit you exactly but so do other sun signs and birth charts not your own". However, the problem with this reference is that the article has no author, no publication details, no date of publication, etc., etc. I have tried to find other versions of the article online and failed. I've also searched through the website it is hosted on for more information and failed. I thought about emailing the hosts of the website to ask for these details but no email address or contact details are given. Unless we can find these details I cannot see how this unreferenced web article could possibly be used as a reliable independent source.

It surely cannot be difficult to find one good reliable reference for this point. If necessary I will try to locate something suitable myself. I have no intention of deleting the comment but unless someone can justify how any of the four references that are supposed to qualify the comment do that to the standard expected by Wikipedia, it would be better to remove all of these naff references and replace them with a "citation needed" tag.Zac Δ talk 13:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As to astrology using psychology, there are plenty of psychotherapists with advanced degrees who are well known in the astrological community for speaking at conferences and authoring astrology books, for example, Bernard Rosenblum already mentioned above, Glenn Perry, Paul Reeder, just to mention a few. The question is are these psychologists who use astrology or are these astrologers who use psychology? Is there a difference? Is there any good evidence that psychotherapy is not psychology?

The statement "Psychology explains much of the continued faith in astrology as a matter of cognitive biases" is something I was saving for later, but Zac has raised it here and maybe this is as good a time as any. This comment is stated as if it is a fact, but is not supported by reliable references. The best references I've seen refer to the Barnum effect, or Forer effect of subjective validation. Forer, and the many replications, concocted a statement that was cherry picked from horoscope columns to enhance the effect in classroom demonstrations. This obvious selection bias cannot validate any sort of argument against astrology and in fact this claim is never made, nor is there any claim in these exercises that astrology is a question of "faith." If this statement stays it needs to be qualified that it is a presumption of evidence against astrology and has been used by opponents of astrology to mislead. Ken McRitchie (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Zac also raises another important problem. The statement, "Studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate statistically significant relationships between astrological predictions and operationally defined outcomes." is not supported by good references. The Fracknoi citation is not good for the reasons Zac has given. The Carlson reference is to a very flawed study that actually, upon more recent analysis, seems to support astrology. These hardly constitute verification of the "repeatedly failed" statement. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is explored fully in Eysenk and Nias' Astrology: Science or superstition pp.42-48, so I'll place that as a reliable reference and omit the others. If anyone here can find a relevancy in the others I'm taking out then please explain and they can be reinstated. I am doing this to substantiate the point of criticism rather than remove it. Ken, it is not appropriate to add a comment that the argument is used to mislead people. Such a point could only be made if there is a verifiable published source to be given as a point of reference. You may well be right but Wikipedia does not publish original research or personal opinion - even if the opinion is based on good knowledge of facts. Sorry for sounding like a stuck record but the only way to build credibility into this article is to be insistent that the information given is verifiable and referenced to reliable sources. Zac Δ talk 16:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my inappropriate conclusion on the subjective validation effect. Eysenk and Nias cover Forer (1949), which itself is a reliable source, and numerous other experiments including Gauquelin's famous Dr. Petoit test. No one is suggesting that there is no such thing as subjective validation. The Forer test and these others were designed to test subjective validation not invalidate astrology. These tests were designed to test the most unspecific, vague, and generally true statements selected from poorly written commercial horoscopes. Such tests, to be scientifically applied to astrology, would need to avoid selection bias, which they did not do, but rather enhanced it to obtain a stronger subjective validation effect. No claim was made by Forer, Gauquelin, or the others that these were tests of astrology. To be accurate, this should be mentioned so as to not leave WP readers with the impression that these tests made any conclusions that they did not and could not make. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, it sounds like you have a good point. But the published reference for this is .... where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions have been put forward that astrology might work psychologically by cognitive biases[cite]. However, no experiments, controlled for selection bias, have scientifically supported this hypothesis.

How can we give references to something that does not exist? If there are any, then by all means someone should put them in. The closest attempt I've seen to scientifically test this was Wyman and Vyse (2009), but they found a "Barnum effect" in both the astrological and non-astrological selections. This was a very flawed study, but it could possibly be included as an example of not finding a subjective validation (cognitive bias) effect for astrology. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with citing Wyman and Vyse (2008) is that it is based on several faulty assumptions and replicates some of the self-selection problems Carlson (1985) encountered. Using this classroom test or a sun sign test is like setting up a straw-man argument. Though astrologers accept that astrology like every field that involve human behaviour including psychological tests can be subject to cognitive bias, I don't believe there is a valid test of the Barnum/Forer effect in astrology that supports this belief. Robert Currey talk 22:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

But this article has to report the critisms that have been raised against astrology, whether legitimate or not. Otherwise it will be accused of not maintaining a neutral point of view WP:NPV. Remember: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" WP:V

The only way the points you are raising become relevant for inclusion would be by reference to published arguments. If they don't exist, it is astrology's problem, not Wikipedia's. If they do, then the point could be developed to explain the salient facts and report both sides of the argument - but not in the lede: the lede is already overly long and needs reducing, not expanding. I want to make a suggestion and since it would involve a significant change I am starting a new section for that below.Zac Δ talk 07:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Rethinking the structure

One solution to various problems would be to introduce a new section called 'Criticisms', which would help satisfy the NPV requirement and provide interesting content in itself. Astrology has been one of history's most controversial subjects, so this section could explain how it has been subject to debate since classical times, and what the arguments are. It could explain the importance of the philosophical arguments of Posidonius, Cicero and Ptolemy, and later medieval criticisms and Pico's rebuttal, etc.; give some coverage to common points of misunderstanding (precession, 13th-signs, etc), and also look at the inability to fit astrology into the analytical methods of modern science. This would also help to clarify the nonsense on this page that astrology was rejected by the Islamic world about 1000 years ago and that it was rendered obsolete for muslims. This is such a pile of garbage based on one philosophical criticism which was of no more significance than the many philosophical debates that preceded it and followed it. As a result the article leaves the false impression that astrology declined in the Islamic world, at precisely the era when it was reaching its intellectual peak.

I would also like to propose developing the section called 'Core beliefs and practises' and splitting it into: 'Core principles' (not beliefs) and 'Astrological techniques and practices'. The former could elaborate on the philosophical principles of astrology, the latter could elaborate on how astrologers have and do now work, what elements are built into astrological practice (including psychological astrology), what astrology claims to do and the different techniques that are used for different purposes (horary / mundane/ elections / nativities / forecasting, etc). Plus the use of ephemerides and modern computer software.

I then think it would be sensible to reorder the content so that it runs:

1) Lede

2) Etymology

3) Core principles

4) History

5) Astrological techniques and practices

6) Effects on world culture

7) Criticisms

8) Astrology and Science

9) Astrological education and organizations

It is undeniably innapropriate the way that the 'Astrology and science' section has been allowed to dominate this article on an age-old subject which has a vast cultural legacy and philosophical relevancy. We need to rethink the content from a fresh perspective which allows the reader to understand the subject - as well as the reasons why it has been hugely popular but never free from criticms and controversy. I am not suggesting this is done overnight.

Thoughts? Zac Δ talk 07:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. It's important to have a Criticisms section and I'd like to get involved in that. Also in 'Astrology and Science'. I'm not sure what you mean by 'Effects in world culture', in view of the fact that astrologers believe astrology has an effect on culture. I presume that's not what you mean. If you mean by 'effects on culture', the use of astrology in Religion, the Arts and so on I agree. In that case I would ditch the single category of 'Culture' and have instead two categories 'Religion' and 'The Arts'. Lastly, I think we need to star building up a the bibliography of scholarly literature.Paul Quigley (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm moving my earlier response on the bibliography suggestion to the new section at the bottom of the page Zac Δ talk 15:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your lead on this, Zac. I think this is a more logical structure and Paul Quigley's separation of sacred and secular (arts) makes sense. The 'Astrology and Science' section is far too extensive in this article. I would like to update it with recent research, but this requires space and there has been some resistance to pruning down superfluous and faulty baggage like the Tyson quote. I still believe there is no argument to support inclusion of this erroneous and incorrectly attributed quote on this page and have made the case here. If any editors still feel it should remain, could they review the discussion and address the questions raised - otherwise, I propose that it is removed.

While I imagine that the Astrology and Science section may not be of particular interest to most visitors to this page, this subject is of great interest to a section of readers. So I believe the main page should outline all the key the issues and information. The details of the various studies, arguments and evidence or lack thereof should be explored in full on a separate sub-page.

It is possible to mine an odd reference to support the case that Muslims rejected astrology on the grounds of rationalism. However, the overwhelming evidence is that it was based on religious intolerance. Anyone who has studied the influential work of al-Ghazali and his doctrine of occasionalism will know how the Muslim theologians actively stifled scientific enquiry. The end result of this and the Mongol invasion meant that Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' was not translated into Arabic for 50 years after publication! However, looking at the claim on the page and elsewhere on WP, I get the impression that there has been at an attempt at revisionist history. So, subject to the views of others on this page, I support an edit of this negationism and can provide good references to support this. Robert Currey talk 10:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To Robert Currey - are you willing to make a start on the Astrology and Science page? We need someone to take the initiative on that.

I think the highly dubious comment on Muslims needs to go but for different reasons. Medieval muslims did not stufle astrology or reject it. They developed it. Of course there was always philosophical discussion and argument, just as there was in the Hellenistic era. The problem on this page is the result of the unreliable information presented on the Astrology in medieval Islam page, which is flawed throughout its content - from suggesting that they invented techniques that they only inherited, and by listing notable astrologers (including Alhazen, Avicenna, Al-Biruni and Averroes) as critics who were supposed to have refuted it. So there needs to be a correction of that page's content before we can correct the content on this one.

To Paul Quigley - The section 'Effects on World Culture' already exists but it's in need of improvement. Concur with Robert Currey that the suggestion to include reference to religion and arts is obviously sensible. Great to learn you would be willing to contribute. Since the 'Criticisms' section doesn't yet have a presence would you be prepared to make a start on that? If you were to contribute a bit of content, others could then add to it. Is this something you could contemplate within the next few weeks?

I think the suggested restructure would be an improvement. I would contribute to Core principles, as I have already offered suggestions on this earlier. Perhaps this would be a good place to clarify that a natal chart is a map of the universe with the individual at the center. All bodies then are regarded as "planets" relative to the individual. It would help to clarify the confusion about stars, Moon, and planets being different. This should be self-evident simply from looking at any astrological chart, but maybe it is not for some. Ken McRitchie (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion. Whilst the principle of astrology is a universal one, can we also make it clear that the references we make in relation to the zodiac is utilising the geocentric perpective (or you can clarify that to be the person-centred perspective if you prefer), since this is based on the division of the Sun's apparent path as it traces its annual circle around the Earth? Great that you are willing to contribute too. Do you think you could initiate that section and give us something to start off with? Obviously use what is relevant from the current section. I would be able to contribute a little about the ancient philospophical principles which are embedded in some elements of astrology (i.e., aspects), but if you cover that then it won't be necessary. Cheers Zac Δ talk 14:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If someone could start a new section headed 'Criticisms' I'm ha[[y to start the discussion.Paul Quigley (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the top of this page (next to the search box) there's a tab labelled 'New Section'. Just click on that and enter 'Critisms' in the subject line and then put your discussion or proposed content in the main text area. I (or another editor) will be happy to add your content to the main aticle because it is a little awkward for new editors to know how to format the references within the page code. Equally, if you put your text in the wrong section of this page I'll move it for you, so don't worry. Wikipedia is not a very 'user friendly' platform but we have ways of making good contributions count. Cheers, Zac Δ talk 17:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article criteria

This page once tried be a 'Featured article' but failed due to not meeting the standards required. Out of interest I am copying this over from the page that defines the criteria for a 'Featured' Wikipedia article. This is what we need to be aiming for in revisioning this page:

It is—

(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—

(a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
(b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
(c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.

Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Zac Δ talk 17:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography and external links

Pulled down from earlier discussion (hope that's OK):

Paul Quigley wrote (copied):

I think we need to star building up a the bibliography of scholarly literature.Paul Quigley (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I responded (moved to here):

Re. the idea of a bibliography - I've been developing a 'sources' list of the references used in the article. In the process I've realised that many of the current references are not reliable WP:QS and some don't even relate to the points being made. We need to get rid of all these and provide better quality references, so that the 'sources' list is seen as a credible one. Links to websites are fine if those websites publish or reproduce articles that have been subject to meaningful editorial oversight; otherwise no - blog style web articles that present one person's opinion are going to have to be removed. The subject of this article is too controversial to allow poorly substantiated controversial content. Where this relates to criticism we are going to have to find better quality sources, because for the sake of nautrality we need those criticisms to be raised and properly explained.

I've also been looking at the 'Further reading' section at the end of the page and wondering what we should do with that. Do we really want to recommend texts like:

Jay Agarwal, East Meets West: Fun, Accurate and Honest Personality Insights (Combines Western astrology with Chinese astrology), Analisa Enterprises, LLC, 2008. ISBN 978-0-9798572-0-1

... whilst other seminal works are not included?

This seems to be the place to produce a list of recommended texts but I imagine it needs to cater to all levels of interest, not just the academic. I'm uncertain about the policy for that section and whether there is a limit to its length. I'll raise a question on the External links noticeaboard and try to find out. Cheers Zac Δ talk 11:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I almost deleted this entirely irrelevant work but didn't want to be so drastic. Agree that it should go. Petersburg (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've now had a response to that question which I'm copying over from the External Links noticeboard:

:The official guideline is at WP:FURTHERREADING; a failed proposal is at WP:Further reading.

In general, the primary purpose of the section is to list sources that are desirable or interesting, but that you didn't happen to use in building the article for one reason or another. Because Wikipedia is WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, people usually avoid creating a "directory" or bibliography that lists the most important books published on a subject. Also, most people believe these lists should be rather short, and a list of seminal works in Astrology is likely to contain more than a handful of books. If you want to do something more substantial, there are a handful of "Bibliography of..." articles (e.g., Bibliography of fly fishing) on Wikipedia that might make an interesting model. (I do not know how well-accepted these lists are, but a search shows that some exist.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'Further Reading Guidelines' state:

Contents: An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Editors may include brief annotations. Publications listed in Further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article. The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list.^{[under discussion]} This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content.

So perhaps we need to be thinking of a small selection of important books that feature the subject according to different needs or different perspectives. Since we will not be reproducing what is given in the sources list, we can state that these are books to which reference has not been included, but which offer valuable insights into diffeent aspects of astrology. It would need to be small and selective (not longer than 10?), to justify its inclusion on the page.

In regard to external links the general principle seems to be, shorter the better. Personally I favour including only the link to the Open Directory list of websites related to astrology. This covers all perspectives, including Skeptical websites (opposing views), so what else could anyone need? Placing a 'no more links' notice in the code should help prevent the nuisance of passer-bys endlessly placing links to their own websites. Zac Δ talk 15:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that people shouldn't be able to post links to their own websites. I agree with your point in general.Paul Quigley (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with that. Petersburg (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Divination

The current lede is misleading, as it now describes astrology as a 'study', while it is not a field of study at all. The studies that have been done into astrology have consistently failed to find any evidence for the workings of astrology, and as the relevant chapter in the article points out, many astrologers argue that astrology cannot be 'studied' by scientific methods. So it is then the 'study' that cannot be 'studied'?
Astrology is based on dogma and belief, not on study. It avoids study.
That's why it is more aptly described as 'a form of divination'.
I am changing the lede accordingly. If some editors disagree with the use of the term 'divination' then all they need to do is bring one example of a branch of astrology that cannot be considered divination. So: bring us the name of that form of astrology, bring the source and make your case.
That is standard procedure and logic. One example cannot make a case, but one example is enough to disprove a case. So why not bring that example if it exists?
The only attempt I have seen so far is the argument that medieval astrology took Aristotelian causation as its rationale. All nice and good, but the WP article about astrology is supposed to give the contemporary view and understanding about it, not the ideas of 500 years ago (that can go in the history of astrology chapter). So, we still don't have any example of a form of astrology that can currently not be considered divination. In absence of any examples we can consider it a concensus that astrology is divination. Read "How wikipedia works" for those who have questions on that approach. Concensus is not made by straw polls and how many editors favor or oppose a certain edit. Concensus comes from which arguments remain on the table. If an example can be brought of a form of astrology that is currently not considered divination, then the argument in favor of 'divination' gets removed and the lede will then be changed according to the new information.
In the same way I will also change the last sentence of the paragraph to "All forms of astrology are considered a classic example of pseudoscience." If people want to change that statement we can reasonably expect them to bring an example of a form of astrology that is not pseudoscience. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I notice my edit was promptly reverted without giving any good reason, and accusing me of disruptive editing , which is not civil and goes against WP:AGF.

It appears to me some editors are now acting as if they own this article. I suggest they read WP:OWN

I expect the reverting editor to bring us a valid argument why he reverted my change, as was asked for in my edit summary. The absence of a valid argument/example would suggest an unexplained bias against the term 'divination'. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We've had this discussion, in full, ad finitum. The arguments have been answered endless times already. There is a group of editors working here and no one editor has the right to determine the content against the consensus of the ediorial group. It is pure disruption for one editor to continue to push his personal opinion as if the previous discussions haven't taken place. Can I suggest that this new section is moved to the top of the page so that it doesn't distract from ongoing discussions about page development? Zac Δ talk 13:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The editing of a page and the discussion about it is never finished, it is always a work in progress.

To say that something 'has been discussed many times before' is not an argument on WP.

If you have read all previous discussion, then for sure you will be able to tell me which form of astrology was not deemed to be 'divination' in previous discussion. Name of that form of astrology, please?

And no, you cannot request that this section be moved 'out of sight' ? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Zac, new discussion topics on talk pages should always go at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, MakeSense, Zac is right. Straw polls are not binding, but they are a useful tool in determining consensus, and in this case a decision was made to use study be used. WP:OWN has little to do with it, and reversion of changes related to ongoing or recent discussion is a very common occurrence on WP. Note that study is an open enough word, and could be read to include divination – a tarot card reader studies a spread of cards to read your fortune, regardless of whether you believe in what he tells you.

To turn your argument around ("tell me which form of astrology was not deemed to be 'divination'"), I see no place in the above discussion or a reliable source that unequivocally uses the word divination to refer to all astrology. It seems to me like a synthetic claim based on interpretation of certain sources. And, as pointed out above, several good sources do unequivocally use the word study alone – we should, by WP:V, follow them. /ninly_(talk) 14:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Makesense, you don't seem to be intersted in conversation or consensus. Yoo keep askiong for exampples ofastrology which are not divination and on three occasions I have given one. You say that if examples can be produced you will agree. I have produced academically cited examples and you have produced nothing. The page also seems to ghave been subject to an attack of vandalism from 'Petersburg' who has played no pary in the discussions and has apeaqred from nowhere. l am undoing all his/her 'undos' and if s/he wishes to join the discussion all well and good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Quigley (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So, and what is the name of the form of astrology that is not divination?

That not all dictionaries have used the word 'divination' in their definition of astrology doesn't mean anything. Not all dictionaries use the word 'study' either. And those who use the word 'study' in their definition typically include other wording to indicate that astrology is a form of divination. And dictionaries are not good sources, anyway.

We are not supposed to list every dictionary definiton here in the article. All we need is a definition that reflects what comes in the further article. The current lede doesn't do that, because non of the further sections makes the case that astrology is a field of 'study'.

Let's face it: where are all the 'studies' supposedly done by astrologers? The few serieus studies that have been done to try to establish evidence for astrological effects were mostly done by none-astrologers, and they yielded nothing. It's a strange field of 'study' when most adherents to a given practice either avoid or protest the results of the studies that have been done.

Astrology is a 'belief', not a study, and that's why there is a section 'Core beliefs and practices'. So why is that not reflected in the lede? MakeSense64 (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is based on a very limited interpretation of the word study. Take Christian theology, for instance: it is a field of study that is rooted in a set of assumptions and beliefs (and all fields of study are rooted in various assumptions, I might add). This doesn't make it any less studious a field to theologians, nor does calling it a study necessarily imply that it is a field of pure science. You also seem to be confusing studies about astrology (whether or not it is true, effective, etc.) with the study of astrology (studying and producing charts, horoscopes, or whatever). /ninly_(talk) 19:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping for somebody to bring that argument. Everything can become an object of study. We can study French, we can study dogs, we can study religions as theologians do. But that doesn't mean we can describe French or dogs as "is the study of...". Not everything that can be studied is in itself a "study of..".

If something is really a "study of.." then it is easy to find the various studies it has done.

So, where are the studies, showing that: the relative positions of celestial bodies are indicators of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events. If such studies do not exist then this opening statement of the lede is clearly false. MakeSense64 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Your first argument would only make sense if the article nonsensically stated that "Astrology is the study of astrology" It doesn't. To expand on your example; "We can study French. Francophilia is the study of French."

Your second argument relies on the definition of a "study" being reliant on it reaching what is, in your opinion, a valid conclusion. I could study wrinkles on pigs' noses as a way of determining the course of Russian history. Total nonsense, of course, but I can still study it and even give it a name. That in no way invalidates its description as a "study". Your preferred word, on the other hand, "divination" is needlessly obscure. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree that a "study" does not need to be valid, I see it the opposite way: "study" is so ambiguous as to be obscure, where "divination" is clear and straightforward. — kwami (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Divination" may be a more precise term, but I think WP:MTAA applies. It's an unusual word used when a more general, readily understood word does the job just as well. "Divination" also has a touch of POV to it that should be avoided if possible. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that studies need to be valid, I am saying that if something is foremost a field of study, then it should be no problem to find 'studies'. Where are they?

Astrologers explaining individual events after the facts, and posting it on a blog or forum, we do not call that 'study', do we? Such articles invariably suffer from Confirmation bias. 'Study' is indeed a very vague word, and in my opinion, when it is used in the context of an encyclopeadia then it means 'serious systematic study'. And that kind of study is typically avoided by most astrologers, because their dogmas do not survive it. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Every single reading ever given by an astrologer constitutes a "study" of the subject's time of birth and related astrological events; i.e. what is commonly called Astrology. And a reading can be a study as serious and systematic as you like, no matter how much it may be influenced by confirmation bias, dogma or a million other flaws.

You and I may be 100% in agreement on the value of this "study", but a "study" it remains. Your definition is too prescriptive and not in line with general usage. Indeed, in line with neutrality principles, we should be actively avoiding any term that may be construed as an evaluation of astrology, particularly in the lead sentence. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sub-pages to avoid disputes?

The comment by Zac on 15 July arguing passionately that any summary on the astrology page must necessarily summarise sub-pages is untenable here.

The guideline on sub-pages states explicitly that two of the purposes to which sub-pages must not be traduced is to avoid an NPOV content fork, or for permanent content meant to be part of the encyclopaedia.

Examining the Astrology Portal page and the History of Astrology sub-page, I find that both present their own definitions of astrology which do not reflect the discussion of a definition on this page. To me this is clear evidence that the controversies being discussed are being circumvented.

It is my view that the proper place for establishing the single and undisputed definition is in this article, not any other, and that sub-pages and the portal page should accurately reflect content on this page. This is particularly the case since the portal page lists no references at all, and the History of Astrology page is a long and rambling exposition so short of references I venture the page could be cut to a tenth of its length is all unreferenced assertions were removed.

The issue of whether we need to summarise all sub-pages on the main astrology page must be resolved in a more rational manner than merely legitimating the circumvention of consensus on this page by creating and editing sub-pages.

If we cannot establish some consensus on this matter, I will take a word razor to all unreferenced assertions here, in sub-pages, and the portal page itself, to ensure that disagreement here is not simply circumvented elsewhere. For those of you who weren’t active in March, check out the discussion at that time for an example of my intended method. It is aimed only at ensuring all assertions that are unverifiable are removed, in line with the commandment that all encyclopaedic content must be verifiable, which is given to you every time you add a comment to this talk page.

The core intention is to simplify the debate about a definition by re-focusing it on verifiable content, not personal opinions, semantics, or hair-splitting. That cannot happen while several different definitions already exist, apparently based on different rationales, interpretations or personal whim. My personal declaration: I cannot see how we can even begin to summarise content when it is unclear what legitimate content we are talking about.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem of content fork is a legacy problem, which is being attended to. It looks like you have not been following recent discussions, so you may be unaware of the extent to which this issue has been addressed in recent days with the commitment to rectify these problems and make them a priority of concern. For your convenience here is a list of page diffs from the last three days which demonstrate how much consensus we have gained in collaboratively agreeing to ensure all comments requiring substantiation are referenced to good quality citations:

17 July: 2:20 3:52 10:49 11:42 11:57 12:54 13:28 14:05 17:06 17:59 | 18 July 12:06

A couple of snipped comments in case you don’t want to read all those diffs:

"The problem on this page is the result of the unreliable information presented on the Astrology in medieval Islam page, which is flawed throughout its content - from suggesting that they invented techniques that they only inherited, and by listing notable astrologers (including Alhazen, Avicenna, Al-Biruni and Averroes) as critics who were supposed to have refuted it. So there needs to be a correction of that page's content before we can correct the content on this one."

"started to apply style guidelines to the footnotes and list of sources - as a result I am checking through all the references given, to make sure that the reference reinforces the comment made. There are a number of problems with the references attached to the final paragraph of the lede which relates to the pseudoscience issue. Since this can become a controversial issue I want to check every point before making a copy edit. My first problem is with this comment ..."

The discussions reveal the extent to which there is willingness, consensus and commitment to undertake what has been recognised as a significant problem which will take time to rectify. The latter comment indicates the sensitivities involved, and the caution that is being applied to ensure consensus from all editors with opposing views. We want to handle this problem appropriately and apply long term solutions to long standing problems, so it’s not beneficial to suggest a one week deadline before you return with a word-razor. Also, please bear in mind that references are not necessary for every comment on Wikipedia though they are of course necessary for controversial points (see WP:verify:

“in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material”.

It may be that you would be doing us all a favour in the long run by drastically cutting material that is not substantially referenced, but since there are a number of editors here working hard to get the right solution and find the best way to bring this page up to the best policy practices of WP (see here), whilst striving to get the collaborative involvement of those who view the subject from different angles; and since there are discussions to be had as to what is reliable content, what is controversial, and what constitutes a reliable source in each specific context, the most helpful thing you could do is join or support those efforts, and place ‘citation needed’ tags where you feel the content is in need of them.

Please help in what you consider to be the most productive way possible, and consider that there is a lot of content in this and the related pages, involving controversially ‘difficult’ content, and a handful of editors fully intent on rectifying all problems, whilst trying to squeeze this work into other commitments. (As an indication of why it cannot be rushed. I am awaiting the mail order delivery of a book to clarify a dubious reference on a daughter page, and need to wait for that book, get a clear understanding of how it supports (or not) the single references which is used to hold up the multiple dubious points; and then – if necessary- present an argument and gain consensus in order to rectify that page which needs to be reconciled with this). Other editors have stated a commitment to locating citations for unreferenced comments, and this is already producing positive results – as you’ll see if you check the page history and notice how citations are now being added to content that has suffered from this problem over a long period of previous neglect. Zac Δ talk 09:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter S Strempel, Please join in on the discussion and editing rather than deciding single-handedly what's right or wrong with the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Petersburg (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not as if discussing has led to much improvements on this page. Sometimes it is much better to be bold and delete entire parts of an article that are not or poorly sourced. That gives it a fresh start and then statements are allowed back in if they come with proper sources. Deleting unsourced materials is not rarely the fastest way to bring an article up to standards. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Astrological education section

The astrological education section on the page looks like a complete joke.
Institutions referring directly to a page on their website where you can buy their 'correspondence course'... Huh, what is this doing on WP?
Listing every halfway-reputable organization that offers astrology courses somewhere in Wales is ridiculous and giving it undue weight WP:UNDUE.
If there even is to be an astrological education section, then it probably shouldn't be more than a few sentences long. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A point like this could be made quite reasonably. The notice at the top of this page reminds editors of how this page has been afflicted by conflict and dispute. Hence it advises: 'Be polite'. There are ongoing discussions about what to do with these tail end sections. The proposal is to remove content that draws criticism so I have removed the link to the online correspondence course. As the page is developed it would be better to give reference to the list of astrological organizations. In the meantime there is nothing "halfway-reputable" about a British university which offers Masters degrees in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology. This appears to be a disingenious attempt to strengthen your vacuous argument that astrology involves no element of study. Since this Masters level course is one of notable academic weight, it is right that the reference attached to that remain. Zac Δ talk 10:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The correspondence courses offered by american institute are still right there.

What the Wales university offers is a postgraduate 'course' available only through distance-learning online. It gives a certificate or diploma for it. Does this information belong in an encyclopeadia article about 'Astrology'? I don't think so. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the information given. It is clear enough. The university offers a Masters degree in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology.

I have replaced the comment that named an organization in America and replaced it with the List of Astrological oragnizations. The content on Kepler college gives pertinent information about the history of that college's involvement with degrees in astrology, and how these have been downgraded.Zac Δ talk 12:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent straw poll

The recent straw poll initiated by User:Robertcurrey, was handled in a questionable way, as was already pointed out by User:AndyTheGrump and User:Ocaasi.
But today I noticed another irregularity when I looked up the User_talk page of User:Terrymacro. @Robertcurrey had told us that editors who had participated in the recent discussion about the 'definition of astrology', which started about a month ago, were being invited to vote in his straw poll. We see how Terrymacro got invited and I found similar invitations on a few other User_talk pages, but I also notice that two editors were interestingly not invited. Look at the user_talk of User:The_Four_Deuces and User:Mystylplx, who both commented in the earlier discussions and clearly talked in favor of using 'divination' in the definition. Could that be why they were not invited?
Can Robertcurrey explain why involved editors were invited so selectively?
Does he agree that this 'mistake' renders the recent straw poll useless?
The use of straw polls is not encouraged on WP, and if they are used then more than a simple majority is required to conclude 'concensus'. We do not see that here. The recent edit has been pushed in artificially. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite editors' desire to put this issue to rest, I recommend we collectively write two 'arguments', one for divination and one for study, and then hold a proper WP:RfC. Ocaasi^{t | c} 13:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, definitely the latest changes have been done on the basis of a very questionable 'concensus', but let's wait and see what other editors have to say about two involved editors being conveniently forgotten in the straw poll.

Asking for RfC is one possible way going forward.

But based on answers from the involved editors the question looks more or less 50-50 evenly divided to me. So another possibility is a compromise solution that both sides can live with.

I think 'pseudoscientific study' could be such a compromise, because it keeps the word 'study' that half of the editors seem to insist on, while using 'pseudoscientific' as an adjective can also satisfy the editors who prefer 'divination'. The word 'pseudoscience' has to be used in the lede anyway, as per earlier arbritation decision about astrology, so why not use it in this way?

By the way, Graphology is also described as 'is the pseudoscientific study...' , so there is precedent for such a compromise being made in other articles. There is quite a bit of similarity between the case of graphology and astrology, e.g. how they have had some weak scientific support but then lost it in later studies. So how things were done in that article can be quite relevant here. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion, primarily over one word, has gone on for a month. What MakeSense64 has either forgotten or omitted to mention was that on 09:49, 15 July 2011 I posted that "I have notified Kwami and Ocaasi who have been sympathetic to your views and Terrymacro who also contributed earlier on. " in my post on 15 July. No one objected to this at the time. I was quite open and even handed about this. I have repeatedly requested arguments on this issue but nothing solid beyond WP:OR or personal preference has been provided and there are plenty against and superior citations. I had no idea where the consensus lay and offered to bring my role in this debate to a swift conclusion if I was in the minority. It turns out that the 5 votes supported the change and 1 was against. There were 2 abstentions, 3 additional votes in favour were not counted for not being involved in the debate and a further two editors have since argued against MakeSense64's arguments.

I realize that some will not like the result of the vote but this is a case of crying foul after the whistle has blown. Since I accept that this debate is never closed, can I propose that in the interests of ending further disruption of constructive editing that we follow the consensus of the community for now and reconsider this definition in the way that you, Ocaasi propose in six months time.

Ocaasi, when you defined the entire field of astrology as divination in March this year, it was a time when many established editors with expertise in astrology who would have been able to contribute to the debate were banned. As a lone editor with knowledge of astrology, I had to accept the way it was done and I have, as you know since it has been raised by Paul Quigley, requested that you provided the original references that you consulted and the argument to make this decision.

It is now time to move on as this page needs to be edited - and expert editing is being blocked. Robert Currey talk 15:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64, once again you are single-mindedly pushing an agenda, which is to make sure that astrology is presented as disreputably as possible. I suggest that first you demonstrate your knowledge of astrology for example by refraining from shallow comparisons to graphology, and start working together with other editors on improving the article. You have alienated nearly all editors here with your unreasonable stance and refusal to cooperate and collaborate. Petersburg (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is definitely time to move on. The suggestion to revisit this later is a good one but we should be thinking 12 months, not 6 months. Remember, this discussion went on for over a month zapping all the time and energy that could have gone into overall content. Just imagine how much could be achieved if we had just a week which was free of such pointless and divisive time wasting. Zac Δ talk 15:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

@Robertcurrey. Maybe other editors simply trusted that you had notified all editors who participated in the 'definition of astrology' section. I was not around on July 15 to notice it, but that makes no difference. The question why these two involved editors were not notified remains unanswered.

I hope you realize that selectively notifying editors is considered WP:Votestacking, and not acceptable. Do you agree with that?

I understand that some editors want to move away quickly from a flawed straw poll, but some questions have to be asked here.

Still awaiting answers. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with tabling this issue for 3-6 months while the rest of the article is worked on. The straw poll was useful for testing the waters, but it was not thorough or comprehensive. Polls are designed to elicit opinions not just votes. WP:NOVOTE is a good guide here. The lead should reflect the body of the article anyway, so it's worth spending time on that and coming back to the first paragraphs once the rest of the article has been improved.

Robert, we didn't just banish expert editors a few months back, we deterred a hoard of astrologers who knew or cared nothing about our policies. You and Zac are in a different category and have made sincere attempts to cover the subject while adhering to policy. It's appreciated, but in this contentious an area, continued debate is somewhat expected.

For what it's worth, I was in Borders bookstore yesterday and looked up Astrology--I found it in the Divination section. Anyway, the current introduction is tolerable if not ideal and I'm okay with putting off another round of discussions for a little while. Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ocassi. Its clear that all perspectives need to be represented properly. Yesterday I posted the Featured article criteria as a target to be working towards (personally I see gaining that as the token we are striving for to turn the problems of this page around). We need the involvement of editors who have what may appear to other editors to be critical views of the subject, to make sure that the subject is presented to a standard that would pass independent external review. Sometime soon (not just yet but perhaps the next couple of weeks) it would be useful to get input from yourself, AndytheGrump, Kwami, or others regarding the problem I have noticed with the references connected to the pseudoscience statements. I want to propose a clarity of definition and a revision of references, but nothing that I think need be unpalatable to anyone. Right now I'd like a break from edits that need to be made subject to intense scrutiny and debate, so would prefer to leave that for the moment and hopefully revisit it soon to get the ideal solution. It would be great to have a few months to concentrate on better quality content, referenced to better quality sources, with the intention to rewrite the lede as the final flourish to a well prepared page! Regards Zac Δ talk 20:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response to this, Ocaasi and your link to WP:NOVOTE, which looks helpful. I second Zac's proposals of working towards a high quality page that is informative, elegant, tolerable to all but ideal to none! Robert Currey talk 23:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Remaining problems with the lede

The lede is too long and still presents a number of problems. To keep things simple I suggest looking at the points systematically, and dealing with them one at a time.

So firstly, with regard to the first paragraph:

On 13 July Peter S. Strempel criticised the reference to the stars in this paragraph, saying:

What is the point of sidetracking the very first paragraph into an absurdly contradictory lecture on what is or is not a star? If astrology relates to the movement of planets relative to the signs of the zodiac, which are constellations of stars, but also to other sub-stellar and sub-planetary bodies, then astrology can be properly defined as being ‘based on the motion of celestial bodies relative to each other’. Full stop. No departure into historic conceptions about points of light in the sky is necessary.

I agree with this 100%. It's also non-sensical to make this point about the stars here, rather than in the main article content (which presently doesn't discuss it). I suggest moving the comments "Astrology is often characterized as "reading the stars", but "stars" in this context refers to the word's oldest sense—that of any small bright point in the night sky whether it be a star or a planet as those terms are used by modern English speakers. The stars (other than the Sun) play a relatively minor role" from the lede to the 'Core beliefs and practices' section where they can be reviewed as part of the development of that section. The first paragraph of the lede would then be more concise and relevant, to read:

Astrology is the study of the relative positions of celestial bodies as indicators of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events. The primary astrological bodies are the Sun, Moon, and planets. The main focus is on the placement of the planets relative to each other and to the signs of the zodiac, though the system also allows reference to fixed stars, asteroids, comets, and various mathematical points. As a practice, astrology is a combination of basic astronomy, numerology, and divination. In its modern form, it is a classic example of pseudoscience.

Anyone have an objection to this? Zac Δ talk 08:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I favour this more concise lede. The confusion between stars and planets is widespread, but it is not a major controversy or issue that needs to be in the lede. It should however be very clearly explained in the historical context and in relation to the modern split in definition between astronomy, professional astrology and sun sign stars in the newspapers. In this context, the more controversial but related difference between the signs of the zodiac as spatial and temporal divisions and the constellations based on stars needs to be clarified with reference to the Zodiac page.

I would trim the first paragraph even more:

Astrology is the study of the relative positions of celestial bodies as indicators of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events. The primary astrological bodies are the Sun, Moon, and planets, which are analysed relative to each other and their placement in the houses and the signs of the Zodiac. The main focus is on the placement of the planets relative to each other and to the signs of the zodiac, though the system also allows reference to fixed stars, asteroids, comets, and various mathematical points. As a practice, astrology is a combination of basic astronomy, numerology, and divination. In its modern form, it is a classic example of pseudoscience.

The relatively minor astrological bodies (including Nodes, Arabic parts etc) could be detailed in the body. Robert Currey talk 11:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have argued another way:

Astrology is the study of the relative positions of celestial bodies as indicators of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events. The primary astrological bodies are the Sun, Moon, and planets, which are analysed relative to each other and their placement in the houses and the signs of the Zodiac. The ~~main focus is on the placement of the planets relative to each other and to the signs of the zodiac, though the~~ system also allows reference to fixed stars, asteroids, comets, and various mathematical points. ~~As a practice, astrology is a combination of basic astronomy, numerology, and divination. In its modern form, it is a classic example of pseudoscience.~~

This provides a sufficient outline of what astrology is, suitable for the first paragrpah of the lede. (Indicating its main points of reference whilst acknowledging that other factors are sometimes brought in, to a lesser extent). And no need to argue about whether it leans towards psychology, numerology, whatever. The controversies of those points can be eliminated by dealing with them appropriately in the main body of the article. Then:

The second paragraph outlines its historical and cultural significance.

The third paragraph outlines its philosphical controversies and contradications.

The fourth paragraph outlines its pseudo-scientific status and rejection by modern science.

In this way all the main areas of immediate relevancy are succintly introduced and given the appropriate attention they deserve. (The pseudoscience reference would not be diminished but given greater clarity and focus in a less cluttered lede).

How would you feel about that Robert? Others? Zac Δ talk 11:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I see an editor has added extra comments to the first paragraph today. I've left a message on the editor's talkpage explaining that we paragraph is under discussion; that we are trying to obtain consensus as a group, and that it's probable that the new additions will go or be moved as we decide on this. Have also invited that editor to join us here to contribute opinion on this issue. Zac Δ talk 16:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph is now looking very top-heavy - I sense that no one is ever going to agree with the list of fields within astrology - psychology, meteorology, geometry, astronomy, physics, philosophy, numerology, chronology, symbolism, mysticism and divination. Why leave any out or why should any be included since astrology is astrology and possibly older than most of the other fields who developed out of astrology? This will be debated for eternity and should be self-evident within the body. So I like a lean first para and notice that this is not uncommon. Why clutter the start with detail - so I say keep it minimal, neutral and essential:

Astrology is the study of the relative positions of celestial bodies as indicators of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events. The primary astrological bodies are the Sun, Moon, and planets, which are analysed relative to each other and their placement in the houses and the signs of the Zodiac.

I have not put in all the links here but I have directed planets to Planets_in_astrology and not Planets - which goes to the Astronomical planets which arguably do not include dwarf planets like Pluto. Also signs go to Astrological_sign and Houses to Astrological_houses, Zodiac to Zodiac as expected.

Also your proposed format paragraphs: short outline -> history/culture -> philosophy/controversy -> pseudoscience - will make the lede concise, uncluttered and well-structured. What do others think?

Robert Currey talk 18:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't aware of this discussion and simply tried to add minor improvements where warranted. Thanks to Zac for bringing this to my attention. I agree with most of your suggestions. However, the wording as indicators of doesn't ring well to me. I would suggest using as they relate to, which I believe to be also a more accurate rendering of what astrology is in the minds of leading astrologers today. Also, I would phrase the primary bodies more accurately as proposed since astrological planets already include the luminaries. At the same time, it is very important to distinguish between them and the astronomical planets as Robert Currey also noted. Linking astrology to numerology seems to me a stretch. Could someone please explain? Petersburg (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made the edit and have included all the suggestions made here. The references to the stars has been moved to the Etymology section - this needs revision itself and it may be that the star references are better placed elsewhere; however, there was already some clumsy text in that section making the same point, so for now it allows us to improve the lede without worrying about cutting content that needs to be present somewhere.Zac Δ talk 08:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Two thoughts: Though the Sun, Moon and (astrological) planets is a tautology as Petersburg pointed out, I think it should be expressed this way as even quite educated readers will not know this.

I can see a connection between astrology and geometry, but numerology seems more tenuous, though I suppose it could be argued that the symbolism of numbers relates to the different harmonics/aspects. Is that numerology? I think of numerology as divination by means of adding up numbers from your date of birth or your name? Robert Currey talk 10:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert, it was the link that was wrong with the 'planet's reference - it said "astronomical planets" by mistake. I've corrected that and now the word 'planets' leads through to the page Planets in astrology. Also the comment referring to numerology has gone. Numerology as part of the Pythagoran philosophy plays a big part in the founding theory of aspects and house divisions, but we don't need to introduce that complicated point at this stage (if at all on this page).Zac Δ talk 10:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

2nd paragraph

Thanks Petersburg for following up with your copy edits. The next task is to look at the 2nd paragraph critically. It currently reads:

Historically, astrology was regarded as a technical and learned tradition, sustained in royal courts, cultural centers, and medieval universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.[2] Astrology and astronomy were often synonymous before the modern era, with the desire for predictive and divinatory knowledge one of the motivating factors for astronomical observation. Astronomy began to diverge from astrology in the Muslim world at the turn of the 2nd millennium,[citation needed] and in Europe from the Renaissance through the Enlightenment in 18th century.[3] Eventually, astronomy distinguished itself as the empirical study of celestial objects and phenomena. In the latter half of the 20th century astrology experienced a resurgence of popular interest as a component of the New Age movement.[4]

I would like to suggest the following which is only minimally less in word count, but more informative and succinct in its historical outline. Difficult to cut this further since astrology has such a vast history. All comments are substantiated by good quality references - will add those details if most of us approve this text (or something similar):

Astrology’s origins trace to the third millennium. Ancient civilizations developed it as a system to predict seasonal shifts and interpret celestial cycles as ‘signs’ of ‘divine communications’. Historically it was a learned tradition, sustained in courts, cultural centers, and universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine. Astrology and astronomy have a closely connected history before the modern era, but astronomy broke its ties with astrology during the Enlightenment of the Renaissance, when astrology lost its standing as a science and suffered a decline of intellectual attention. It experienced a resurgence of popular interest in the late 20th century as part of the New Age movement. (see new version below)

Any comments or suggestions on this?

BTW Petersburg I notice you are changing spelling to American spellings. I have no problem with this as long as the article is consistent throughout, but I was under the impression that English spellings are usually expected on this English language edition of Wikipedia (based on a copy editor changing words in that direction in another page I worked on). Have you seen any reference to this in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. As I said, I have no prefernce personally, but it would be good to clarify that at this point.

Robert - do you have statistical information on what percentage of the population hold an interest in astrology? There is information on the page about how many people, percentage-wise consider it 'scientific' but I'd rather know how many admit to believing in it or being interested in it, because I'm sure many or most that show an interest don't necessarily consider it scientific. This could go into the 'Effect on world culture' section and would round of this 2nd lede paragraph very nicely with something like:

" ...astrology lost its standing as a science and suffered a decline of intellectual attention. It experienced a resurgence of popular interest in the late 20th century as part of the New Age movement, and it has been estimated that ??% of the [American/European/whatever] population currently declare an [interest/belief/whatever] in it."

Or somthing similar. Prose-wise, that would work well.Zac Δ talk 11:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The new wording sounds reasonable to me. With respect to spelling, I was always under the impression that American style needs to be followed. Don't have a reference for that but will look for it. Petersburg (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Zac, the 2nd paragraph looks OK to me, but can I make three corrections?

1. You wrote 'Enlightenment of the Renaissance'. Actually astrology flourished in the Renaissance and got a whole new lease of life from Neoplatonism. The Renaissance was in the 15th-16th centuries, the Enlightenment in the late 17th-18th centuries. So delete 'of the Renaissance'. 2. You wrote 'It experienced a resurgence of popular interest in the late 20th century as part of the New Age movement'. That there was a resurgence of interest is actually doubtful, as is whether it was part of the New Age movement. However, regardless of this, I would say 'It experienced a resurgence of popular interest in the late 20th century via the development of newspaper horoscopes in the 1930s, and was widely associated with the New Age movement.' 3. You wrote, 'and it has been estimated that ??% of the [American/European/whatever] population currently declare an [interest/belief/whatever] in it." I would say 'According to Gallup opinion polls around 25% adults in the UK and USA believe in astrology, although the real figure may be much higher'. I will try to find you references for both these and post them on your page.Paul Quigley (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent feedback thanks!. I'll rejiggle and post again.Zac Δ talk 14:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, new version acknowledging the revisions suggested by Paul Quigley:

Astrology’s origins trace to the third millennium.1 Ancient civilizations developed it as a system to predict seasonal shifts and interpret celestial cycles as ‘signs’ of ‘divine communications’.2 Historically it was a learned tradition, sustained in courts, cultural centers, and universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.3 Astrology and astronomy have a closely connected history, but astronomy broke its ties with astrology during the Enlightenment in the late 17th-18th centuries, after which astrology suffered a decline of intellectual attention.4 It experienced an increase of popular interest in the 20th century, partly through the popularity of newspaper horoscopes and by association with New Age philosophies.5 According to Gallup opinion polls around 25% of adults in the UK and USA believe in astrology, although the real figure may be much higher.6

The references are sound for all comments (including the "real figure may be much higher"), so this is mainly a matter of looking at the prose and the way it captures the history of astrology in one nutshell. OK now?

Zac, I have looked up some sources. Belief in astrology in the US and UK is around 25% of the adult population, source:

Linda Lyons, ‘Paranormal Beliefs Come (Super) Naturally to Some: More people believe in haunted houses than other mystical ideas’, Gallup, 1 November 2005, http://www.gallup.com/poll/19558/paranormal-beliefs-come-supernaturally-some.aspx;

Figures for belief are actually higher than Gallup says, source: Bauer, John, and Martin Durant, ‘British Public Perceptions of Astrology: An Approach from the Sociology of Knowledge, Culture and Cosmos, Vol. 1, no. 1 (1997), pp.55-72, give 73%.

For astrology and New Age, source: Nicholas Campion, A History of Western Astrology, Vol. 2, The Medieval and Modern Worlds, London: Continuum, 2009, p. 239-249.

For newspaper horoscopes, source: Nicholas Campion, A History of Western Astrology, Vol. 2, The Medieval and Modern Worlds, London: Continuum, 2009, p. 259-263.Paul Quigley (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zac, I think your new edit is good - with the references. I'd go with it.Paul Quigley (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Gallup Poll 2005 http://www.gallup.com/poll/19558/paranormal-beliefs-come-supernaturally-some.aspx says 25% Americans, 25% Canadians & 24% Brits believe in astrology. (as mentioned above)

In a Harris Poll in the USA in 2009 26% of respondents believe in astrology. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris_Poll_2009_12_15.pdf

Data tables set out on http://www.astrology.co.uk/news/astrostats.htm Robert Currey talk 16:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Robert.

I've updated the 2nd paragraph now, so it can be viewed with references included.

The inclusion of newspaper astrology in the lede is a good one - but this means that the article should include more coverage of that point. I am going to repeat the comment under 'Effects on world culture' for now, as a reminder to revist the point with more attention later as that section is revised.

My own opinion is that the third paragraph is fine as it is and doesn't need any extra references; since it's not presenting controversial comments and the details will be given again in the main body. Anyone feel differently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 17:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph looks good, great teamwork. My only issue with it is the first sentence on two counts: (1) BC or BPE needs to be added, (2) I believe origins go much further than three millennia but will need to look up the ref to that. Started a new subsection on the 3rd para and copied Zac's respective comment below. Petersburg (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Petersburg please take the initiative on the BCE matter (I believe that is more politically correct than BC). I hung over that myself, and was going to put it in, but the source I referred to didn't, so in the end I followed what was in the text. I suppose its meaning is clear enough in content and by the fact that there is no alternative third millenium to consider, but it does concern me that the reader might assume it is badly edited text. For the older origins, I used a source that was handy but also very respected academically. I would only suggest changing it if the alternative source is equally respected. Cheers Zac Δ talk 12:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I did the correct thing :) Petersburg (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

3rd paragraph

My own opinion is that the third paragraph is fine as it is and doesn't need any extra references; since it's not presenting controversial comments and the details will be given again in the main body. Anyone feel differently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 17:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand it should get consideration prose-wise and theme-wise. Does this say what it is aiming to say about the internal contradictions of astrology and the difficulties built into its connection with the fate-freewill issue, clearly, succintly, in a manner that the general reader will easily understand, without becoming boring or unecesessarily wordy? I'm brain dead today so have little to suggest myself at the moment. Zac Δ talk 12:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Astrologers have long debated the degree of determinism in astrology and the limits of astrology's application. Some astrologers believe the planets control fate directly, others that they determine personalities. These positions have been criticized by philosophers and astrologers for denying free will.[7] Many astrologers contend that there is no direct influence, only an acausal correlation between the planets and human affairs.

Updated Core Principles section

As promised (18 July 2011; 13:26) in accord with the discussion in Rethinking the structure, I have split Core beliefs and practices into two parts, Core principles and Astrological techniques and practices. I have clarified Core principles and provided reliable references. This section has general importance because it helps to clarify some of the concepts presented later in the article. There are numerous other principles that might be included here, such as the Ptolemaic precept that established the tropical points as the primary reference frame, but I am undecided at this point, based on the literature I have seen, whether these should be regarded as separate entities.

I haven't done anything with the Astrological techniques and practices. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The reference link for The Emerald Tablet of Hermes seems to have brought with it a PDF icon. I'm not sure if this link was properly formatted. Any suggestions? Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is normal behaviour for all links referencing PDF files. Petersburg (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Finally somebody kicks out the word 'belief' from that section. That was an eyesore, isn't it?

What else could gradually be removed so that nothing is left to suggest that astrology is not a serious academic discipline, based on firm 'principles', and being taught on various universities? MakeSense64 (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken McRitchie, this is a major improvement. Petersburg (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken, this expands this topic in an informative way. I have one suggestion an "astronomically relativistic map" could be an "astronomical schematic map" or "schematic celestial map". I may have more suggestions. Robert Currey talk 15:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Great work ! - thanks for getting onto that so quickly. When there has been more time for suggestions or alterations I'll go through the text with an eye for copy-editing consistency and will rework the reference details so they are consistent with the others I have already done. Just so good to see attention being paid to content. Its a fantastic start to kick off that new section. One question - is there another ref for the comment

"Francis Bacon, who wrote, "The last rule (which has always been held by the wiser astrologers) is that there is no fatal necessity in the stars; but that they rather incline than compel."

Or is it the same as the one that follows? (If it is the same I'll use the reference twice to make that clearer)

Excellent! Zac Δ talk 15:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert, I think it is important that the Hermetic maxim (as above, so below) be presented as a relativistic principle because misunderstandings of the observer's frame of reference is one of the places where so much commentary on astrology begins to go wrong. I don't see how "schematic" or "celestial map" helps to resolve the huge confusion on this issue, but would only tend to obscure it. These don't clarify anything about the relationship between the microscopic and macroscopic views as the Hermetic maxim was intended to do.

The chart is relativistic with (preposition) reference frames centered on the native. I think the grammar is clear.

Zac, All the Bacon quotes are on the same page of De Augmentis. I can add extra links since this would seem to be more clear. Ken McRitchie (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If you would in view of Peter Strempel's warning about a desire to razor text which is unreferenced it is best to play on the side of caution. Just repeat the tag and when I format I'll do any necessary tidy ups. Thanks Zac Δ talk 18:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I accept your expertise on this. I now see that relativistic refers to the the relationship between 'macro and micro-cosmos'. I was thinking totally differently of a chart which is schematic (like an underground/subway map) in that it is not realistic where distance to planets or the size of the planets are not included. Be warned, I have experienced the Strempel razor and it requires a lot of good and necessary sourcing with ISBN numbers for publications wherever possible. :) Robert Currey talk 23:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This item has not attracted controversy among editors and I believe the sources conform to WP guidelines. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Vote to support or debate Wikipedia guidelines and rulings

I have been challenged here and elsewhere to justify the case for the word razor. So here it is.

In any debate in which controversial or fiercely contested arguments are discussed, if prolonged existing discussion has failed to arrive at a resolution, it appears that simply continuing to debate the same issues ad infinitum has little chance of resolving disputes. Put another way, adhering to the same methods has little chance of yielding different outcomes.

But there is a simple method to reduce the number of possible areas of dispute. We all agree to abide by existing Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings. In the context of almost every article there are two entry level criteria: encyclopaedic content must be verifiable with a credible reference, and discussion on this page should be about the article, not unverified assertions that constitute general debate of the topic.

Ergo, cut all unverified assertions unless and until they can be verified. The number of possible points of contention is instantly reduced without a need to compromise at all on rational analysis of verifiable content.

Anyone opposed to this method will need to argue that the existing Wikipedia principles and guidelines and rulings should be open for debate, and be prepared to do that in the appropriate forum, which is not here.

The first step for anyone who wants to pursue this line of debate is to put up your hand now or forever hold your peace on this issue. Once you have identified yourself, I’m sure other editors here will assist you with advice on how and where to lodge a formal challenge to the Wikipedia guidelines that underpin these principles.

In the same vein, the number of points of contention can be further reduced by adhering to Wikipedia arbitration rulings on previous disputes. This has particular relevance for the issue of pseudoscience (see the notice on the top of this page for specific instructions). So I will assume that the first step for anyone wishing to further debate that issue is to identify yourself now or forever hold your peace on the matter. Once you’ve put your hand up, the proper approach and forum for challenging or debating that arbitration ruling can be identified for you.

There is no avoiding the meaning of WP:Verifiability as a 'policy' or the meaning of WP:CONLIMITED —

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

I will assume that all who don’t put their hands up for challenging these wider consensus positions will now cease to debate these points here in the spirit of constructive focus on those issues that are legitimate for debate about this article.

A corollary of these points is that continued debate predicated on arguments against the application of an Arbcom ruling, or to avoid cutting unverified assertions, or to debate unverified assertions, can be legitimately regarded as deliberate obstruction to resolving disputes about verifiable content in this article.

I ask for a simple show of hands – all who favour abiding by existing Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings, say yes, those opposed to these principles, guidelines and rulings, say no –

Yes. Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good evening, Peter! I need some clarification before I vote or submit a !vote.

If this is a vote on whether we will strive to abide by Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings, then you are asking whether we are in favour of motherhood and apple-pie. It's a given - I will vote as a courtesy to you but I believe that, with the exception of one editor who has already voted, this kind of vote is wasting time.
If we are discussing the Strempel razor as a technique of duplicating the page and then marking all unverified points for deletion, then having experienced it, I think it can benefit an article. I am aware that it is controversial and it can be hugely time-consuming for editors. If editors can be given sufficient time to find sources, sources are not unreasonably quibbled over and common sense prevails over self-evident or non-controversial points, then I favour it as a technique. However, IMO it should only be applied to a page where there is an on-going controversy, certainly not to an article in editorial development (citation tags are better here) and not to two astrological pages at the same time as it requires a lot of hard work and there is not enough expertise to go around. Without editorial support, this technique would be iconoclastic (in the traditional sense) and reduce the content on Wikipedia by at least half. WP may become more reliable, but it will be much less informative.
If you are asking us to vote on whether we will abide by Arbcom and in particular the ruling on Pseudoscience, then you have my support and I believe it should remain in the lede. Any debate on this should be at a higher level. If you would like us to vote to agree not to work to implement the correct interpretation which should, of course, be "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" rather than "a classic example of pseudoscience", then I can't support that kind of censorship.

Robert Currey talk 08:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Robert, I mean to identify who does not agree with apple pie and motherhood because common sense has demonstrably not prevailed, and good faith requires that I clarify who may be pursuing deliberate obstruction here before I address that problem as such. The issue of time and expertise cuts in all directions and is no excuse for showing the world unverified content as credible content. The rational argument for my 'iconoclastic' approach has been made. And my request is specific to the Arbcom ruling at the top of this page, not any other contestable proposition. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 12:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Peter, I do not understand. What effect will this vote have? What will change? Ken McRitchie (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

While some have failed to pay attention, others have been getting on with good work. Even discussion on whether this is a silly discussion would be a silly discussion. I'm not fond of apple pie myself.Zac Δ talk 13:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is beyond silly. All editors are in support of WP rules and guidelines by default. If you are looking for support for your proposed draconian edits, my vote is NO. First off, not every single sentence needs to be referenced because this would simply make the article unreadable. Secondly, it is unreasonable to cut anything reasonable from the article without asking for verification here. You can point out, one by one, the sentences you have difficulty with. Then we can either add the required reference or explain to you why it is not needed. Please do not try to have editors conform to your ideal process of editing but follow WP rules and guidelines, as we all do (or strive for doing it anyway). Petersburg (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I vote in favour of abiding by WP principles, guidelines and rules. Other proposals should be discussed. Robert Currey talk 14:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter let's just move forward. Commitment to Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings is surely self-evident by the collaborative effort to bring this page up to WP best standards. We don't need another time-diverting discussion when it's obvious that most editors here understand the issues involved and the necessity for consensus on how best to meet those policies and demonstrate their principles in every element of the page's content. Zac Δ talk 15:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Gibber-jabber. Peter S Strempel | Talk 21:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverting Makesense64 edits due to total lack of consultation and not working with other editors

All the previous edits were undertaken in good faith following extensive consultation amongst the editors. You have suddenly and without advance notice, consultation or any other reasonable notice made drastic changes to the topic. You are editing disruptively against consensus and against the interests of collaborative editing on Wikipedia. I request that you don't edit the page again when you know that those edits are directly contrary to what has been agreed by consensus. i belive you edits invokes WP:TEND Terry Macro (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again I am unfairly accused of disruptive editing. How does that fit with asume good faith WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL?

Please read WP:BRD. Editing boldly is encouraged as a way to keep the discussion moving and break up deadlocks, among other things.

Please give valid reasons why you reverted all the edits I did this morning.

By the way, the recent 'concensus' was pushed artificially. See new section below. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I support all reversions by Terry Macro. MakeSense64, every single one of your edits was with the aim of degrading astrology and overly emphasizing it's pseudoscientific nature. Moreover, none of your edits had consensus, which would indicate POV pushing. I suggest that you work with the editors on this page before unilaterally making such one-sided changes. Petersburg (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Claiming to know the 'aim' of my edits. How does that go together with WP:AGF? That can never be a proper argument to revert an edit. And by the way, it is Terry Macro who is asked for his reasons why he reverted every edit I did this morning.

WP allows reverts but the reverting editor is then expected to engage in discussion and answer fair questions about his reasons for the reverting.

I am waiting. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 Due to your pattern of disruptive edits, harassment, personal agenda, persistent targeted tagging and incitement here and on other pages, I have reported you to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Robert Currey talk 19:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I gave adequate reasons for reverting all of your edits on or around 19 July. There was no discussion whatsover in advance of what you intended, nor was there any advance agreement from any other editors. Now this is usually OK on a quiet topic with little activity and no contentious issues. This is not the case with this topic. One of the first lessons i was taught when becoming an editor was civility - best demonstrated by advance notice to allow adequate discussion before directly engaging in editing a topic, and then only editing upon mutual agreement. In my expereince, such brash approaches to editing that you repeatedly demonstrate in this topic strongly suggests that you have some kind of agenda outside of NPOV - whatever reason that may be. I realise that it is difficult having a NPOV when you feel so intense about a subject, but a NPOV is what is required for the good of Wiki. So in summary, thew reason i reverted your edits is they were made with a total lack of consultation and not working with other editors. Terry Macro (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Image Changes

I would like to request that changes to the page, other than the most basic are discussed here first. For example, I noticed various recent image changes. Though this is not controversial, I think the visual impression of the page is important and should reflect the subject matter. There are now 6 Medieval to Renaissance (1400 to 1600) images - 200 years in a 7,000 year history. I think we should include images from the classical (notably the Hellenistic period e.g. Ptolemy) and the ancient civilizations (e.g. Babylon) and images that cover the period 1600 to 2011 like Carl Jung who had such a big impact on astrology.

Personally I like the Venetian San Marco clock face at the top that Ocaasi put up, but I also miss the Flammarion engraving. Zac, I am sorry to say that I don't favour the Medieval woodcuts of the signs at the bottom. I feel they are more appropriate to a page on Sun sign astrology or the Signs of the zodiac. I also have a problem with the dates since the solar ingress into the signs varies from year to year and such images encourage the popular belief that astrology is about stereotypes rather than a mix of archetypes (or signatures or sub-personalities). What do others think? Robert Currey talk 05:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the Venetian image, but the current position is a little too dominant. Could it be moved down the article and maybe downsized by a few pixels? Also a good point about images from other eras - although we are limited by the availability of good sources, it would be nice to broaden the article a bit. bobrayner (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I generally support these views also. Petersburg (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for 'playing' a little too much with the images. I've been making a habit of checking the daily featured articles to see what works well on other pages, and yesterday's entry had a nice collection of images across the body of the article which I thought worked really well (take a look), so I grabbed the code and took some astrology images that were available on Wikimedia, and placed something similar at the end of ours with the hope that we could do something with it when the time is right. I didn't particularly like the ones I used because they are too bright and colorful. I also agree its important not to load the page with medieval images, but to use images that relate to the theme being discussed, and show astrology from different angles and periods. I do like the Venice clock image at the top though, although I agree it looks better now that Ken McRitchie has reduced it. I think this works well as a header image, in being current but also reflecting astrology's impact on world culture.

I absolutely agree with the need to think about images carefully. It would work well (I think) to include photographs of men like Jung. My suggestion is that when each section has been worked over and revised as we intend it to be, we find the perfect image that will reflect the theme of that section, whilst also balancing within the imagery of the whole page. I would like to suggest that, because this article has to feature all relevant aspects of astrology, we need to cover something about the history and influence of newspaper astrology and sun-signs. Maybe at that place we could use the strip of articles as yesterday's featured article did, to include links to each of the 12 astrological sign pages? Personally I would prefer to use something from the early 1900s there in keeping with the time that newspaper astrology became popular. But such discussions can be had later. Apologies again, I was overly enthusiastic in playing around to see what the code could do and I realise I shouldn't have done that on the main page. Do you want me to take it back to how it was before yesterday's changes - or shall I leave it for now, or for others to take the initiative on that? I'm happy to go along with whatever others prefer. Zac Δ talk 11:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

To Ocassi - personally I prefered the Venice clock image without the box, and how it was when Ken McRitchie reduced it, but I'm totally happy to go along with the box approach and I am glad you're offering suggestions. Images are tricky because they can add a lot towards making the content look interesting, but if they are not 'just right' they can be very annoying. It's probably necessary to play around with the images until we know what is working best for the group rather than each individual. It's not high-priority now I admit, but sometimes a welcome diversion into creative things that break up the stress of complicated text edits. I'm not sure how its done, but maybe we should create a sandbox where we can test out image ideas without changing the main page too frequently? Also, it might be a good idea that in each section where one editor has taken a lead in the content, that editor should be allowed a little more voice on what image they feel is appropriate (?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 12:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The medieval images at the bottom look like more like tapestries than woodcuts to me. I like that they are colorful, but it's just that the dates on them give the feeling of Sun sign astrology, which of course is a much more recent phenomenon, so somehow there's a clash. The venetian clock image is now a thumb, which I don't think is appropriate in the lede and it's too small to see the detail. I don't think the text adds much. I like the painted turtle lede image with links. Astrology is a complex subject and this could be illustrated by a similar link map to other articles divided into categories. A historical timeline, showing the main periods of development and influence, might also be visually interesting. Ken McRitchie (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The Painted turtle article is worth checking because its use of images is very impressive. I also like that lede image inside the box. A link to keep on record for inspiration Zac Δ talk 14:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I take out the colourful Medieval woodcut/tapestries with sun sign dates at the bottom of the page? Robert Currey talk 08:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Obvious errors

The second sentence in Para 1 of the lede is full of basic errors: The primary astrological bodies are the Sun, Moon, and planets, which are analyzed relative to each other by their placement in 'houses' (spatial divisions of the sky) and their movement through signs of the zodiac (spatial divisions of the ecliptic). These are not "astrological bodies" but "celestial bodies," they are analyzed not only "relative to each other" but also within the houses and signs. The houses and signs are both "spatial divisions of the sky" and "the ecliptic." This doesn't give any distinction between them. This is an awful start to the article. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The houses and signs are both "spatial divisions of the sky" and "the ecliptic."

I wouldn't agree on that part. The houses are divisions of the celestial sphere projected into 2D format through the ecliptic; so it's correct to call them spatial divisions of the sky (without getting too complicated). On the other hand the zodiac is entirely a mathematical (spatial) division of the ecliptic. So I would say this is correct as it reads, and the lede is not the place to go into intricate details of technique.

Celestial bodies rather than astrological bodies - I'd vote to support that. How about:

The primary celestial bodies are the Sun, Moon, and planets, which are analyzed by their relative positions to each other, by their placement in 'houses' (spatial divisions of the sky), and by their movement through signs of the zodiac (spatial divisions of the ecliptic).

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 16:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

'Celestial' certainly seems better than 'astrological' to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think astrological is correct in the full context. "Astrology is the study of celestial bodies as they relate to destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events.[1] The primary astrological bodies are the Sun, Moon, and planets, which are analyzed relative to each other by their placement in 'houses' (spatial divisions of the sky) and their movement through signs of the zodiac (spatial divisions of the ecliptic)." There are two reasons:

As celestial bodies is also in the first sentence, to avoid repetition you should use something like astronomical or stellar objects.
These objects are astrological objects or bodies in that as a collection of objects (Sun, Moon, astronomical Planets plus Pluto) they only apply to astrology (or maybe old school books on the solar system).

To be exact IMO houses are spatial and temporal divisions of the ecliptic, since some house systems like Alcabitius create divisions according to time. However, this detail can be ignored for simplicity here. Robert Currey talk 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Houses are a division of the equator and signs of the ecliptic. It was either simplification or misunderstanding that lead to the development of many house systems that divide the ecliptic. This subject is a whole lot deeper than this but for a summary article on astrology I believe this view to be correct. Petersburg (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Right Robert. After I read the second sentence a few times, I'd detached it from the first sentence. I suggest we clarify the ambiguity of "divisions of the sky" and refer to the cycles. How about the following:

Astrology is the study of celestial bodies as they relate to destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events.[1] The primary astrological bodies are the Sun, Moon, and planets. These bodies are studied and interpreted within the signs and houses, which are divisions of the Earth's sky based on Earth's annual and diurnal cycles respectively, as well as by the ever-changing harmonic alignments these bodies make with one another, known as aspects. Ken McRitchie (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Or alternatively, Earth's revolutionary [or alternatively, orbital] and rotational cycles. Would these terms be simpler, though they're scarcely used in astrology? Maybe not.Ken McRitchie (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Clumsy and too wordy IMO - much prefer it simple as it was. Remember schoolchildren access WP too and this is trying to get far too technical in a simple introductory statement. Whether the houses are using time projections or space divisions they are still providing divisions of space. So there really is nothing technically innacurate about the comment as it stands now. We could remove the word 'spatial' in both defintions and that would make it simpler still without losing accuracy. Zac Δ talk 20:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree - I think the present format is concise, clear, understandable and correct. All detail and explanations can be put in the body. I think spatial is useful as Houses and even Signs are technical terms and some explanation is necessary here. And I now think that Houses are best described as divisions of the sky (or heavens or possibly celestial sphere) being measured from the horizon and the zodiac is a division of the ecliptic being measured from 0 Aries (the vernal equinoctial point). Robert Currey talk 21:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is concise but has sacrificed clarity. What it says is that the houses and signs are used to analyze the astrological bodies relative to each other. That is not correct. Houses are used to analyze the planets relative to the angles, and signs are used to analyze the planets relative to the vernal equinox (or some distance adjusted from it). It is in fact aspects that are used to analyze the planets relative to one another. This confuses the three frames of reference. What does analysis of a planet in a house or sign have to do with its relation to another planet? It's incorrect. Ken McRitchie (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken, not sure if you saw this new suggestion I made earlier, to rectify in light of your comments:

"The primary celestial bodies are the Sun, Moon, and planets, which are analyzed by their relative positions to each other, by their placement in 'houses' (spatial divisions of the sky), and by their movement through signs of the zodiac (spatial divisions of the ecliptic)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 23:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Zac, this still says the signs and houses are used to analyze the planets relative to each other. That is the purpose of the aspects, not the signs and houses. Maybe this isn't so obvious to everyone after all. Ken McRitchie (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Zac, I missed reading the comma after "each other." What you have makes sense, only why don't you mention aspects to make it clear? Ken McRitchie (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I did think about that myself, but then figured that it is implicit in the phrase "by their relative positions to each other" and wanted to keep the comment as short and simple as possible. I could be wrong of course so we need other opinions over all comments. Do you think if we put a wiki-linked "(aspects)" immediately after that phrase and before the comma, that would work? (I do). Zac Δ talk 23:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed the comment that was agreed, "which are analyzed by their relative positions to each other, by their placement in 'houses' ..." but left the phrase "astrological bodies". I'm not sure of the group feeling on this. I would prefer 'celestial bodies' myself but have no problems with either phrase.

I am going to be away for the next week, so it's unlikely I'll have opportunity to add more now until I return. Look forward to seeing where we're at on my return Zac Δ talk 10:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Astrology history articles

Within the last hour Peter S Strempel has proposed three major astrological articles for deletion:

Babylonian astrology

Hellenistic astrology

Horoscopic astrology

...and also declared on the main History of astrology talk page

I announce my intention to delete all unreferenced content from this page within seven days. This is in line with Wikipedia principles about verifiable content. Wikipedia pages are not sandboxes for personal opinions, views or discussions. Please add necessary citations for every assertion made.

I have placed "keep" votes on those pages and if others feel the same you should visit the page and follow the link in the box at the top of the page to register your vote.

I have also commented on the main History of astrology page that I believe his announcement is unreasonable.

Are you saying the removal of material that is not supported by reliable sources is unreasonable? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not under normal circumstances; I support the verification policy. It's only unreasonable when done in an unreasonable manner for unreasonable purposes. My concerns are here. Zac Δ talk 15:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have closed these AfDs as WP:POINT violations. These three articles have all been around for five years and have not been edited frequently. There is no reason to think they were being used as sandboxes, etc. I'm noting there that there are different 'types' of astrology articles. Two of these are articles about history. The third is more about astrology as it falls under the arbitration ruling above about pseudoscience and I've added that information to the template. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Zac Δ talk 15:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was sudden. These are not even contentious articles. Thank you Zac. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And reason prevails, Alleluia! Petersburg (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Placement of "not in citation" tags in lede

The not in citation tag was re-added to this sentence

The scientific community bases astrology's pseudoscientific status in its making predictive claims which either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved.[9][not in citation given]

I'm confused by this, as the source (while personally disagree with the claim of falsifiability as he's proposing a new definition of pseudo-science) clearly points to resources which support the sentence. While of course we could point to the sources he mentions, it seems dreadfully bloody minded to force that tag in when even a surface reading of the source would show it to be correct. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, and thanks for your contributions. Good to have another paid of eyes on this.

I have very little time to comment over the next few days, but will make a quick response to say this is something we had identified as a point that needed discussion with other editors who take an interest in the pseudoscience definition (we were hoping to shelve another potentially controversial discussion for now but I see no reason why the discussion should be painful). If you read through the Thagard document "Why astrology is a pseudoscience" the reasons for the pseudoscience status as Thagard explains them don't make these points at all. His paper gives very different reasons for the definition. That is how I understood it when I went through it the other day. I may be mistaken, please check and if you feel that the situation is different and the point *is* properly substantiated by that paper then by all means remove the 'not in citation given' tag. But do check first because it looks to me like there is an assumption that the reference supports the point in the article when I was not able to see that myself - I saw something very different, for which reason IU believe we either need to find a different reference, or look at how to rewrite the comment so that it is showing what the source states more accurately.

In fact I have found recently that many references attached to the article didn't connect to its content, so there is a need to look at each one critically. Some have been removed but some would be better moving to other comments where they do help to substantiate the point being made. Regards, Zac Δ talk 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Core pinciples

An attempt was made to simplify parts of "Core principles" that changed the meaning of the content and has been reverted. Please discuss before making any further changes. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Censorship

A comment made by Mr Robert Currey about censorship has been bugging me for days. He said he would not ever agree to censorship.

I wanted desperately just to drop my objections to a key point in the astrology editing controversies because I believe with every fibre in my being that Mr Currey is right. Censorship is always the wrong response to any issue. But ...

Despite the fact that I consider myself an opponent to all things censorship, as a man who is relatively well educated and obliged to act politically in the world, and therefore to act responsibly when I act politically, I cannot agree in this instance.

We all make choices in life that bring us into contact with situations when we agree to abide by the rules of the game we are playing, or the club we join, or the employer who pays us.

When we come to Wikipedia we are not expected to know its guidelines or its intent, but we are expected to act according to these when our arses are kicked about some rule we didn’t know about or overlooked. That is our compact with Wikipedia generally. In other words, we are not free to say what we think. The compact requires that we respect rules developed over time and with experience of particular problems that tended to repeat themselves.

So, when every fibre of my being screams: ‘do not support censorship’, I also know that allowing someone else to say, on behalf of Wikipedia, pretty much anything they want to, it is time to appeal to the only arbiter appropriate to this place, which is, of course, the guidelines and Arbcom rulings.

I also know that if I want to challenge those rulings I have to become involved at a higher level than an article, and I have to be persuasive across a whole range of opinions of which I have no prior knowledge when I make my pitch. That’s a good thing. If I were bullshitting and just got the benefit of the doubt, I don’t deserve to succeed. That last part gives me the insight that fighting Wikipedia guidelines in an article is always going to be more easy than in the right forum for that sort of discussion.

So, in the context of this article and these particular circumstances, I have to say that I vote Wikipedia rules rather than emotional appeal or personal preference. That decision isn’t made any easier by the transparency of particular Wikipedia subversion techniques that have been practised in the past, and, embarrassingly for their perpetrators, discovered by administrators.

The presumption of good faith wears thin with experience, as the policy on that thing actually says.

All of this isn’t to say that I blame Mr Robert Currey, whose conduct here I hold in high regard, but I won’t accept on any sort of faith the conduct of others who demonstrably think that voting for Wikipedia rules is ‘silly’ while they continue to ignore them.

Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Peter. When you write that "He (Robert Currey) said he would not ever agree to censorship." I should clarify that I was saying that while I totally support following the Wikipedia rules etc, I could not support any form of 'censorship' or restrictions on our scope to discuss the interpretation of the rules on this or any WP page. Many discussions centre on the application and interpretation of the rules. Robert Currey talk 09:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter S Strempel, with all due respect, I believe it is your good self who chooses to ignore WP policies. The talk page was given to editors so that they can discuss significant or controversial changes to the article ahead of time. It is not at all following policies when you announce sudden, substantial and unwarranted changes, and expect everyone to abide by your judgment, no matter how many rules you can find to support your move. You were blessed with a high intellect, please use it to the benefit of all. Petersburg (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

'It is not at all following policies' is exactly what I intend to find out. We either have them or we don't. If we don't, all of Wikipedia is revealed as nothing more than a gigantic, sometimes entertaining, sometimes misleading, blog. If no principle or guideline can be applied without needing to discuss how everyone feels about that, then there might as well be no principles or guidelines. Your proposition sounds awfully like: 'You shouldn't lie, except for when Wikipedia editors and admins say that's OK because we had a quick fag out the back and decided this is what we have determined truth to be.'

And that's OK too, if that's what Wikipedia aspires to. But when it is that, not an encylopaedia, I will withdraw from this gibber-jabber, because I can write more elegant blogs elsewhere without having to be patronised, or having to kiss arse and patronise in return.

What we do here IS what Wikipedia is. If unverified content is OK as far as you guys are concerned, just don't call it an encyclopaedia any more. Good luck and good night. Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)