Talk:Deborah Houlding

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

improve

This article seems to have been a stub forever. It contains no sources (have added a tag for it). Looks like self promotion WP:SOAP And has too many links that go to same site WP:ELNO MakeSense64 (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Serious notability concerns. I checked selected online media sources in Britain, Ireland, US, worldwide, casting a wide net -- no mention of her from reporters or valid secondary sources. Looks like this article is self-promotion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

However she's a published author, with results on Google Books. My sense is: the article needs cleanup.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Better, but I think serious notability concerns remain here. Author of a single book that appears to be self-published, and republished by some non-notable publisher. The mention of her book should go in a bibliography section. But then the biography itself is again without independant references, and falls back almost completely on self-published sources. Is a single book showing up in google book search, and a few trivial mentions in other non-notable publications enough to support notability?

The last paragraph "In 2002, Houlding launched an Internet astrological website entitled Skyscript. She studies the history of astrology, runs her own school of horary (STA), and writes regularly for the Mountain Astrologer magazine. Her book The Houses: Temples of the Sky was expanded and published by Wessex Astrologer in 2006." seems to be largely redundant, but if I merge it in the rest of the article what will be left that can be sourced indepedantly ? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am also finding that according to notability(books) a book is not notable just because it has ISBN number and appears in google book search. -- If the book is not notable then we will need other references to establish that this author is notable. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally I agree with your thinking here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Further, I've noticed new unsourced additions to this article along with more links which look a lot like spam. My sense is either this article should be stripped substantially or else put up for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Just take a look at the contributor who made these changes. Special:Contributions/Clooneymark All the edits he made yesterday consists of adding more external links to the skyscript website. A clear case of spam and using wikipedia for self-promotion. That makes me think: put up for deletion. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, clicking on 'diff' I see that the only editing this Clooneymark has ever done is adding links to same website (probably his own). What is the wikipedia policy in such a case? Remove these spam links? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia does not like link spam, and what else is this. I'll support your decision whether you decide to delete or trim it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty pissed to log in today and find my edits of yesterday removed because someone thinks that adding relevant information makes me a spammer. MakeSense is not making sense here. Check the links - those I added to this page are directly relevant to Deborah Houlding because she is the creator of the Skyscript website. Skyscript is an important website for astrologers, so to drop mention of her creating Skyscript is like dropping mention of Wikipedia from the Jimmy Wales page. (Without that mention where's the logic for adding the Skyscript site to the external links section?). Let's see the other 'spam' links I added - a link to her personal website and to a published personal interview by Garry Phillipson which shows why she is known for being "one of the foremost practitioners of horary astrology". There's other interviews - one here on an Amercian site http://gryphonastrology.com/blog/2008/07/07/interview-with-astrologer-deborah-houlding-part-1-of-3/ and one here on a leading Greek astrology website:

http://www.myhoroscope.gr/140-%F3%F5%ED%E5%ED%F4%E5%FD%EE%E5%E9%F2/10105-deborah-houlding-traditional-modernist-exclusive.html#post106253 - but the interview link I gave is better IMO.

Makesense, the reason my adds were from one site yesterday is because I was on it yesterday and thought they were good, convenient links to add. I dip in to Wikipedia when I can to add what I think are useful non-controversial bits of info. I'm not gonna get into flamming rants so do as you please but I think you should reinstate my edits and show a little more good faith here Clooneymark (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Being an editor on WP is not about getting pissed when *your* external links get trimmed, it is about improving the articles to get them up to standards, which is explained in detail in the guidelines and WP policy pages. If you had read those policies, then you would know that an external link to personal website is normally limited to one link, not 5 going through different sections on the same domain. -- Also have a look at WP:V, quoting: 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. -- Another core principle is neutral point of view WP:NPOV . If you are getting pissed because *your* external links get trimmed, then it is rather doubtful whether you have the NPOV to edit the article in question. Do you agree? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Im not pissed because my links were trimmed. I add info and people can keep it or not. That's fine. I'm pissed that I contributed what im my view was useful and relevant infomation and without anyone even bothering to say hello let alone have a word in my ear, you came in with all your guns blazing and your knife at my throat, to givv me a final warning about my spamming activity. I wouldnt have challenged any edit except for that. Yesterday I logged in and found your message labelling me a spammer. Thats why I'm pissed. You got that wrong but you made the mistake on my user page, not yours.

The links issue is not straightforward here because of the subject of the page runs the site that has the best information about her. I think you are completely wrong but will assume you thought you had reason and leave it at that. But you should add back the info about Deborah Houlding creating the Skyscript site and be clear about that because its significant and verifyable. Do you agree? Clooneymark (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about your spam warning belongs to your talk page, not here on the Deborah Houlding talk page. Life is easier when you keep things where they belong. It makes no sense to go on telling me how 'completely wrong' I am, in short: the final warning you got is what WP guidelines call for If an editor spams numerous articles in a systematic fashion... -- WP guidelines are clear that reliable *outside* sources are need to make an article verifiable. So they cannot come from a person's own website. -- Your continued insistence that start of the Skyscript website should be mentioned in this biography (and added into numerous other articles), suggests that there is some conflict of interest at work here. See WP:CONFLICT. Don't blame me for the WP guidelines. If you don't agree with some WP guidelines then there are places where you can go and make your case. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a great resource and works well because of its rules which have succeeded in becoming a valuable worldwide free compendium of all kinds of knowledge. Because it has great information, because it doesn't have much advertising, it earns tremendous readership -- huge volumes of eyeballs. But this readership attracts all kinds of purposes too -- it makes it extremely tempting for advertisers to slip in fluff, extraneous stuff to make a person or product or company look great; it tempts fans of celebrities to write about how great they are, forgetting to try to be neutral and impartial. It even affects well-meaning and smart people to write about what they think is important. To keep Wikipedia great, we need to constantly police each other -- to question each other's additions -- to ask: hey does this belong? Does this article follow the rules? Of course it leads to all kinds of battling among egos (which we all have) but out of this battling a great thing emerges. It gets all of us -- I've had whole articles deleted -- ones which I worked hard on -- which I thought were good -- but it's the community overall were nonplussed with. It can also be a great learning experience too. In terms of this specific article, I recommend keeping it short -- including only stuff for which there are reliable references -- if it gets too long, with too many links (why isn't one enough?) it begins to look like advertising, and it makes the entire community look bad if it stays. When there is unsourced information, it's like asking everybody to trust that whoever added it was right -- and that's why there are policies such as verifying sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

THanks for taking time to comment Tomwsulcer. I understand your point, appreciate you taking time out to put it that way - will definitely by wary in future, no worries. Sure, one link is enough when you put it like that. I don't want to get locked into an ego battle or detract from the issue of what information ought to be on the page. Getting back to the point, I asked "But you should add back the info about Deborah Houlding creating the Skyscript site and be clear about that because its significant and verifyable. Do you agree?" I think Makesense64 you just evaded that by implying I only think so because I have a bias, instead of sticking to the matter of relevancy, reliability, neutrality, etc. It's a valid question on a legitimate point which concerns notability. It seems obvious to me and that's why I'm having a hard time figuring out why there is even an issue about this. This link leads to numerous reliable *outside* sources which show that Houlding is notable in her own right and also because "she has assembled a vast and wonderful Web site whose emphasis is the history, development..." etc. http://pipl.com/directory/people/Deborah/Houlding

Am I being insistent to give a reply that underlines the obvious (as I see it)?? Can't see how it makes sense to give the one external link to the Skyscript site instead of her personal website at www.debhoulding.co.uk if you are going to censor mention of her being the creator of the skyscript site in the bio details. Will be happy to follow Tomwsulcers view here since he seems to have a good handle on what works best for the page Clooneymark (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) My hunch is that the article is a bit long -- that less is more (and less => better overall) -- since the entire second paragraph has no references. I kept some material in when I worked on the article earlier (and I added three references) since I figured the existing material was probably right, but I was guessing. You see, information about someone having a brain tumor -- suppose this information is incorrect -- we're talking about a living person here -- we should probably remove information like that unless we can back it up. My sense is that if the article is safer (safer meaning less likely to be deleted) when it's shorter, tighter, to the point, with more references (ie not just to her books, but reliable sources in secondary publications). I think you should choose one external link and leave it at that; and I'd listen to MakeSense's ideas about the article if you'd like to keep it here. If the article stays bloated, without sufficient references, other contributors will come along and press for deletion. It happens.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the Elwell article and then this to find better refs. Will follow Makesense's suggestion on the Elwell page to post my proposed edit for discussion rather than add it to the page. Short is fine as long as we dont cut out the points of notability and leave the stuff that's inconsequential. I'll do some research first before making more suggestions.Clooneymark (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to adhere to Biographies of living persons for this article, and focus on Verifiability as well. Things which we cannot verify should not be there, and in the case of the mention of cancer in this biography Tomwsulcer is completely right, BLP insists that such things should be removed immediately unless they can be sourced. In fact we have no reliable sources for the entire 2nd paragraph, so probably better to trim that part and then see what can be added based on proper sources. -- For BLP the advice is to avoid self-published sources , and there is also an interesting piece about People who are relatively unknown. Quoting: include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. So this speaks in favor of shortening the article. -- Clooneymark is right to use the personal website www.debhoulding.co.uk rather than skyscript.co.uk, because the latter should be included only if we have a high quality secondary source to back up its mention in this article. Skyscript.co.uk appears to be a retail outlet and offers consultations from various astrologers as you can see here : http://www.skyscript.co.uk/begin.html . That puts it out of question to be used as a 'reliable secondary source' in WP articles about these astrologers. -- I am going to trim the article accordingly, then we can see what can be added based on BLP guidelines. -- Similar problems with the Elwell article, where Clooneymark goes on insisting to add more references to skyscript.co.uk, but we will keep that on the talk page there: Talk:Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer). The constant focus of Clooneymark seems to be to slip in links and references to skyscript.co.uk . Shouldn't we ask why? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Makesense64 wrote "ll article, where Clooneymark goes on insisting to add more references to skyscript.co.uk, but we will keep that on the talk page there: Talk:Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer). The constant focus of Clooneymark seems to be to slip in links and references to skyscript.co.uk . Shouldn't we ask why?"

Let’s clear this up for good and then move on. The presence of an ad doesn’t discount a page from being a WP source any more than it prevents reference links to newspaper sites or other information-based sites that carry a few ads. How do we know its credible? Easily answered. Its not about what you think or I think. Go to Google books and run a search on the word ‘Skyscript.co.uk’ and then check how many books, including academic publications, quote the site as their source of information. That also explains my use of it. In many cases its the only source of easily accessed information because it covers a specialised level of the subject that goes beyond the popular end of astrology.

I've already explained myself more than I need to, but if there is some sort of personal vendetta thing going on here let me know. I've made a big effort to get this right. Makesense64 argued that every relevant link that goes to that site is spam, and then went from complaining about too many links to one site, to dropping the mention of the site altogether in this biography of the site creator, to now suggesting it can’t be used anywhere on Wikipedia as a refernce for any astrologer. If he has personal vendetta or past problem with the site he should declare it. Otherwise end that subject and stick to discussing what is relevant and verifyable information on this page.

Before anyone takes seriously the suggestion that my focus is to slip in references to a "retail site" [?], actually go check Talk:Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer) to see what Makesense64 is talking about. I spent most of yesterday trying to figure out the code for those few paragraphs so I’m eager for feedback. Did my best to make sure every comment was attributed to a reliable source and the references are all good. Being aware of the sensitivity Makesense64 has against the site he dislikes so much, I used other sources wherever possible and if anyone can find better please do. He says we will keep the discussion on that page, but not before he mentioned it here with vague slurs that will only work if people don’t actually check to see what he is talking about. So pleae check that page: Talk:Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer).

As for the edit Makesense64 just made here - why so hasty to make such a dramatic edit immediately after I said I was doing some research and would post a suggestion with refs for discussion on this talk page? The illness thing is easily verifyable because it's been documented in published works, though I'm not convinced that's one of the relevant points of notability here. I’ll work on the history of the page and try to rescue some of the earlier details that can be substantiated though secondary source. Will aim to do that next week. I need a few days but will check all the bio policies first to make sure I get it right. Have resisted my urge to get angry about this, but Makesense64 - something from the WP to quote to you "Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming." (Five Pillars) Clooneymark (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You are unnecessarily repeating a piece of my comment with my signature in it. Please clean up. -- Let me remind you that this is the WP page about 'Deborah Houlding', it is not the WP page about 'skyscript.co.uk'. -- The article was edited by me based on BLP guidelines and after both Tomwsulcer and Clooneymark agreed to shorten the article and stick to the items that are properly sourced. This after a week of discussion. If there is concensus on some points then there is no need to wait with the edit. -- My impression is that Clooneymark is not a suitable person to contribute to this article. NPOV is lacking completely and refuses to stick to clear WP guidelines and core principles. For example talk about Elwell should be on the Elwell talk page, not here, talk about MakeSense64 should be on the MakeSense64 talk page, not here. This has now been pointed out several times already. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume WP does allow for page-changes even after you have discussed and made decisions yourself? Remind me again - whay is there a strap a cross the head of the article which reads:

The topic of this article may not meet the notability guideline for biographies. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (May 2011)

I am answering that call. Here's the thing. My comments on Skyscript and Elwell are made in defense of the comments that you insist on introducing here. Drop it and move on. I will research to provide the requested refs, will study the policies before posting, and will post my suggestion here on the talk page for discussion. I think that shows that I am not only suitable, but also very sensible.Clooneymark (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I have asked for editor assistance on this page. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer's new additions are goodand get a thumbs up from me. Tomsulcher, I hope you wont object if I make some suggestions about replacing some comments with points of stronger notability because I think that there are better refs for some of the points. Will be able to check on my next visit to the library.Clooneymark (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Hello, comments noted. The material in the article at present is all based on reliable references and contributors here are doing our best, by following Wikipedia's rules, to make sure we follow the guidelines. And we'll be keeping watch of the article to make sure it's fair. Ms. Houlding, please email a picture of yourself to me via email at thomaswrightsulcer (AT) yahoo (DOT) com. And give me permission to post it in Wikimedia Commons under license ccsa2.5. Say when the photo was taken approximately. That way, I can include your photo in this article, thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Contributors are not required to explain why they spend more or less time on WP, or why they are inactive for certain periods. There can be a myriad of reasons for that. Contributors are also not required to be neutral (usually they are not), they are only required to apply the WP guidelines and write from a NPOV, which is what we have been trying to do here. To bring challenge to an article WP:CHALLENGE is also part of what is being done here, and it is not rarely the quickest way to get an article improved ( as this case shows)

This article as I found it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deborah_Houlding&oldid=393392111 ) violated a lot of core WP principles, so I tagged it. I found similar problems on a number of astrology related articles and biographies and tagged or improved them as well. Fact is that Tomwsulcer has done most of the trimming and editing of this article here, and now added back some things for which some reference could be found. Ms. Houlding's complaint is thus nothing but an exagerated story, most of which cannot be verified, and interestingly she has nothing to say about Clooneymark, who woke up after a long period of inactivity, only to add more external links the day after Tomwsulcer had trimmed them to one.

Ms. Houlding is asking to block me from abusing any WP page, without pointing out even a single WP page that has been abused by me.

MakeSense64 (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the comment by Ms. Houlding based on WP:OUTING MakeSense64 (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable. I was just responding to the details that post. So Houlding shows that this editor is not neutral but proves that it is someone who is active in a harrasment campaign about her and the skyscript site because he has been involved in the site in the past and is now banned from it. Hence he blows a fuse at links to skyscript even when they are relevant further reading links and he tries to get her biography deleted. When that doesn't work he cuts it down to one line and try to block me as a poster because I disagee with his excessively restrictive interpretation of policies regarding Houlding's right to have her association with Skyscript known on WP. I'm still taking this in.Clooneymark (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody needs to know who anyone "is" here...all wikipedia content must stand solely on reliable sources so that anyone can verify it, not just on the claims of editors. By extension, it does not matter what people's personal opinions or backgrounds or off-wiki activities are, because again content must meet guidelines for neutral wording and independent verifiability. It is completely unacceptable to post detective-work or other information tying other editors to off-wiki activities. If you have a problem with another editor, do not dig yourself into a disreputable hole trying to resolve it. WP:CIVIL is a core policy of wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

We might not need to know his identity be WE DO need to know if someone has a personal agenda against the person whose page they are working on! Makesense64 has been a threatening editor to me and this shows the reason why. After I placed relevant links for further reading, he did not discuss/explain or recommend - but immediately issued me a an editorial warning which said: "This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Deborah Houlding, you may be blocked from editing without further notice." He has been intimidating me since, tryint to suggest that I have associations with the site or that I gave those information links reasons of commercial gain. His attitude has been hostile and extreme, only because he is following his own personal vendetta. If someone has a personal grude against someone they should not be trying to take editorial control over that person's WP biography. He should do the decent thing now and remove himself from this discussion if he doesn't want to be banned altogether. It completely breaks WP policy for him to continue. The published policy on harrassment says

Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OUTING#Off-wiki_harassment

So it is very relevant that Makesense64 is engaged in off-wiki harassment of the subject of this page. He is negatively biased and will lead discussions towards a negative slant. He cannot be allowed to contribute to published content, or even the discussion about it. It is not good enough for him to say that all is OK and he can do as he likes off-wiki providing that what is published confirms to his understanding of policy. This is not the case. Clooneymark (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Some facts to consider:

• I did not put the biography up for deletion, I tagged it for improvement/references needed and notability concerns. Editor Tomwsulcer agreed and started making improvements.
• I did not try to block Clooneymark as a poster. I gave him the warning that WP guidelines prescribe when an editor systematically posts same or similar external links into several articles, as he did on June 1st (and in August 2007), without even bothering to give any explanation on the talk pages. Everyone can check his contributions on WP up to June 1st. Get used to it, if adding external links is the main activity of an editor it will look suspect on WP. We have done everything we can to point him to the relevant WP policy pages, and editors are allowed time to learn.
• And there is no such thing as Houlding's right to have her association with Skyscript known on WP . A certain item can get included if and only if it can be verified and is notable enough to get mentioned in the first place. That has to be judged based on WP guidelines. It is not a question of rights or editor opinions. -- In fact if the skyscript website itself does not meet the WP notability guidelines, then we better question its mention in this biography, because WP:BLP recommends to focus only on the items of notability and on high quality secondary sources. WP:NPF -- Let's also not forget that WP:ACADEMIC makes some very specific exceptions in the case of Pseudo-science , which includes astrology. If books, journals and positions connected to pseudo-science do not lead to notability , then what does that mean for this article? and for several other biographies of living astrologers? Please discuss.

MakeSense64 (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

To Clooneymark: which 'wikipedian' has been harassed off-wiki? Remember that 'wikipedian' means a person who is an editor on WP. There is a WP page about Barack Obama, but that doesn't mean Obama is a 'wikipedian'. Does that solve your question? MakeSense64 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask a question. Youve been shown for what you are. Its lame to argue that a policy of off-wiki harresment which casts doubts about an editor's on-wiki actions shouldnt apply to the subject of the page. The principle is the same. This adds disingenious and time-wasting to your sins. Doubly ironic after your attempts to stop me contributing because I placed external links to the site that you hate. I made a mistake in not realising that links to further information might be frowned upon but Ive learned and will correct myself. will you? WP policy on anonyminity exists for a reason but is known to have the problem of

the attractiveness of the project to people who merely want to cause trouble, or who want to undermine the project, or who want to change it into something that it is avowedly not – in other words, the troll problem.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian#Anonymity_of_editors

Why did you tag your last comment as “pseudo-science questions” and call for discussion on that? The pseudo-science policy is no relevant to this biography but might help you stir up new trouble from another angle.

You reactivated a dormant account at the end of May only to argue that the person who banned you from her site has no notability. If the quality of the article was your concern why not help to find suitable references as Tomsulcher did instead of cutting the biography down to a one line entry and questioning my suitability to edit when I said I would try to provide references to help rescue the content.

No reason to discuss the pseudo-science policy here. Your off-wiki personal grudge is a matter of concern for this page, not a reason to time-waste or undermine the project. Suggest you re-think the value of the time you spend here Clooneymark (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This is continued harassment based on an outing that was removed by a WP administrator earlier today. He even explained to you it was completely unacceptable WP:HARASS. I can only ask you to remove your comment. Otherwise I will have to call for dispute resolution WP:DR MakeSense64 (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

People who harass should be circumspect in throwing accusations of harassment around. I made a comment after the WP administrators remarks to clarify my understanding of the policy, that yes your off-wiki identity should remain protected, but your off-wiki harassment of the subject of this page is relevant given the circumstances of what is goin on here. It goes beyond the case of you now admitting to not being neutral and arguing that you do not need to be, because this involves a dedicated hate campaign, based on a motivation of revenge. That is serious and reason for your involvement in this page to be ended.

The revelation also defends me against the accusations you made against me. You continually argued that I might have commercial interest in the site and so placed the links in order to spam. I categorically deny this and always have but you ignored my protestations and continued to push your accusations against me when there was no foundation for them. On the basis of your invented argument that I was not attempting to adhere to neutrality you declared that I was not a suitable person to contribute to this article. Now we can see the reason why you have been so hostile and unreasonable towards me, because you have a personal desire to undermine the subject of the page and discredit any links that go to her site, whether appropriate or not.

My interest in this page is over and I will be spending my time on other pages. Suggest you do the same. I dont believe I have broken any policy here because my comments were made in my own defence. I consider my last remark to be fair comment but if I have broken policy then I would appreciate a confirmation from a WP administrator who is not involved in the way you have been. If I have broken policy I will do whatever is necessary to put my actions right.

To Tomsulcher. I agree with your edit comment about the external links. I always said that the two links are both warranted and agree with you that it should be just those two, no more. Hope you saw my comment in the edit box, saying that I added the Skyscript link but suggested that the personal web site link was removed from the photo-box, so there would be only the two external links and no more. Didnt want to edit the photo box myself because it was your work. You done a good job and wanted to leave the decision to you.

Makesense64, if you have any other issues take it up on my user page where your accusation of me being a spammer is still very visible and continuing to cause me embarresment and distress Clooneymark (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There are other pages needing attention

Let's work on them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Review (requested) 8 June 2011

Checking the verifiability of sources. I didn't read the talk page comments prior to this so as not to be influenced, but took the article as it stands currently.

Citation 1 to The Houses: Temples of the Sky, re-published by The Wessex Astrologer Ltd after being self-published by Houlding’s own Nottingham-based Ascella Publications. Assuming that Wessex Astrologer has no direct connection to Houlding - on balance OK.

Citation 2 to The Traditional Astrologer within The Astrology Book – there is an ISBN for The Astrology Book that can be added. The Traditional Astrologer is a defunct publication that Houlding edited[1], and claimed to have published through her own Ascella Publications (bottom of page[2]), but copies still sold on her personal web site. But the cite does point elsewhere and supports an uncontroversial raw fact – on balance not self-referencing so OK

Citation 3 to Astrology (Parker and Parker) – assuming good faith that Houlding is mentioned on page 296, and that it supports something uncontroversial – so OK

Citation 4 to Sydney Omarr's (Penguin USA) for "one of the UK's top astrologers" – OK

Citation 5 to The World of Internet, no ISBN (ISBN usually the entry level for book notability) but in Google books, and mentions that Houlding set-up the Skyscript site - so on balance OK if comment on website content goes (see below).

Citations 6,7,8,9, and 10 are from Mary Plumb’s California-based Mountain Astrologer.com. All assertions verified but see caveat below about this site.

Citation 11 to www.astrologicalassociation.com 2010 Conference Speakers – OK

My reservation about the article is the heavy over-egging reliance on Mountain Astrologer, while there being no cites to significant independent non-astrological sources. There is a blue link to traditional astrological methods but the text or link doesn’t explain what these methods are – perhaps this needs explaining. There is little point in adding what might be seen as promotional quotes in the text, especially if they are repeated in the refs/footnotes, and are at the other end of links anyway - so I would remove "a range of astrology articles, resources and instructional material" from the first para, and "the bewildering varieties of house division. She believes that Librans have a talent for impartiality and make perfect judges, referees and diplomats" from the second para.

 Done. Removed. Rewrote lede sentence slightly differently (so we don't have to fuss with what "traditional astrological methods" means. Thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Good job. What a lot of people don't realize is that a crisp and to-the-point article and style elevates the importance of the subject; the long-winded, poorly cited, and waffle diminishes it. Less is always more. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree! Thanks for your spot-on suggestions! --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As a comment, the external link to Skyscript is strange as this web site appears to have another differently designed Skyscript site sub domain embedded within it with no cross-links – could this second link be used for her official site? – we are allowed the official site in externals. The article needs developing of course, but what is here I don't find too outrageous, just a little over-enthusiastic. Acabashi (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Update - this second site seems to be added into the info box under a different domain name. Acabashi (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at here but please feel free to make the changes yourself; my sense is only one external link is all that's needed, do you agree?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I do agree - fair enough - and I won't change a thing - couldn't be better. I was just curious that a version of Deb's own website lay hidden within the Skyscript site - a bit of a curiosity that's all. Acabashi (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Omarr Citation

I notice that the comment “one of the UK's top astrologers” has been tagged by whom?. It is evident from the text that the comment comes from renowned US astrologer, Sydney Omarr in his book published by Penguin. Was the tag an oversight of this solid reference or a request that the reference makes the source clearer? If not, I propose reverting the tag. Robert Currey talk 18:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Agreed; thanks for pointing this out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Robert Currey talk 23:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Expertise

The article is written as though she were a respected academic rather than as an amateur historian. The "Critical commentary" was the Heilen noting mistakes etc that had she had made. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Please clarify how you think it should read. Kooky2 (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Examples: Wording such as "has attracted interest from other fields" implies Astrology is a recognised legitimate field. With the original research which has been added: " her research into the history of astrology has attracted notice and critical interest outside the field of astrology as well as within". No source states that, you have reached that conclusion yourself. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reduced the academic tone of the article and there is some critical comment. Kooky2 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Restoring Dubious citations

Why are dubious unverified citations being restored which don't even need to be present for the lede? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added supporting quotes. Kooky2 (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You added one quote, not three. Also see my second point (WP:OVERCITE), This information is trivial and the sources are low quality. It's in the lede and doesn't actually need to be cited in this way per WP:LEADCITE. Whatever way you look at it, three sources aren't needed to state something so basic in the lede. This leads me to a suspicion that sources are merely being kept and added to give the appearance that the article is notable (which is pointless anyway as the discloser judges by the AfD arguments and the sources presented at the AfD, not by the article). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions of style are less important right now rather than content and we have to give credit to the discloser judges to make a decision based on their expertise. Kooky2 (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? No we don't. The closer won't be commenting here. We don't ignore policies so people can stuff the article with poor citations. Justify the content, or remove it. Uninvolved admins close the discussion for their ability to weigh up the arguments. They weigh up our arguments in the discussion based on what we have said, they don't add new arguments. They hold the same weight as anyone else when it comes to matters of content though. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated some of the content that accompanied the links. Kooky2 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How could you conclude that as a basis of this discussion? You haven't attempted to justify your inclusions in the slightest. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You have again deleted the links and content without agreement. Kooky2 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

See that part above where I explained precisely my position but you had no counter argument? That was the discussion. If you wish to be part of the discussion, then discuss it. I've already made several points, none of which you have countered. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider there is a case of WP:OVERCITE and WP:LEADCITE states that "Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement." Kooky2 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone contended that she is not an astrologer? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Mindful of your comment about WP:OVERCITE I have moved one reference from the lead into the body. Kooky2 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The very next reference says she is one of the top astrologers, and you think somehow you need a new reference? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Original Research Tag

Please could someone clarify the reasons for OR tag in this article - Which references are considered to be OR and why and how could they be improved? Kooky2 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not revert edits without a reason. Restoring a section because there hasn't been a discussion is not a valid reason for doing so. No citations explicitly support: "her research into the history of astrology has attracted attention from outside the field of astrology as well as within". No reliable source explicitly supports "Her knowledge of the origin and development of traditional astrological principles has led to presentations at institutions". No source explicitly supports "her writings on the development of the Zodiac have also attracted interest from other fields". No source explicitly supports "She has also aroused controversy and criticism through her Skyscript articles". No source explicitly supports "In addition, her articles on many subjects such as the cycles of Venus and the twin Gemini stars have been commented on in astrological journals." You are inferring these things. Doing that is original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Pithy is preferred

It is an excellent idea to keep dubious, hard-to-check references out of this highly controversial article which once came up for AfD. Irrelevant info, promotional content (ie books translated into different languages), links to websites selling astrological stuff and so forth should be kept out. A short pithy article helps Wikipedia stay accurate and on course and also helps Deborah Houlding, as a subject, appear professional. Adding the junk makes both Wikipedia and DH look nonnotable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree pithy is good and there may have been some superfluous content here. However, you have also cut out a lot of relevant content backed by reliable independent sources. Which references were dubious and hard-to-check? Why do you consider that awards by independent bodies and reliably sourced should be excluded? Can you please clarify which "websites selling astrological stuff were of concern" to you? Do you think we should exclude all links to commercial websites or simply those that sell products and services that you consider unethical? I wonder if it is Houlding herself who is controversial rather than this article, which you consider to be highly controversial. Kooky2 (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I put back three references. Astrology is one of those subjects in Wikipedia that does not garner much respect, rightly or wrongly, wouldn't you agree? A while back this article came up for deletion, and squeaked by -- the result was no consensus. So, if people would like this article to stick around, it is wise to observe Wikipedia's guidelines closely. What can happen, over time, is that it is tempting to add a little here, or there, throw in a section about her publications, without inline citations. This is a natural tendency. An article can get bloated, somebody will come around, see how bloated it is, possibly it could get deleted. So, my counsel is: keep it short and sweet; avoid uncheckable material on a contentious subject like astrology; avoid long lists of books. About specific items in a recent version:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• This source is a link to a publishing website--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This site: isbndb.com appears to be an ISBN database and the only way to buy the book in the link is via independent external links such as amazon. I think this less promotional than most sites. Kooky2 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If you feel strongly that it belongs back in, I'll support your decision.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Information about Houlding's books being translated into other languages -- belongs on DH website not Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Being editor of the Traditional Astrologer magazine -- no checkable link.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• World of Internet, APH Publishing, again uncheckable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Quote about Skyscript being "one of the most active web sites..." again no direct link.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• dubious Quote in reference reads: "The focus of this astrological school is the integration of traditional astrological teachings within contemporary astrological practice." Can you see why this might be seen as a sales-y.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Astrological Association of Great Britain website does sell some items but is useful for establishing DH as being editor of Traditional Astrologer etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• The Burnett reference (also hard to check) has an extra long quote embedded, possibly copyvio problems.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

As an example, look at another article. Check out Hayford Peirce. There are only a few checkable references here. Much of it was junk supplied by Peirce himself or friends. Two pages of junk. Read the article. Does it look professional? Does it persuade you that Peirce is an important writer? Do you believe it? My point is to keep the cruft out of the DH article and overall the result will be more professional, persuasive, and less likely to face a deletion challenge.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Tomwsulcer. The Hayford Peirce article is mostly a waste of space - I found it too tedious to read. I don't believe the DH article was in that league.

And yes, I have come across a group of WP editors who have strong dislike (rightly or wrongly) for astrology (and indeed most fringe topics) and others who are on mission to promote their pseudoscientific beliefs. I believe that our job as editors is to judge each article on its Encyclopedic merit not to let our emotions or pressure from these subjective editors cloud our editing practices.

We are in a cycle here. At the time of the last AfD, Houlding's notability was in question. Editors backed up their keep vote with evidence of notability: publications translated, awards and references outside of her field etc. Some of these points were reasonable and I added them and in response to criticism, I also cut out some of the junk. Other editors contributed. Now, if we remove the evidence of notability, the subject will appear to lack notability and the article will be up for an AfD again. Editors will again find supportive references and add them back to the article to show notability. Is there any guideline to show where evidence of notability is not considered sufficiently notable content?

Unfortunately, I can't spend time on this right now, but I will come back. Kooky2 (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kooky2. If you feel I've trimmed too much, by all means, add stuff back. My sense is the article is fairly solid in its present state.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deborah Houlding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aar.org.ro/ro-membri.php?membru=deborah-houlding
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904143823/http://www.astrologicalassociation.com/pages/conference/2010/speakers.php to http://www.astrologicalassociation.com/pages/conference/2010/speakers.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)