Talk:Astrology/Archive 11

This article is NOT peer reviewed

How many Wikipedia editors are Astrologers?? Andrew Homer 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The "peers" in question don't necessarily have to be the same as the subject; there are more experts on astology than just astrologers. Must the article on scientologists be edited only by scientologists? (Don't say, "Oh, but scientology is just a cult" -- the point is objectivity all around.) And in answer to your question, all Wikipedians who link to one of these templates has at the very least listed an astological sign, while these ones claim interest in Chinese astology in particular. --Lenoxus 15:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What the hell does "at the very least listed an astological sign" have anything to do with legit astrology? Your fluffy friends and you are only b.s.ing yourselves. Since you're pretending to know what you're talking about: where's your Jupiter/Pluto midpoint and what narrow orb aspects does it make to other points in your natal chart? And what experiences have you had during the periods of the solar-arc directed Jupiter-Pluto midpoint making hard aspects in your natal chart?? Andrew Homer 08:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Supposed correlation

I changed the sentence to read "the practice of astrology is concerned with the supposed correlation of the movements of heavenly bodies ...".

The problem is that, in casual language, correlation implies the presence of a "causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship"[1]. While mathematically, it refers to a value of correlation coefficient which may be positive, negative or zero (ie, uncorrelated).

To make it unambiguous, I think that sentence must include "supposed", or reworded to ensure that a positive correlation is not implied. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 07:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Since astrologers don't have clearly defined theory of the connection between celestial movements and everything else, why not remove the word correlation and replace it with something like "relation"? Zeusnoos 14:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Since serious Astrologers study psychology, our psychologist hero, Carl Jung (whose research validated the synastry of couples) used the term "synchronicity." If you bothered to study the history of science, you'd know that each major discovery in physics or astronomy gets CLOSER to an explanation as to how Astrology works. If you bother to read about "hyper dimensional space," (aka hyperspace) you would not have a problem with the term "correlation." We cannot have a "clearly defined theory of the connection between celestial movements and everything else" until the research equipment used by physicists improves. Fortunately, the U.S. Patent Office is still open for business. Andrew Homer 11:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, I will ignore your ad hominem claim to know what I have or have not studied. If only you knew the irony of it. Not for your benefit I'll say that I know a number of practicing astrologers, who also happen to be teaching at universities (I'm sure you can name them all), in agreement with my statement that there is no single explanatory unified theory (neither synchronicity, causality or some aspect of 'new physics') held among astrologers. Zeusnoos 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that correlation was a good word precisely because it is so ambiguous. 'Relation' is acceptable as well, but, at least for me, it seems to carry more direct causal undertones than the more ambiguous 'correlation' does. --Chris Brennan 18:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As Vorpal notes, correlation is used technical in mathematics (and of course statistics) as well as in science where it does point to causality, even if it indicates a tertiary cause of the two things in correlation, or a number of concommitant causes a la Hume. Zeusnoos 21:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. Yes, good point. There is this wikipedia article named Correlation implies causation that I always think of when this issue comes up though. While it may be true that causation may be implied in other sciences when the term correlation is used, I'm still not sure that that necessarily carries over into astrology. This is more of a personal issue that I have though, so its up to you guys as far as what you want to do with the article. It is looking good though. Nice work guys. When are we going to make this thing an article of the day anyways? It looks like it is about time. --Chris Brennan 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice that the article Correlation implies causation actually redirects to Correlation does not imply causation? I think the word correlation best describes what astrologers do, and that adding supposed is POV. Astrology aspires to be an empirical science, not a physical one. Judging it in different terms than is sees itself is just plain wrong. Tunnels of Set 04:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The article you mention is refering specifically to the idea that a correlation between A and B does not mean A caused B or vice versa. It does not exclude a tertiary cause or causes that a scientist might include in the next hypothesis and experiment if the correlation is significant. Correlations are still useful in science but in a limited way; and drawing any conclusions from correlations is never done without extreme caution. By "imply" I did not mean the technical use as "entail". BTW, I had to revert your change of 'supposed correlation' to 'empirical' observation since you are introducing a POV term that has even more problems than the term correlation. Zeusnoos 14:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you are assuming that astrology asserts causation. Some few astrologers who take things too literally might, but I don't think that's the common view. The whole idea of the possibility of gravitation affecting individuals on the planet is so... Newtonian. The basis of astrology was in the observations and correlations of first the Babylonians, then the Greeks, etc. If they could have been said to have had any theory of causation at all involving astrology, it would have been that the planets were the Gods and that their relative positions might reveal the relative strengths and mood of the Gods. It's actually more akin to Jungian psychology, where Jung describes the archetypes, their natures and effect within the psyche, but hardly goes so far as attempt to assert causation. Observation of synchronicities and prediction based on past records thereof is closer to how astrology is perceived by the practitioners thereof. Before you can criticize it as making claims of causation, you will first have to document those claim, and show that they are the main view, rather than a minority view, within astrology. 02:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, my curiosity got the better of me: Andrew, could you give me an example of a "major discovery in physics or astronomy" which explains how astrology works and how it does this? A reference to an article or previous post would be equally appreciated, but bear in mind its the how I am interested in. Thanks. Lundse 20:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I love folk repeating their lame debunking that they already used before. You lost your arguements before - it was only your power of relentless censorship that had you delude yourself that your arguements before were of consequence. I know Wikipedia moderators aren't required to have a working knowledge on the topics they're monitoring, but in your science courses in Scandinavia you never learned that "attraction" replaced "gravity"? So, that the celestial influences of the outer planets of the solar system upon Earth are better explained by "the law of attraction" rather than by "the law of gravity"? You flatter yourself pretending that it's just because of your "curiosity" which justifies your ceaseless pseudo-sceptic attacks. You've proved that you aren't any better informed now than you were a year ago. After this post I'm not wasting any more responses upon you. Just re-read my posts from months ago. Unless you've censored them. Andrew Homer 05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To anyone interested, I decided to move this discussion to my talk page [[2]]- I have low hopes of it generating anything interesting for the general public, although anyone is of course free to join in. I'd especially like to hear from anyone who knows what this "attraction" theory is/is about, or anyone who has a word or two on whether anyone in the discussion is making personal attacks... Lundse 23:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't teach "string theory" in physics in university in Scandinavia? Read both Brian Greene & Michio Kaku. But to address an issue you already brought up months age, why haven't you reviewed the research complied by the American Federation of Astrologers, the International Society for Astrological Research, and the National Council of Geocosmic Research? Oh, right: you Wikipedia moderators aren't required to know anything pertaining to the topic. Andrew Homer 10:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they do teach string theory at upper level courses a lot of places. But the theory is not universally accepted yet, as you probably know. Did you attend such courses in the US? I study philosophy, myself, so my knowledge of physics comes from philosophy of science courses - the metaphysical background of Bohrs model for the atom. Besides that, its strictly a hobby of mine to read up on these things (as it is to ask and read on astrology, crystal therapy, candling, breatharianism, etc.)

About the research you mention, then I do remember you telling me one association which did some paper or something. But when I asked you to give me the name of it, the authors name or a link you fell oddly silent. The same thing happened when I contacted said association, they just did not answer. So, once again, I would love more details on this research, preferably enough to actually look into it.

A last thing; I am not a moderator. I am an editor exactly like you, and you are just as welcome to edit philosophy articles or articles on Denmark as I am to edit astrology articles. I do think that I have a better chance at sourcing my claims on Denmark (I live here), just as you have a better chance with astrology - and that verifiability thus ensures that those with "expert" knowledge will get "a better say".

I'd still love to hear more about the "attraction" theory, such as the name of a proponent or how it differs from Einsteins and/or Newtons theories, and of course how it validates astrology. Lundse 12:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the headquarters of the International Society of Business Astrologers is in Copenhagen. I'm sure Karen Boesen would love to hear from you. I bet you can find Danish translations of Brian Greene and Michio Kaku on "hyperdimensional space" and string theory. Andrew Homer 13:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I might send her an email, then. Lundse 02:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What, praytell, does string theory have to do with astrology? This theoretical physicist would like to know. --ScienceApologist 13:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only am I not going to do your thinking for you, I won't be doing your reading for you either. Each advance in physics does NOT debunk Astrology, but rather gets CLOSER explaining how and why Astrology WORKS. The Law of Attraction, which replaced The Law of Gravity, gets closer to validating Astrology. Newtonian physics was replaced by quantum physics which was replaced by hyperdimensional space. You read your copy of Brian Greene and Michio Kaku on "hyperspace and string theory" and I'll read my copies and no I won't be reading to you. Lundse: I read George Gamow's "One, Two, Three, Infinity" in the "60s. Neils Bohr atomic model was valid THEN, but physics has moved on greatly since then. How can you be a self-respecting debunker when you bring a knife to a gun fight? Andrew Homer 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On not too short length scales the world is described by the Standard Model. How does Astrology follow from the Standard Model Lagrangian? Count Iblis 21:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, while this last post of yours, Andrew, is a fine repetition of your former claims, I just do not see any explanation of how the validation is done. Yes, you claim that hyperdimensional space and strings has taken over from quantum physics - even if I give you that (I do put more trust in Greene's own words that string theory is still forming and in no way a certainty), then how does this relate to astrology? Why are you not answering this question?

And about what we are bringing to the table (I don't like to think of it as a fight), then what I bring right now is questions. After getting answers I will make up my mind, maybe let you know what I think in order to let you correct any misunderstandings and let me know where I went wrong. But before I get any answers regarding how you believe astrology is validated, I am not going to criticize your beliefs. But I will not take your word that it is validated either, sorry.

I hope you or someone will answer me regarding these beliefs that new scientific breakthroughs are validating astrology, and will, of course, try to answer any questions you might have. Lundse 02:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

More on the "law of attraction" and validating astrology. Andrew, I did contact your Danish friend and she and a small number of her friends were very helpful in trying to find out what you mean by "attraction" as a new scientific theory - although, not being sure what exactly was meant, we have so far not been able to go into how the theory you mentioned relates to astrology.

We have a few candidates to what you might mean: one is the Casimir effect - a sort of attraction which is not covered by other known forces (only indirectly), "the great atttractor" - an astronomical phenomenon and not a theory as such (although it might be relevant to what you meant), and finally attractors within chaos theory - not exactly a theory of physics, but maybe related...

As you can see, I have a hard time understanding what you mean by this theory of "attraction". Is it one of the above? Again, could you please name the theory or a proponent of it? If you meant string theory in general all the way through, then I am sorry for misunderstanding but I have simply not been able to find any usage of "attraction" within that theory as a new technical term.

Any help is appreciated, if someone knows what this theory might be, please step up. After identifying it, I hope to go into how it relates to astrology... Lundse 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So, what's keeping you from reading Brian Greene and Michio Kaku to so as to learn about the Law of Attraction of 'hyperdimensional space" and string theory? Find the links to their books @ www.AndrewHomer.Com/Zox.html Andrew Homer 07:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time you have actually come out and said that the "theory of attraction" is supposed to be a part of string theory - that why. I have, however, googled and searched around a bit and I cannot find any mention of attraction along with either of those two which is used in any technical way (only as a synonym for gravity and/or things being pulled toward each other).

But OK, it is string theory you claim is validating astrology then? I know a bit about that, although the term "attraction" is new - as I understand it, string theory works with gravitons and uses the concept of multidimensional space to account for how gravity is so weak (some of them escape to other dimensions)...

Anyway, now that I know what you are talking about, I would love to know how you think this theory helps astrology - how it validates or better exlains it. Lundse 11:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You're the one claiming to be a college student. I'm an old man who's still trying to get out of debt, living in a capitalist country that doesn't have socialist safety nets as found in Scandinavia. You have more free time to read Greene and Kaku, than I do. I've already done my homework. You do your own. Or have your girlfriend do it for you. Andrew Homer 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to have you do any of my legwork. I checked out Greene and Kaku, read up on string theory and scoured the net for any reference to "law of attraction" - I simply cannot find it. Now that I know what theory you are talking about and can read up on it as needed, I am ready to evaluate your arguments on how this theory helps astrology - I'd love to hear them! I am not asking you to do anything but argue for your viewpoints (or show me where you or others have done so in the past). I cannot read your arguments in Greene or Kaku, nor do the astrologers you put me in contact with seem to know what you mean.

I am willing to be convinced by rational argument, but I will not blindly trust you. Please tell me why astrology is better explained within string theory and how it can be verified within that framework while this cannot be done using eg. statistical methods and doubleblind tests. Lundse 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

To me, NPOV in the intro means the following:

• First paragraph: basic definition
• Second paragraph: point of view of astrology, no weaseling with "supposed", but how astrology views itself
• Third paragraph: point of view of science, again, there is no need for "claims" or other weasel words

Then the content of these three paragraphs needs to be backed up in the article.

I don't think that's particular way of presentation is WP:NPOV.By introducing a separate paragraphs, you're introducing POV. From the relevant section of the NPOV policy [3],

The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 17:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Some of the sources on the science side are suspect. In particular:

• Rudolf.H.Smit: who is this person, what are his qualifications? The main page say "Articles by researchers", what researchers? It is not clear that this Smit is the author of the page referenced. The bottom of the main page says "Articles on this website are the copyright © of their authors. If no author is cited, the article is the work of several authors." No author is attributed to the article linked to. Which several authors wrote it? What are there sources? This source is simply not reliable. It looks like a scientific paper with an abstract, but it simply isn't.

Can you be specific? Which particular link, referenced on the wiki article, has no author attributed? Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 17:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• WordNet. This is an experimental lexical database at Princeton. It is not representative of what the "scientific community" thinks. The FAQ states:Where do you get the definitions for WordNet? (short answer) "Our lexicographers write them." Lexicographers are scholars, yes, but they are not the "scientific community", nor can they be said to represent it.

I disagree. From the wordnet site, [4]

"Over the years, many people have contributed to the development of WordNet. Currently, the WordNet team includes the following members of the Cognitive Science Laboratory"

"WordNet has been supported by grants from the NSF, ARDA, DARPA, DTO, and REFLEX"

Therefore, the database is written by members of the scientific community, and is quite credible.

Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 17:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Horoscopes Versus Telescopes: A Focus on Astrology. This is an editorial. Is is not a scientific study, but rather a polemic written for children. It displays a complete simplification and misunderstanding of astrology. It is not science.

I believe that this is merely your point of view. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 17:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, I know there must be some real scientific studies intended to refute various aspects of astrology, but these are not those! I have yet to evaluate the other sources, but if we are going to give the scientific view, let's back it up better that this! Tunnels of Set 06:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what part of astrology needs refuting? Actually, the way that science is conducted involves rigorous experimental testing, generally followed these days by publication to a scientific journal and subsequently by other researchers reproducing the findings. If astrology is a respected and well-founded science then you should be able to produce numerous articles that have gone through a rigorous peer review prior to publication. Since that does not appear to be the case, and since astrology attempts to be or at least have the appearance of a valid science, then it falls into the category of pseudoscience, period. There are no other considerations or arguments that will make it not so. Do not bother making further arguments towards that point. Produce articles, or, well, I'll suggest an alternate use for your time. -- Tenebrous (too lazy to sign in) 69.144.86.191 09:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

if any need I will help as an astrologer

if any need I will help as an astrologer. I am a professional astrologer in turkey. --User:Astrolog

External links cleanup

This page seems to contain a lot of external links. I've not had time to go through them all, but it doesn't seem very many of them meet the WP:EL guidelines, or the spirit of them-providing additional source material that we wouldn't be able to cover all of in the article. It seems most of them are tangentially related, to schools, software, etc., that just happen to deal with the same subject. That isn't really the purpose of external links. Seraphimblade 13:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It could use a trim. Sam 16:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions:

• "Schools" section — doesn't seem appropriate. Listing a few schools and not all of them is bias, and is complicated by the difficult judgment of which school is better than another
• "Associations" — Informative, but not something this article is concerned with
• "Tools and software" — Isn't directly relevant, and poses an opportunity for linkspam
• "Natal and relationship reports" — Definitely delete. Huge problem with commercial linkspam here. Sam 04:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing these 4 links. All of these links are inclined to heavy personal bias, and the criteria for including some links and not others is unclear. If there are no objections, let's remove them. DavidCochrane 18:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Trimmed. Specific links themselves should come into review now. An HTML comment in the section to editors might be a good idea so that it doesn't get repopulated within a week. Sam 19:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Stel.la

I don't see why having http://stel.la as an external link does not adhere to WP:EL. The site offers a good look as to how Synastry works between people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aeon2012 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Few main problems there-first, generally, we shouldn't link to social-network sites except in articles about those sites, or sometimes to the "official" page of a person or organization on that site. (For example, we might link to a band's "official" Myspace page.) Also, WP:EL strongly discourages against linking to "registration required" sites unless the information on them is so high-quality and essential as to be irreplaceable. Blogs and networking sites are generally considered to be pretty low-quality information, they're not an editorially-controlled or peer-reviewed source, and pretty much everything on them is unverified and possibly anonymous. We also run into the "Shhhh, everyone will want one" problem-links from WP tend to increase Google rank, so if we link to one blog, or one networking site, without a clear reason why it belongs and any other one wouldn't, we'll quickly have a very large EL section in that article. Seraphimblade 15:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Objective concerns and areas in which to improve

There are a lot of good objective judgments of the article on the featured article discussion and peer review page. To get more of a focus on what needs to be done, I'd like to start a "to do" of sorts from concerns on these two pages.

• Footnotes in the introduction — "the lead shouldn't have footnotes since everything stated there should be elaborated and supported by the body". Additionally I have a concern of how the numerous footnotes affect this section's readability, which I brought up in the above "Excessive citation?" section.
• No references for much of the text — the refs seem to be mostly given to the disputed text only. There is much text elsewhere which have very few in comparison, such as the sections on history, traditions, and horoscopic astrology.
• External links trimming — done
• Footnote style should be consistent — at a glance this doesn't look like much of a problem anymore
• Copy editing — sentence length should be manageable, text should be fluid
• Linked terms — mundane terms not relevant to the subject shouldn't be wikified. Doesn't look like much of a problem anymore.
• See also length — most if not all of these links are already in the astrology category; perhaps providing a link to it would serve as a more succinct replacement.

Please feel free to add your own concerns. — Sam 14:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Classification as a "science"

In the article's introduction it affirms astrology is considered a science by some. The claim is cited by a short article by Nick Campion, but the source's reliability is questioned. Answers.com defines science as (removing irrelevant definitions):

  1. 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
        2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
        3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
  2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study
  3. An activity that appears to require study and method
  4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Astrology fits all of these definitions. Further, Campion is a respected figure and makes a logical argument. I'm removing the template under this reasoning. — Sam 00:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Astrology fails criteria one of your definition.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines science as "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

Now, the majority of the scientific community believes that astrology is not at all a science, as it doesn't follow the scientific method. The use of Campion as a source in statements regarding science is highly questionable. However, I'm ok with the change you made. I just wanted to point out that the majority of the scientific community probably doesn't think that Campion makes a logical argument. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 15:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed astrology is not a science in the strictest sense. Campion is arguing from a looser definition. Quoting:

"Some astrologers claim that astrology is a science because it is based on empirical evidence: experience and observation. Quite simply, it seems to work. According to traditional definitions of science, astrology is scientific because it is a discipline which uses set rules to explain natural phenomena. Also, the Greek word 'scientia' simply means 'wisdom'. "

The case against astrology being considered as a science is explored in the introduction, calling it a pseudoscience. The wording for the text in question is from a proponent's view; "Astrology is variously considered by its proponents..." The claim needing reference is concerned with proponents' views, in which case Campion's article is sufficient. — Sam 21:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Campion: "Also, the Greek word 'scientia' simply means 'wisdom'." - sorry to say, but 'scientia' is Latin not Greek, and it first and primarily means 'knowledge'. He is likely confusing it with 'sapientia' which does in fact mean wisdom in Latin. The Greek equivalent of scientia is episteme. Zeusnoos 16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, regardless, I think it's a sufficient source. — Sam 16:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Sam. Campion's article is sufficient. Good add by the way.Theo 13:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is there an acceptable, NPOV way to say that astrology is bullshit? RobertAustin 21:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's an acceptable alternative to profanity. — Sam 21:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Austin says that he is interested in polyhedra. He might be interested to know that great thinkers like Plato, Pythagoras, Kepler, Ptolemy, Al-Biruni, and many others were also interested in polyhedra and applied some of the geometric/harmonic ideas regarding those figures to astrology (especially the astrological aspects). It seems that people like Mr. Austin like to dismiss astrology as BS even though they've never bothered to study it and/or have only a cursory/superficial knowledge of the subject...but trust me: astrology is NOT only about the 12 signs of the Zodiac, nor is it simply the Sun-sign astrology BS that you read in newspapers. --Wassermann 08:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there are already nine pages of archives for this page. Please take general conversation not directly pertaining to the article elsewhere. — Sam 18:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

Far too many entries in the further reading section have been added recently. I'm reverting it. — Sam 00:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There can never be too many sources/references. You have made a major mistake, and I'm going to revert this mass-deletion. Many of the books that were added are better references than the ones we currently have on that list. Also, please try to make more constructive edits rather than deleting material that is entirely valid and worthwhile. Your deletions puzzle me...they simply don't make any sense. --Wassermann 07:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And your additions equally puzzle me! :) If you want to make them references, then you should cite them in the text. Otherwise that many further reading books is rather excessive IMO. — Sam 13:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding going on here. You can't just add a bunch of books to a further reading section and then rename it to "References and further reading", firstly because there's already a references section, and second none of the books were even used in the writing of the text. If you have physical copies of the books in question, you should use them to cite unsourced material in the body of the article using the article's style of footnotes. Until then they remain entries in a further reading section, not references. — Sam 02:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that I shouldn't have renamed the section "References and further reading" but should have just left it as "Further reading" -- but your deletion of MANY valid "further reading" texts made absolutely no sense. All of the books that I added can be utilized by those interested in learning more about astrology, and the many dictionaries/encyclopedias and general reference texts that I added can provide much more in-depth information than we have here. I don't agree at all with you when you say: "...that many further reading books is rather excessive IMO" simply because there can never be too many recommendations for further reading when it comes to such a wide-ranging and complicated subject. I'm sure that you are aware that astrology is a VAST field with MANY differing traditions and techniques; because of this I simply added more books that could help readers to better understand that. Please don't butcher a well compiled "further reading" list on whim without a bit of discussion on the talk page first. --Wassermann 03:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because you can put it in the article doesn't mean you should. There has to be a fine sense of discrimination. As it stands there are just too many. That defeats the whole purpose. Anyone can go to amazon.com and search for "astrology". — Sam 12:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing -- I do indeed have a "fine sense of discrimination" when it comes to these source materials (because I personally own most of them), and many of the books that I've added are actually better than many of the ones that were already on the list (especially the dictionaries/encyclopedias of astrology). When someone goes to amazon.com and searches for "astrology" most of what comes up is purely commercial, Sun-sign astrology BS, and any serious student of astrology knows this. I've added many broader reference texts rather than the very specific ones that were already there (and I also included many valid books on the history of astrology). Also, I think that these "Further reading" lists should be as comprehensive as possible (a personal view), because it makes Wikipedia more credible when it can lay out trusted source material(s) so that people can see them and realize that Wikipedia is only a jumping off point and obviously NOT a comprehensive source of information in any way, shape, or form. Plus, it might help people to read books more instead of relying on the internet for all of their information! --Wassermann 14:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for comparison's sake, the number of further reading entries before was 20, while now it is 33. The liberalism article has 10 in English, Christianity has 7, art has 6, and science has 8. A small sampling to put this article's number into perspective. — Sam 00:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Those lists are too small; in my opinion they should be massively expanded. After all, MORE references can only HELP an article and will not HURT it, right? I don't see any specific policies that prevent reference or "further reading" lists from growing, do you? Plus, it's just so easy with the ISBN #s nowadays if they are listed; just click on them and your all set, as a massive amount of valid and relevant information on the topic at hand lies behind each of those ISBN #s. --Wassermann 14:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why the article needs thirty-three. Nor do I see much logic in your argument. By that reasoning we should compile a list of every astrological text ever written. "MORE references can only HELP an article and will not HURT it, right?" That's arguable. Again, just because something can be added doesn't mean it should. What is wrong with the twenty the article has already? Your argument is absurd. 33 is simply superfluous. — Sam 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are an American, but if you are you have surely heard the name of Seung-Hui Cho numerous times in the past week or so. His article has over 100 "References," which is far more than the 33 you are griping about here. Now, even though Seung-Hui Cho is a fleeting figure in the overall history of humanity, his article remains better sourced than this one (in terms of raw numbers). On the whole though, which do you personally believe is a larger and deeper field of study: a troubled mass murderer in 2007 America, or astrology? Still though, the astrology article remains woefully under-referenced and is (to be frank) an amateurish embarrassment (like most of Wikipedia...nothing new there). The "Virginia Tech massacre" (121 references) and Seung-Hui Cho (again, over 100 references) combined have well over 200 references, while the ancient field of astrology languishes with not even a hundred? I'm sure that you are getting my point now; even if you add up all of the reference/notes/links/further reading sections on the astrology page you still have less links than the Seung-Hui Cho article alone, even though the study of astrology predates him and the tragic events at VT by MANY thousands of years. Seriously, I'm trying to IMPROVE this article, as adding reference material can only improve things and help people to better understand this ancient and extremely complex subject, and I just don't understand why you are criticizing the improvement of this article. Additionally, many of the external links and inter-text references are quite biased against astrology, and thus a well developed "further reading" section helps to balance this out. So, do you still feel like there are just "too many sources" for a field as old, deep, and esoteric as astrology? --Wassermann 06:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, references do not equate further reading. The dispute here at first was that I had removed what you considered references. Listing a bibliography of sources may be one way of citing them, but the books aren't sources. They've been added after the writing of the text by someone who didn't write it. In style disputes generally Wikipedia guidelines say to go with whatever style the article has in use already. In this particular case, it's a system of footnotes. So until you inline cite the text with the books in question, using the article's style of footnotes, they remain entries in a further reading section.

I realize the tension here and the potential for animosity. We are both here for the purpose of improving the article; I don't doubt you added the books in anything but an attempt at improving it. However, I'm concerned with the length of the article and matters of text elegance and readability. Perhaps we can go through the books together and sort out the good from the best, and leave the best. — Sam 21:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

pseudoscience?

I noticed that Astrology is described as a pseudoscience in this article. And then the article states it has failed tests. Then when I look at the pseudoscience article it defines it as something that cannot be tested. Any comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.211.150.60 (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I've change the pseudoscience article to make it clear that untestability is not the only definition of pseudoscience. Jefffire 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Origins correction

An anonymous user recently put this into the page. I'm moving it here. — Sam 12:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[put after first paragraph of "origins" section]

This is a contradicting statement. In Hindu Epics such as Ramayana, Mahabharatha, more details of astrological calculation are available, which dates back to beyong 3000 BC, which is far older than babylonian. Scientifically it is calculated that, Ramayana might have occured at some 5000 BC. Appropriate scholars from Hindu astrology should clarify on this. - 203.99.221.141

"Scientifically", the Ramayana did not occur. Like the Bible and various other religious texts, it's probably a work of fiction, as many of the alleged incidents in the book, life flying monkeys, is contradictory to current scientific understanding.59.92.32.123 06:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, some papers claim (such as [5]) that early forms of Indian astronomy and astrological calculations were present in the "ancient" vedas, and can be interpreted as astrology. We might include that in the article?59.92.85.224 07:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Some correction

The text segment

"Astrology (from Greek: ἀστρο, astro, "constellation"; and λόγος, logos, "knowledge")" should be rewritten as:

"Astrology (from Greek: αστήρ, αστρός{astér, astrós}, "star"; and λόγος, λόγου{lógos, lógou}, "word" or "speech")". HTH.

KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 18:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user recently changed the original text. I will restore it. Thank you. — Sam 19:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

An impatient but informed??? party.............

Seems to me (mere student of astrology that I am) that this debate is neither fair or informed. Now before I go any further I need to quanitfy that statement. Whilst there is obvioulsy intelligent debate here - it is a bit like scientists discussing how to address the pratical situation of a major incident such as 9/11. That situation required EXPERIENCED PRACTICAL ability in how to deal with real situations and not theory. Hope you see what I mean. How many areas of life can you apply this too - most I think.

The comments I have read seem to have looked in depth at the theory of astrology, it's history and many comments on articles and other astrological writers from many areas and eras but not explored in reality how astrology works. LEARN astrology - explore how astology works in practical terms - be an astrologer if you will - and then say why and how - then comment.

I feel that judgement of astrolgy is made on looking at the written word - but astrology is a living thing and needs to be experienced. The theory and history astrolgoy is eaily quoted and judged, but does that give you an understanding of the subject - NO!!!

What is needed here (to put my money where my mouth is lol) is a scientist and an astrologer to sit down togther and objectively - and oh yes that means both need to be objective - discuss in depth how it works with expamples (best themselves). I think most critics of astrology look into what is WRITTEN ABOUT ASTROLOGY and CRITICSISE THAT, RATHER THAT LOOK INTO THE ACTUAL SUBJECT ITSELF.

Being an informed sceptic I look forward to any response.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaroleB (talk • contribs) 01:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

[Re:] An impatient but informed??? party

"I think most critics of astrology look into what is WRITTEN ABOUT ASTROLOGY and CRITICSISE THAT, RATHER THAT LOOK INTO THE ACTUAL SUBJECT ITSELF."

Correct. As Newton said to Halley: "Sir, I have studied it, you have not.".

Besides, surely lots of "reliable-sourced" garbage would not have been written if the regular authors of this article did have studied the book "L'énigme du zodiaque" by Jacques Sadoul. Saddeningly, truthfulness is not among the goals of Wikipedia's policy. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.28.18 13:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhm - this is nonsense, I am afraid.

A scientific view of astrology is simply this: "ok, so you are claiming to have some ability, lets device a test which will test that ability and if this succeeds, is replicable and the methodology used stands up to any criticism interested parties may have, then we have a phenomenon to study and tinker with and to explore together".

So far, all tests done on astrology come up no better than chance, or a seriously flawed methodologically. Now, I am more than willing to be shown wrong in this - so please let me know of any studies I overlooked. Until there is reason to believe there is any phenomenon, we have no reason to look any deeper into it!

I might as well demand the scientific community look into my marvelous ability to foresee critical and interesting moments in my life by standing on my head and see which way I fall. My contention, and that of scientists, is simply that the one claiming to have the ability must first demonstrate that it works better than chance before it makes sense to go any deeper into it. You would not read the 7+ books I have read on my "standing on my head"-trick if you had no single reason to believe it actually worked, woudl you?

Oh, and truthfulness is the goal of wikipedias policy, think about what would happen if the policies said "you can only write what is true" instead of the current versions and you'll see why we have further guidelines... Lundse 14:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Uhm - this is nonsense, I am afraid." Uhm, this is not nonsense, I'm sure.

"Oh, and truthfulness is the goal of wikipedias policy". Incorrect. *Non-expert* consensus and Wikipedia's definition of NPOV are the goals of Wikipedia's official policy. Yes, I have even seen the editor of an article justify the fact he was overriding the official WP NPOV policy because "most Wikipedia readers are doubtlessly christians and therefore ``his´´ article could not contain any statement that could make them start doubting the type of faith under which they were raised". And yes, there are lots of relevants texts that will keep being ignored by the main Wikipedia authors simply because they have already become old dogs not-capable to learn new tricks or because those sources would force them to reconsider most things/every thing they have learned about the subject, period. Sincerely, KSM-2501ZX, IP address:=200.143.28.18 15:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

NASA Graphic

I have replaced the NASA graphic. I don't see how it is 'unbalanced' in the context in which it is placed - which is in the Astrology and Science section. It is a simple statement of 'fact' as perceived by a major scientific body. It indicates it is from NASA. It doesn't try and make any other points. Why is it inappropriate? Gillyweed 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally try to abstain from these kinds of disputes, but to me it's quite clearly a violation of neutrality. It's derisive and immature in my eyes. We already have quite a bit of input from the scientific community on this page — intelligent and justified commentary that I have no issue with. — Sam 04:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sam here. Although I am all for making it clear in this article that astrology is not a science, this is not the way to go about it. The right way, IMHO, is to inluce it in the intro and then explain, elaborate and argue for it in the article. This pokes fun at astrologers and/or demeans the entire debate... Also, it is not encyclopedic nor particularly relevant to NASA's or others view of astrology (a simple statement in the text would be better). Lundse 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Is this the kind of attitude an encyclopedia wants to be fostering? — Sam 23:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the cited NASA article is geared towards children and simply rehashes all the usual arguments against astrology, arguments that could be easily nullified by any educated astrologer. They conveniently ignore in their high-and-mighty tone that astronomers/astrologers were aware of the precession of the equinoxes 2,000 years ago. The typical argument for Ophiuchus is as expected present as well, as though one system of zodiacal signs/constellations is more "valid" than another, when in fact they are entirely arbitrary to begin with. And not even a mention of horoscopic astrology! The article is a joke, the image is a joke. Please remove it. — Sam 00:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The only reason you disapprove of that comic is because it clashes with your POV. It's perfectly neutral; it is properly attributed to NASA. It is Wikipedia policy to write articles from a neutral viewpoint. Your POV pushing is unacceptable. Don't break the rules. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX Chemist3456 04:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The graphic represents my viewpoint, why do I want it removed, then? (You may want to reread my previous comments). Lundse 06:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Re chemist: That's not true. There is quite a bit of text on this article that "clashes" with my point of view of astrology. Am I pushing for its removal?

As Lundse has stated as well, the image is simply not appropriate for the encyclopedic style we are striving towards. If there was to be any questioning of motives here, I would be more inclined to question yours, as you yourself state on your userpage you are on Wikipedia for fighting against "idiots" like me who deviate from the "truth". Your tone is militant and fanatic. Who is pushing for a point of view here? — Sam 12:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:NPOV:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

A comic with the words "Astrology is not science" is in violation of these terms. It proclaims one truth, one side, and one bias. It may be the most popular view that astrology is not a science, but according to the very policy that you referenced in defending the image, it is not neutral. It doesn't leave the reader to "form [his] own opinion", nor does it contribute to the level-headed, serious tone that an encyclopedia is supposed to have towards its subject. — Sam 05:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the comic is neutral is not relevant. What is relevant is the comic as a useful image. In this case, it a) reflects a highly relevant view and b) is sourced. It isn't any more POV to have the comic here than to have a Nazi comic on anti-semitism. The fact that the comic is mainly geared at children has no bearing on policy. JoshuaZ 01:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you completely disregarding its demeaning nature? — Sam 01:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Question in reply? Did you read my comment at all? The demeaning nature is irrelevant per NPOV. What matters is that it is useful and adds to the article. That's why we have 6 different images on anti-semitism that would be considered highly demeaning to Jews. Whether you find a cartoon demeaning is irrelevant to whether it should be included. JoshuaZ 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking over this, I'm becoming more convinced that the picture does not add to the article at all. But to be clear: this has nothing at all to do with whether the comic is aimed at children or whether you find it demeaning in anyway. JoshuaZ 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not arguing NPOV in that particular reply. What concerns me is its derisive manner. If we took out the image and added plain text "NASA feels astrology is not a science" I would have no issue. I am trying to be open to other views here, but this is not something I feel should be included in the article due to its immature poking-fun tone. The antisemitism article and this article are two very different things. Antisemitism entails by definition demeaning material; this topic is not so. Demeaning images on that particular article would serve an illustrative purpose while it would not necessarily do the same here. The section title is "Astrology and science", not "Astrology is not a science". It is best I think to keep a neutral tone here, one free of any presupposed "truths", as this is a contentious issue. — Sam 02:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I happen to agree that astrology is not science, however the graphic impact of the cartoon serves to subtly unbalance the article and could become a factor in causing ongoing edit wars and article instability. Rather than the cartoon, a written summary of the same statement from NASA seems more appropriate. - LuckyLouie 19:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

Should wikipedia inform that astrology is nonsense? Doesn't wikipedia try to inform and educate? It's the least they can do. "can find no evidence for a scientifically defined mechanism by which celestial objects can supposedly influence terrestrial affairs." Come on...--80.56.36.253 01:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read the article? There is a ton of information on the failure of astrologers' interpretations to be proved empirically. — Sam 01:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, wikipedia conforms to a NPOV, not a scientific point of view. So, although astrology is nonsense, wikipedia can't say that directly, as it would go against the guidelines. The only thing wikipedia can do, is to have factual statements, referenced to scientific studies, which demonstrates how astrology has no predictive power, which this article does splendidly IMO. 59.92.32.123 06:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, User 59.92.32.123, thanks for explaining to me that wikipedia does not consider science to be neutral and objective. So let's work towards changing this strange and awkward policy so that wikipedia doesn't have to be so politically correct and can thus be more educational.--80.56.36.253 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If your wish is to have absolutely no information regarding astrology other than its relation to empiricism, then I'm afraid you are out of luck, as no respectable informative source would be so biased and narrow-minded. Could you possibly consider that a methodology old as civilization itself has some encyclopedic value outside of its relation to science? Or perhaps those thousands of years, multitudes of traditions, and extensive cultural impact mean nothing to you? — Sam 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If I had wished it... Not sure what you are getting at.--80.56.36.253 02:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your comments either. You apparently want the article to straight-out call astrology nonsense, which it effectively does anyway in a more encyclopedic wording. What's your complaint exactly? — Sam 03:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What wordings does the article use to show that astrology is a superstition? And it is a superstition, that's an objective fact. It just acts like astrology is a respected idea and then uses very political language to show that it is an idea that contradicts reality. An encyclopedia should educate. Now I understand that because everyone can edit these pages there are people that want to censor wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it is right. I also never said to delete any information about the history of astrology.--80.56.36.253 03:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The following introductory remarks are meant to serve as a disclaimer:

"The scientific community generally considers astrology to be a pseudoscience[8] or superstition[9] as astrologers have failed empirical tests in controlled studies. [10] Despite the lack of scientific evidence, belief in astrology is widespread. [11][12]".

The above wholesale write-off of astrology is unwarranted. It is true, as astrology is currently not a canonincal field of knowledge, it attracts its fair share of quacks. However, it also has its fair share of serious practitioners, including those with numerous university degrees. Such people are increasingly devoted to scientific methodology and the quest for predictive accuracy. The above statement primarily reflects the ignorance of many in the scientific community of the subject matter, including their inherent prejudice of things that remain outside their comfy grasp. The problem resides in clearly distinct axiomatic foundations, e.g. many astrologers are beholden to idealism vs. the scientific world view of materialism. Even then, astrology is increasingly being developed according to the scientific methodology, and the results are promising. A vedic astrologer of note in this regard is V.K. Choudhry. Ramayan 10:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That isn't correct. There has not been a single scientific study published in a reputed peer-reviewed scientific journal that demostrates the supposed predictive power of astrology. Astrology is *not* a science, because it proposes no hypothesis which can make predictions that are experimentally verifiable. In fact, some members of the scientific consider astrology as a sham. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 16:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No sweat. You and others of your persuasion are undoubtedly correct in terms of your own ability to judge that. Ramayan 18:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand. The scientific community isn't "undoubtedly correct" in saying astrology is bunk. The thing is, there's always doubt in science. The fact (ie, scientific fact) you are missing is that there is no reliable evidence whatsoever to validate the predictive power of astrology as a science. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 07:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Those who ignore the whole cosmology of idealism and its epistemological sciences are best at judging its true merits. Ramayan 07:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The "cosmology of idealism", isn't relevant to the fact that the majority of the scientific community thinks that there's no scientific evidence which validates the claims of astrology. You seem to be mixing up philosophy in here for some reason.

Remember that it's the majority(scientific) opinion that astrology is not a science. From the relevant wikipedia policy page [6],

"the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."

Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 08:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Vorpal and Ramayans dispute here. Studying philosophy and being an idealist I just want to call attention to the fact that astrology does not become validated nor any less nonsense by subscribing to a non-materialist view. The fact remains that there is not a single reason to believe in astrology, only psychological reasons why it "feels nice" to do so.

And concerning the debate more generally - wikipedia should of course represent the scientific view (and I think the NPOV and other current policies are pretty good at securing this). But scientific in the broad, common-sense... well, sense. You do not have to study science or philosophy to see what astrology is, you only have to ask a few simple questions and look objectively at things.

Lundse 09:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So, gang, what's next? To stone the soul-less adultress? Ramayan 17:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss on how to improve the article, do so here. Please keep the talk page relevant to the article. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 03:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Geocentric and Heliocentric

I think it should be noted somewhere in the article that (at least with European Astrology) that early astrological predictions were based on a geocentric model of the universe. It was only after Galileo & Copernicus that European astrology began to accept the ideal of a heliocentric view of the world. Now this totally brings into question the accuracy of astrology and astrologers.

-Bill

Thurs. May 17, 2007

Geocentric refers to a viewpoint - as seen from the earth. Even if the mechanics are different in terms of what orbits what, the cosmic influences are felt as per the passage of planets through the signs as seen from the earth. Ramayan 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality With Regards to the Scientific Establishment

As a newcomer to Wikipedia editing, I didn't feel comfortable editing the article. However, I would like to raise the issue of the neutrality of the article, with regards to science. It seems to me that the article, especially the third paragraph, is grossly biased against the 'traditional' scientific discourse. I also think wikipedia policy does not allow for such an inappropriate and condescending tone adopted against the scientific establishment. - Syamil 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, ignore the previous. That paragraph I was describing is now gone. That was quick! - Syamil 02:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Credibility

Besides the claims of the Mars effect, astrological researchers claim to have found statistical correlations for physical attributes,[49] accidents,[50][51] personal and mundane events,[52][53] social trends such as economics[54][55] and large geophysical patterns.[56] None of these claims have been published in a mainstream scientific journal.

I don't think that the above paragraph is appropriate, as it does not follow the "reliable sources" guidelines. The policy page on Reliable sources [7], says Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process. Since these claims have not been published, and are not reliable, I think they should be removed from the article. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 03:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong statement in lead

For the statement

"Some have argued that this apparent failure of astrology is based on a measurement difficulty not fully appreciated by the scientific community.", the reference given[8] does not back this claim in any way. In fact, it has studies which show that astrology doesn't "work". For example, from the site which was referenced above

- [9] - Abstract: A non-technical look at effect sizes in astrology and how they compare with effect sizes in other approaches such as graphology and psychology. Astrology is said to fit reality so well that its effect size must be close to 100% hits. But examples show how this is due to the flexibility of astrological symbolism, and how astrology works even when the wrong chart is used.

- [10] - Abstract: The controversy over astrology is largely about artifacts, or whether the claimed results could have ordinary explanations. Artifacts are fake effects due to hiccups in data (this article) or in reasoning (see the article Artifacts in reasoning). They are never mentioned in astrology books yet they occur throughout astrology, leading to wrong conclusions that astrology works.

- [11] - Abstract: Unaided human reasoning is subject to artifacts due to systematic errors (we call them hidden persuaders) that can fully explain why an astrology based on experience seems to work. Astrologers proudly and repeatedly claim that astrology is unassailable because it is based on experience, but they are mistaken -- what they see as its strength is actually its weakness.

Therefore, I'm removing the incorrect statement Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 08:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pseudosience?

I have a little trouble calling Astrology a pseudoscience. It can be falsified which to me means the theory is scientific. Of course it has failed most of its validation tests. But if one wants to define 'pseudoscience' as a theory that has been proven false that is a different matter. Then the ether theory would be pseudoscience. And the humours theory. And perhaps the Ptolemaic theories.

Then we get to the subject of Newtonian Physics vs. Einsteinian Physics. Could one consider Newtonian Physics a pseudoscience because it fails to make accurate predictions in the sub light speed area? FatherTree 14:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that most claims put forward by astrologers can indeed be falsified, meaning that the claim is not a pseudoscience. However, the tradition of astrology (which generates these claims) cannot be tested as a whole. Or at least, it has receded whenever this has been done - with ad hoc postulates, excuses and other tactics common to pseudoscience.

To draw a parallel to your Newtonian example, then Newtons theory could be falsified because we a re able to make a prediction/claim on which the theory hinges. In astrology, one can spout no end of claims, but there have not been any astrologers (and certainly not a large body of them agreeing) willing to say that upon this claim rests astrology.

All that said, I would love it if astrology stopped being a pseudoscience and we could just test it once and for all. Won't get many astrologers on that wagon, though :-) Lundse 15:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there have been a lots of test. Almost none show any proof. Therefore I think astrology is a scientific theory that has been proven false not a pseudoscience. FatherTree 20:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that while individual predictions of astrology can (and are) falsified, astrology as a whole cannot be falsified because it proposes no mechnaism or hypothesis (that can be tested) by which it works. Yet, astrology claims to be scientific, and so is a pseudoscience.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 04:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So they way you look at it a theory that is disproven is pseudoscience? Then ether was pseudoscience? Gravity at least for a long time proposed no mechanism. Is gravity a pseudoscience? FatherTree 18:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Vorpal - exactly!

FatherTree - no amount of tests make something a scientific theory. A theory is scientific when it can be disproven, is internally consistent, is created and checked via a certain methodology, etc. Lundse 07:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Vorpal Blade disagrees with you. FatherTree 18:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, Vorpal - is he the one reading one of us wrong as I think? And FatherTree, could you please be more specific as to how my claims and Vorpals are different? Lundse 22:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please don´t get so prematurely excited over the death of astrology. While it's true, the material mechanism by which the causality of astrology is hard to measure, it is not because of the basic fallacy of the phenomen, but simply because the phenomen is currently beyond the grasp of modern day scientific knowledge, which is primarily a materialist cosmological paradigm. The karmic mechanism by which the laws of astrology manifest are ambiguous due to the influence of metaphysical elements, notably the grace of God. Clearly, such a framework is beyond the scope of modern day science. A proper transformation of the cosmology of the science, the scientific framework, is needed, for science to be able to address such idealist theoretical phenomena. A proper defintion of astrology is therefore a metascience, akin to the term metaphysics, rather than the negatively biased term pseudoscience. More so as the measurement problematic resides not in the phenomenon of astrology but in the scientific framework attempting to falsify/verify it. Perhaps a term like pseudoscience is more fitting for the limited science of today by which it is impossible to fathom, much less deal with, the inner existential reality of human life and its variegated expressions emanating from cosmic influences. Real scientists would contribute to understanding the cosmic language of astrology, to uncover the proper interpretations and mechanisms, with which many astrologers are currently struggling to refine, rather than to simply try to block information about such efforts based on a narrow minded impulse to express mastery on the basis of a misguided impression of absolute knowledge. Ramayan 18:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Again we do not know the mechanism behind gravity either and many other things we accept as science. FatherTree 18:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a valid analogy. We have General Relativity which is a "model" of gravity and makes predictions which can (and are) experimentally verified to a great degree of accuracy. This is not true for astrology.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

An indefagitable, and rather convenient manner of justifying a set of beliefs is to object to the simple truths that negate it: in this case science. Causality, in my opinion, is sufficient to account for every observable phenomenon in existence (aside from certain mental phenomena). I suppose you could say that's my cold, skeptical way of looking at things. But, we have to remember that a debate about astrology itself should not happen here: this is where we discuss what the consensus is among experts.

In the scientific community, the consensus is that astrology is not a valid method of inquiry, plain and simple. This is not to insult anyone who enjoys practicing or learning about astrology, and I mean no harm by that statement. So, I am going to add back the statement about astrology as a "psuedoscience", which Ramayan has reverted a few times. I must remind you of WP:3RR in this case, and make sure that you discuss any changes before you make them.

It's important to establish that astrology is not viewed as valid by most scholars (beside scholars in that or similar fields). Without this paragraph that is not clear in the article. So, change what you will, but make sure that you discuss it with the community beforehand-- yes, even those cold skeptics like myself ; ). AdamBiswanger1 20:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ramayan, I am sorry but your statements about science are just plain wrong. Yes, the current scientific theories assume a materialist universe (which I object to personally). But the methodology of science does not - it is merely a method based on common sense, ie. if astrology has predictive power, then using it should make us able to guess those things it can predict at a better than chance rate. This does not hinge on a materialist universe, but only on whether we can test properly if these predictions come through.

The theory of gravity, as you mention, make loads of prediction which have been tested time and again - and until that darn persky Einstein fellow showed up and proposed a new test it was doing fine. So it was a good theory, not because it told us what did it, but because it could tell us what would happen. That made it scientific, not because it had a cool story about how and why it was so (Newton looked for one in the bible, though, didn't find anything usefull...) Lundse 22:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to get a concern here in the discussion, which may or may not be entirely pertinent to the circumstances as I don't know any of you or your intentions for the article: astrology's relation to science should not be blown out of proportion IMO. A small, well-written section should be all that is present (on this article anyway). So instead of giving a lot of undue weight to merely one aspect of the subject, we should emphasize quality of references and arguments, which I trust is the intention anyway. There has been so much conflict in this area; the ten pages of archives are testament to that. Let's keep it simple, sleek, and high-quality instead of a lot of superfluous text that unfairly caters to a very small aspect of this topic. — Sam 22:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sam here. The article should not bash atrology all the way through, it should just state the scientific consensus and how testing has been done and turned up no prediction power. It should name the reason behind the scientific consensus and maybe have a few lines on where astrologers disagree or something (as long as it is coherent and true for most of astrology). Lundse 22:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Sam. IMO, we should not distort the article so that a major propotion is the relation of science and astrology. However, in the aforementioned section, I strongly feel that we should keep our statements accurate, verifiable and inline with the mainstream scientific view.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 04:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Vorpal: Definitely. So much text in this article is pitifully unsourced — mostly claims referring to traditions, history, etc. Surely all the history and traditions hold more weight than a facet of this topic which arose relatively recently, but text regarding its relation to science seems to be the only topic that gets any attention here. I just want to keep this discussion in perspective and give importance where it is due. — Sam 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

More recognized?

In a recent edit, it is claimed that

The notion that sun sign astrology is inadequate has become increasingly recoginzed. At the same time, the understanding is growing in the West that other forms of astrology, notably Vedic astrology, have more predictive content.

If this is about astrologers generally changing their outlook towards another kinds of astrology as being better, then this should be more clear from the paragraph. But if it is a claim that people in general, the "informed opinion" and the scientific community are more accepting towards non-sun-sign astrology than others, then I would like to see some citation. Adding more math and basing astrology on another set of arbitrary signs and heavenly bodies does not change its status viz. science, pseudoscience, tradition, etc. If this Vedic astrology has better predictive power, then lets see the sources for that claim - otherwise, we cannot have a sentence which suggests this is the case. Lundse 12:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this statement because it's unreferenced, biased and incorrect. I don't think there's been any scientific study published in a reputed journal which has validated the predictive power of vedic astrology (or indeed, any astrology). I found this article published in a credible source by an Indian scientist Vedic astrology and all thatVorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 16:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Propose the following sentence be added to the science para: "The ancient vedic astrology, which is based on the visible zodiac, is becoming increasingly popular due to its claimed predictive accuracy." Ramayan 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide a citation for this statement? Gillyweed 00:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I´m afraid you won´t find many citations about the growing popularity of vedic astrology in refereed journals coming out of the scientific community, notably the physics departments of US colleges, although even there some are becoming more sceptical about the hardline denial of God [[12]]. For those following these developments the evidence is all around us. Jyotish, the Sanskrit name for vedic astrology, is an integral branch of the Vedas, of which yoga is best known. In Sanskrit the word 'Jyothi' means light or flame and 'Ish' means God. According to the June 2007 edition of Vanity Fair magazine there are an estimated 16 million people in the USA that are practising yoga in the USA to day. [[13]] Yoga is thought to have been first introduced to the USA by Swami Vivekananda at the World's Parliament of Relgions in Chicago in 1893. For over a century, yoga and the vedic philosophy has spread gradually from being viewed as an exercise program to that of an integral spiritual practice and outlook. Some suggest the yogic philosophy adresses a need in Western people that other approaches have failed to fulfill. [[14]] The 1986 book of James Braha, "Ancient Hindu Astrology for the Modern Vedic astrologer" is among the books considered instrumental in popularising vedic astrology in the English speaking world. In Fairfield Ohio, where the Maharishi University is located, thousands practice vedic astrology. [[15]] It is also possible that the scientific failure of western astrology has prompted serious practitioners and students of astrology to consider other branches claimed to give better results. Whatever the case may be, Vedic astrology is a tradition that has survived for thousands of years. There are no signs this field of knowledge is going away. If anything, it is only becoming more popular. [[16]] Ramayan 06:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the citations you have given validate the claim that a)vedic astrology has predictive accuracy b) vedic astrology is becoming increasingly popular. Wikipedia policy says that unless we have credible references which are verifiable, we cannot include the content. So, until the "predictive powers" of vedic astrology are tested, It would violate WP policy to imply that it has any "predictive power". Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 07:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally the reliance on 'popularity' to indicate 'proof' isn't a particularly good at indicating something is true or accurate. Gillyweed 07:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You raise a valid point. The fact is, however, for practitioners the use of the sideral zodiac is crucial and changes the matter in an important respect. Western astrology has relied on a fictitious zodiac which has drifted away from the visible one by two-thirds of a sign over the past two millennia. This fact has long been ridiculed by sceptics. More importantly, the western system, which was partially rediscovered in the 19th century, allows individual practitioners to devise their own rules with adverse repercussions for the predictive accuracy. The Vedic system is more precise in this regard and some approaches focus on boosting the predictive accuracy through the establishment of clear-cut rules of prediction. The reason so many astrologers exist around the world and ply their trade is not to fleece the unwitting although there are scoundrels everywhere, and probably more so in an unregulated profession like astrology. The drive for certification and associations of astrologers is an effort to stem such developments and retain the professional credibility. [[17]] [[18]] The belief of astrologers is fed by their personal experience of charts of hundreds and thousands of people. There is a kernel of truth in astrology and the effort of astrologers is to harness the full benefit of the true language of the stars. The discovery of Vedic astrology has been a major advance in this direction. The predictive ability of astrologers switching from western to vedic astrology has taken a leap. Many experienced western astrologers no longer attempt prediction, while the vedic astrologers do nothing but prediction. Don´t take my word for it, just explore the information on the net, the discussion lists and some of the on-line bookstores [[19]]. As the field is only developing in the West, the work to prove the validity of this science to the scientific community at large awaits. Ramayan 08:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• In view of the above, the proposed sentence is modified to read: "The ancient vedic astrology, which is based on the visible zodiac, is becoming increasingly popular in the West." Ramayan 08:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a {{Fact}} tag, in the hope that you can reference this claim in the near future.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 12:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Without a citation from a reliable source, the sentence in question constitutes original research. A brief review of the highlighted link will show that OR is strongly discouraged...actually, it's prohibited. In questionable circumstances (and there are clearly questions here), the proper thing to do is to remove the OR until such time as it can be properly cited. Once verifiable references have been presented, the text can be restored in full. In the meantime, please consider that edit warring and reverting are almost never productive in terms of improving article quality. I'm going to remove that sentence from the article for now, and I hope it will remain that way until cited. Thanks...Doc Tropics 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ramayan, I see that you have twice restored the controversial text with an Edit Summary indicating that it had been properly sourced on the talkpage. If so, I'm curious as to why you haven't included the cite in the article itself. That way your specific source can be reviewed for reliability and accuracy. Can you please provide a link or ref to the specific source which makes this statement? Doc Tropics 23:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, read citation [3] above - an article by US Vedic Astrologer, Dennis Flaherty. However, also consider that this development, the increasing popularity and use of Vedic astrology in the West, is well known in the astrology community. Actually, I have not been actively looking for articles about that as I and many others simply know this development first hand. The growing number of articles on Vedic astrology I usually come across in western trade magazines and on the net are focused on the application of this type of astrology. The well known US magazine The Mountain Astrologer, formerly an exclusively western astrology magazine, now regularily publishes vedic astrology columns as well. The evidence presented above paints a picture of the spread of yoga in the USA and this is true for other western countries. Over 5% of the US population is now estimated to practice yoga in one form or another. The Vanity Fair article cited demonstrates that. What is not as well known is the gradual popularity and knowledge of the cosmology of the vedas, inclusing Vedic astrology, which is the back bone of yoga. This body of knowledge has been spreading for just as long. It is seen in the popular work of writers like Deepak Chopra. The late ex-Beatle George Harrison was an avid yoga and vedic astrology enthusiast. There are plenty of other luminaries promoting or using the Vedic knowledge, including Vedic astrology. The growing offering of Vedic astrology books in US astrology book stores is also another proof of this development and the citation given shows that. several decades ago, there were no such books readily available in US astrology book stores. This is another fact. Of course, to know this one has to follow the field for a long time. Why not rely on the specialists for this insight, rather than sceptics who really don´t have a clue. The OR claim does not hold water, this development, the growing popularity of Vedic astrology in the west, is a fact. Ramayan 00:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It surprises many people to discover that at Wikipedia, the catchphrase that we use (which is also policy as described above) is "Verifiabiility, not Truth". This may seem strange, but just because you and your associates "know" something is true, doesn't necessarily mean that we can publish it here. Unfortunately, the website that you linked to (the Revealer.com) doesn't seem to meet our standards for reliable sources. Please see this section for more information on what reliable sources are. Under the circumstances, I think it's appropriate to remove the text from the article and I'm going to do so. Please note that if you find a better source in the future, we can always revisit the topic. In the meantime however, the material should not be included, and I ask that you please not restore it without a better ref and further discussion. Thanks. Doc Tropics 01:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is OR because you have synthesized your statement about popularity from a range of intermediate sources (none of which appear to say what you claim). You need a source that says exactly what your sentence says. Gillyweed 01:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This sentence should not be in the lead. One tradition's popularity holds no relevancy there. — Sam 16:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

mechanism

"That's not a valid analogy. We have General Relativity which is a "model" of gravity and makes predictions which can (and are) experimentally verified to a great degree of accuracy. This is not true for astrology.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)"

the point was not knowing a mechanism. we did not know the mechanism behind gravity for 100s of years yet no one doubted its effect and the validity of the theory. FatherTree 12:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the first scientific theory of gravity (ie, Newtonian) made accurate predictions in its domain of applicability. The reason why Newton's theory of Gravity is a scientific theory is because it proposes a "model" which makes predictions that can be experimentally verified. On the other hand astrology proposes no mechanism or model, and also fails experimental tests of individual predictions. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 12:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is we do not need a mechanism if the model can be verified. Agree? FatherTree 13:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by a "model" and a "mechanism"? Also, note that the individual predictions of astrology fails when experimental tested. Also, if this is not directly relevant to the article, let's not discuss this here, as Sam pointed out. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 16:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

you can go to my talk page. how do you define "model" and a "mechanism"? FatherTree 16:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On the bashers of astrology

In my personal oppinion, the above efforts of the sceptics of astrology is to suppress information about this field of knowledge that they consider to undermine their mission to reveal it as a fraud" or "hoax". They react as a unified front backing each other up. However, in their "zeal to suppress" they loose the perspective on the matters under discussion. Take for example the following statement, which they are trying to suppress:

• The ancient vedic astrology, which is based on the visible zodiac, is becoming increasingly popular in the West.

One can Google and find hundreds of entries on Vedic astrology in English, most of which originate in the US, but also in India that is gearered for the western audience. The hits are direct evdience of its growing use in the West. I have given other means of verification. The use of vedic astrology in the West was not there some decades ago. The comment on the increasing popularity of Vedic astrology is a rather straight forward one to verify, because it is a fact of life.

More seriously, it is quite clear that the scientific sceptics, which belong to the creed of materialism are on a mission here to "disprove" astrology, and even consider moderate "bashing" of astrology acceptable (see statement by Lundse above). These bashers of astrology pay no attention to the fact that astrology it is at its root an idealistic phenomena and thus hard to give hard and fast proof of it in terms of present day scientific knowledge. They just continue to try to suppress information about it, most likely because it runs against their finite set of beliefs. It is now quite evident that the above statement about the growing popularity of vedic astrology, which is true and verifiable, is not to their liking for some reason. As a result, they resort to any old means to try to suppress it, including claims of "lack of citation or that it is "Original Research".

The really interesting question now is whether Wikipedia editors like Gillyweed and Vorpal blade have demonstrably raised the bar for the topic of astrology, compared to their other editorial activities, including non-action on comparable editorial issues in other articles. This would be the smoking gun about their revealed bias. Ramayan 11:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you fail to understand that a statement that is contentious needs a citation. You are continuing to synthesize your research into a 'statement of fact', that you have not yet shown a third party reference for. You have breached 3:RR and it appears that your desire to have this statement made is greater than your desire to follow WP policy. I do not intend to remove the statement as then I would breach WP policy. Gillyweed 12:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what it is about the statement that is contentious? Moreover, please inform of a Wikiepedia rule that says only a single direct citation is acceptable as evidence and that several mutually reinforcing citations are not. Ramayan 13:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ramayan, we're all trying to explain this to you, but it's starting to feel like you don't want to listen, much less understand. Let me try to express this as simply as I can:

We cannot make original statements on WP. In order to include the text you want, you must show that a verifiable, reliable source has stated that "Vedic astrology is becoming increasingly popular in the West." It can be 1 citation, or 12, but they must state the info clearly and unequivicolly. We are not allowed to draw conclusions about what authors might have meant, we can only publish here what has already been published elsewhere. If that statement has not been published elsewhere (and you've provided no evidence that it has), then we cannot use it. Period, end of story.

As Gillyweed noted, you have violated 3RR by making multiple reverts to restore the problematic text. Furthermore, your activites are on the verge of becoming disruptive. There is no need for this ongoing debate now that our policies have been made clear to you. Either source the statement, or forget about including it. While your useful contributions are welcome, any further disruption will result in a report being filed at 3RR and ANI and may result in your account being temporarily blocked. Doc Tropics 16:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that Doc et al's interpretation of wikipedia policy is correct, I think this is beginning to sound like nitpicking. If a serious astrologer has noticed this trend, there are noone who believes he is wrong and he has some citations (albeit not direct ones) why not just include it? If I write that Pirates 3 is about pirates, do we really need a citation for that? We are not supppsed to interpret anything, I know - but by that rule we could delete roughly 80% of wikipedia. The rules should come into play when a statement is controversial or otherwise disputed. If this is the case here, I am all for demanding good, direct citations - if not, lets just include it for now.

Maybe it is just because I do not give a hoot about which kind of astrology is in vogue at the moment (I care about falsifiability, methodology, people being subjected to horoscope testing before getting a job - all the boring science stuff...) Actually, I think we should just find an astrologer who believes otherwise and let the two of them duke it out in the sandbox. Lundse 11:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a seperate category of objectivity, such as abjectivity, can be created for science enthusiasts of the humorous caliber of Lundse. Ramayan 11:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the NPOV policy a scientific bias is as bias: 'favoring a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason.' So a bias towards science for a scientific reason is perfectly in accordance with the NPOV. No so called 'skeptic' wants to suppress information about astrology. List all the info you want, I don't care. As long as wikipedia does its job as an encyclopedia educating its reader about the subject of the article. And saying 'the scientific community generally considers astrology to be a pseudoscience or superstition...' and then just rambling about how astrologers see astrology just sacrifices educational quality in an attempt not to offend astrologist supporters, which is POV in itself anyway. Most people that read astrology articles know astrology is totally baseless and born out of fantasy anyway. But they still enjoy it. So why try to misrepresent astrology?--80.56.36.253 17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: On the increasing popularity of vedic astrology in the West

This is a dispute about the statement

• The ancient vedic astrology, which is based on the visible zodiac, is becoming increasingly popular in the West. 17:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• The above statement is supported by

- number of Google hits showing the widespread use of Vedic Astrology in the English speaking world

- citations in Vanity Fair magazine (just one example of many) about the growing and widespread popularity of Yoga and related Vedic cosmology, which includes Vedic Astrology.

- online bookstores in USA specializing in astrology are offering ever larger selections of vedic astrology books

- growing number of discussion lists on the net focusing on Vedic Astrology

- vedic astrology columns have become regular features of the largest US astrology magazines and in the world, such as The Mountain Astrologer (TMA)

- course offering in vedic astrology in the Maharishi University in Fairfield, Iowa, USA.

- creation of registered bodies to certify practitioners, including American Council of Vedic Astrology.

- Interview in TMA with notable astrologer on the growing popularity of Vedic Astrology in the West. [20]

Several decades ago, Vedic Astrology was almost unknown in the USA. Ramayan 17:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• We cannot make original statements on WP. In order to include the text you want, you must show that a verifiable, reliable source has stated that "Vedic astrology is becoming increasingly popular in the West." It can be 1 citation, or 12, but they must state the info clearly and unequivicolly. We are not allowed to draw conclusions about what authors might have meant, we can only publish here what has already been published elsewhere. If that statement has not been published elsewhere (and you've provided no evidence that it has), then we cannot use it. Period, end of story. Doc Tropics 16:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Issue has been resolved - see below.

Sigs on comments

Ramayan, please note that it is standard practice to attach a personal sig to all of the comments that one makes on talkpages in WP. Furthermore, altering or removing an editor's sig, or their comments, is often regarded as a "vandal edit", even when it might seem there are good reasons for doing so. In any discussion involving multiple editors (like the section above) sigs are very important so that those reading it can know who made which comments. They should certainly be attached to each comment, and shouldn't be removed. I hate to revert another of your edits (I'm sure you must be feeling persecuted by now), but again, this is standard practice, and it's very important for clarity. Doc Tropics 19:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The instructions when filing for Request for Comments [[21]] suggest otherwise (see no. 3) Ramayan 19:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the disputed article's talk page, with a brief, neutral statement of the issue. Example
  2. In the relevant topic area listed above right, link to the Request for comment section on the disputed article's Talk page.
  3. Sign entries with the date only. Use five tildes: 19:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
  4. After all parties agree the issue has been resolved, strike it from the listing.

3rd Opinions

After a brief discussion, Ramayan and I agree that outside opinions might be useful in resolving this. I have placed a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion and created this section to accomdate them. Please don't post in this section if you are already active in the discussion. Thanks. Doc Tropics 20:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Issue has been resolved - see below.