Talk:Astrology/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

/* Core principles

Zach undid my recent edit to the first paragraph of the "core principles" section with the edit summary "Reword made the text unreliable. Manilius did not say it, it's a CP because it implicit in all the major works, his ref offers an example." If this is the case then it sounds like we have an WP:OR problem. We can't offer an interpretation like the one listed there without being able to source that interpretation secondarily. Phrases like "integration with the cosmos" and whatnot may be inferred by some readers of Manilius but not others. Zach, Robert, etc, I'm guessing you're well read enough to recommend some decent sources on the subject? N^oformation ^Talk 06:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The entire core principles section reeks of original research based on synthesis of primary sources. Sourcing for this section should be academic sources published by academic presses and university presses. Self-published spam is obviously not allowed, and interpretations of primary sources have to be presented in high quality sources. I have no doubt that there are genuine academic treatments of this topic available. There is therefore no need to use primary or poor-quality sources. I've removed the spam, for obvious reasons. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I am going to restore the passage which Domius Vobidus removed after incorrectly assuming it was placed for self-promotional purposes. Several editors, myself included, were involved in the creation of the text and we all felt that this statement perfectly expressed a concept that is difficult for novices to understand - about how the relationship between the macrocosm and the microcosm is a philosophical one, and not a purely materialistic one. This is simply providing a good editorial summary of what is stated in the most influential astrological sources, not OR. The editor whose work is referenced is a published author who had deliberately avoided making any kind of reference to his own work in case it raised COI concerns. I was the one who added the reference to the text, after considering this and concluding that whilst we shouldn't make references to promote works, we should not deliberately exclude them either if they are relevant and give a good source for further information. You can see that I added the reference here based on my understanding of the sensitivities involved, and feeling that in this place it was appropriate to do so (explained here). I stand by what I said in that talk-page comment and do not want negative implications to fall on other editors because of my actions which were made in good faith. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Noformation - I assumed the reason for my reversion of that part of your change would be clear enough from the edit summary and would not therefore cause any problem. Your change made it sound like Manilius stated "the core principle of astrology is" when that is obviously an editorial lead-in to a point which is in no way controversial, nor based on original research. We can reliably state that it is a core principle because it is a well known astrological principle which is expressed within all the major works that touch upon the philosophy of astrology. The Manilius ref was offered as a suitable example of how the principle is seen to be expressed in one of the many similar comments he makes in his work. I could add a very long list of similar examples from other texts but for an uncontroversial point that should not be necessary. I'll try to find a suitable secondary source which puts this point to bed. In the meantime, if there are any problems with this section of text, could the concerns be noted here so the text can be better substantiated, or reworded as necessary? I do not want to be accused of edit-warring for restoring text that is being removed without good reason, or for reverting changes that make nonsense of the accompanying references. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 07:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Zac, I'm going to bed in a few so I'll respond to the rest tomorrow, but I'd just like to say that when it comes to this section this is pretty much your realm so I wouldn't worry too much about edit warring and what not. You, Robert, Ken, etc, know far more about the intricacies of astrology than anyone else here so this section should certainly reflect your expertise. I say this because I don't want you to think that your opinion and contribution is not wanted on this page, based on the tension in the science section, and there is nothing personal on my end. N^oformation ^Talk 07:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think these things should be made or taken personally either. I did not contribute significantly to the scientific research coverage but I did play an active role in the development of this section, so I can tell you that it was put together cautiously after collaborative sandbox development thrashed out a number of issues to ensure the text is non-controversial, and that the wording carefully and succintly represents the most important philosophical principles of astrology. Hopefully new editors will understand that it is difficult to convey the gist of deep philosophical principles to the average reader in a nutshell, so if there are any perceived problems it would be useful to have them brought up for discussion.

I have added a reference to a widely known secondary source which should resolve the concern you raised about perceptions of OR in the introductory explanation. This specifially describes what we term a 'core principle' as a "philosophical foundation of astrology". The passage I have quoted also includes the comment "In this view, [ie, the philosophical foundation] the psyche is not merely a whole unto itself but is also a part of the greater whole that reflects it". I have therefore used the same reference to qualify the comment "His arguments reflect how astrology has always involved consideration of the psyche" which you had marked with an OR tag. I'm assuming your concern relates to the use of the word 'psyche', and I think this ref is sufficient to demonstrate that this is not an OR comment. To give you a little more understanding of why this is not controversial, the Greek word ‘psyche’, like its Latin counterpart ‘anima’, is encountered in many classical astrology texts, as a reference to the 'soul’, or ‘animating breath’ ‘spirit’ or ‘mind’, which was the focus of the Neoplatonic philosophy that established many of the core principles of astrology. The word is usually rendered into English translations as ‘soul’, but ‘psyche’, as properly understood, remains a better word for what is meant. This integrates seamlessly with the use of the word as applied by Jung because ancient astrologers (and the Arabic and medieval texts that transmit their works) don’t differentiate between the mind, the spirit, or the soul, and the English word translations are often used interchangeably in an attempt to decribe some kind of invisible organ of perception that determines the will to move or act. Hence the ancient and traditional astrology texts which talk about establishing the nature or quality of the soul, are properly understood by reference to words such as this, and modern astrological discussions of the principles tend to retain them in their original form (see for example: Campion, N. (2010), 'Astronomy and Psyche in the Classical World, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Ptolemy', Journal of Cosmology, 9, 2179-2186). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Correlation is not a reliable source for anything on WP, except perhaps as an illustration of the sort of nonsense that astrolgers write. An author who publishes in Correlation is does not gain any notability and cannot be considered an expert on anything because of that fact. Correlation does not have a rigorous selection process for submitted articles. Apparently, things get published on the mere whim of the editor in chief. In effect, any article in Correlation is no better than a self-published article, and has no place in WP.

Zac, you really have to learn what is a reliable source, and what is not. Your of no help to WP unless you do. I'm sure that plenty has been published in real academic sources on the topic of astronomy, by real qualified scholars (with real higher degrees in philosophy, history, anthropology and the like). Find and use these sources, and there will be no problem. There is no need to relying on unqualified individuals writing in fake journals. From what I gather, you have a genuine desire to learn more about this topic. So do this for your own sake, so that you have the best information on the topic, and not blithering nonsense from pretend self-declared scholars and experts who have not received any genuine recognition in the real academic world. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this section doesn't even get past the starting block. For a start it is only core principles of Hellenistic-Arab-European astrology. And then it rides roughshod over the history of thought in Asia and Europe from ancient times to the present. It's trying to claim a continuity of traditions that is simply not there in mainstream history. Pure synthesis. I can't see any way of improving it; it needs to go. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've looked it over carefully, and agree with your assessment. Pure OR and SYNTH. The whole section is worthless and can be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

DV, since we are covering astrology not astronomy, and since this page concerns “the sort of nonsense that astrologers write”, then yes, the sources that are influential in astrological circles are suitable for illustration purposes. I can see you enjoy using terms like “complete and utter fraudulent bullshit”, and “blithering nonsense”, and so forth, but I don’t enjoy having to search for any sensible comment you might make from the surrounding baggage of insulting remarks and ad hominem attacks (such as that which you placed in your edit summary about another contributing editor today).

Judith, if you are able to contribute knowledge of other core principles please feel free, but the reference to these as core principles means that we should be identifying the most influential concepts that are embedded in the heart of astrological philosophy. It might help to refer again to the post I made here. In reference to core principles there is no need to refer to “Hellenistic-Arab-European” since these core ideas were well-established in Hellenistic times and the rest is illustration of transmission (the astrological thoughts were equally influential upon Asia and Europe). What was established in the Hellenistic period, was based on principles established by the older civilizations (Pythagoras, for example, took from Thales, who took from Babylonian and Egyptian sources). Alexandria acted as a central collation point for ideas that arose in ancient Babylonia, Persia and Egypt. These collated philosophies became crystallized in the formal structuring of astrology in the Hellenistic era. The systemizing of astrology drew from all the surrounding Mediterranean regions and flowed back through Asia and India. So these key astrological principles are global in influence, but most western readers will want to see their influence demonstrated in relation to the historical names they are familiar with - hence this necessarily brief summary includes reference to Pythagoras, Plato, Ptolemy, Alkindi and Kepler.

We do need amendment where the text currently states that the principles used in Chinese astrology, such as Yin and Yang, are based on different principles (your addition I think). They are not. Western astrology utilises the same principle to the same extent, but simply uses different terms (it originates the division into masculine/feminine; diurnal and nocturnal states). There could be some sensible and useful development of this point but I’m not prepared to do this myself whilever the editorial logic expressed on this page reduces itself to “Doesn’t get past starting block … I can't see any way of improving it; it needs to go” supported by “I've looked it over carefully, and agree… The whole section is worthless and can be deleted”

It’s quite amusing DV, how you wrap a veneer of sincerity around your concern that I might “learn more about this topic”. It seems I must resign myself to forever being “of no help to WP”. But there we go – having demoralized most of the contributing editors, and worn out (or otherwise ejected) most of the reasonable editors who fought for neutrality and objectivity; having raised emotive hostility its peak following a series of inadequately balanced RFCs, and having confused all sense of where the direction for development lies and what the remit of the article extends to (let alone what sources can be referred to), consensus is now being driven towards the systematic annihilation of this subject, based on little more than cursory glances and reciprocated appreciation of the prospect of deleting sections. The reason? Difficult to isolate with analysis of any particular point, but it seems that if the section as a whole doesn't show astrology in an obviously demeaning light, it can be dismissed for being termed a "pro-astrology argument".

I'm not done reading it, but I got to the paragraph on Pythagoras. Completely original research synthesis of sources. Using sources which don't mention astrology to discuss the so called "heart of astrology" is completely out of line. --Daniel 16:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? - just so eager to record your editorial analysis that you couldn't wait to finish reading the passage before issuing your dismissal of it? That's enthusiasm. I've restored the text, along with the references you didn't seem to take much notice of. Other editors need to be able to consider these -- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I got through the whole thing. It actually boils down to a a pro astrology argument from authority, name checking notable minds who discussed astrology. Beyond that all it really says is that "as above, so below" is a core principle of astrology, the gist of which is covered in the first sentence of the article. I think the whole section has to go. --Daniel 16:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The "pro astrology argument from authority, name checking notable minds who discussed astrology"? Erm, that would be the astrological explanation of astrological principles Daniel, based on reference to the notable authorities who pursued and presented the arguments. To suggest that the gist of it is covered in the first sentence, and thus imply we should not offer explanation, gives a new (as yet unknown, un-named) policy to this page that prevents it from explaining the principles of the subject, according to its own rationale. Have you seen that policy applied to any other page on WP?

I don't think the suggestion of "argument from authority" can be taken seriously when we are talking about argument from astrological authority. I'm more concerned about the unofficial appeals that are going on to get "the attention of a large group of editors". Clearly, when several hostile editors move so quickly to support each others deletions of important passages of referenced text - without even bothering to read the passage fully, register specific concerns or allow time for discussion and amendment - then a lone editor who is merely trying to reserve content for sensible review, can easily get wrongly accused of violating 3RR. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 19:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Zac, I agree that we should have a clear description of astrological thought and practice in ancient Greece. That should be written up from scholarly sources on ancient Greek thought. The connections with Mesopotamian astrological/astronomical observation should be explained, again from good scholarly sources.

Then there are both continuities and disjunctions in the transmission to the medieval Islamic world and Europe, and presumably to India too, although I know much less about that, and there is also the Vedic connection to be explored. It is crucial to explain how astrology had to find a place within debates about fate and predestination in the monotheistic religions. We must not assume that astrology is always essentially the same set of beliefs and practices, but must follow what scholars say about how it evolved.

I didn't write the yin and yang stuff, but did copy some material in from Chinese astrology, on a temporary basis. I have found a description of early Chinese astrology: F. Richard Stephenson, "Chinese Roots of Modern Astronomy", New Scientist, 26 June 1980. The author is an astronomer and seems to have researched the subject well, but it's unreferenced and the New Scientist isn't peer reviewed. I propose to use it a bit for now, pending a search for better sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the section heading, if you want it to be about principles laid down in ancient Greece. But look later, if you want a clear example of what we are saying about poor quality. You attribute a view to Francis Bacon that you know perfectly well goes back to Aquinas and before. You are trying to construct an argument that "astrology today is the same as practiced since time immemorial", and that's original synthesis, not supported by any respectable research. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Our article on lunar mansion implies that it is an astrological concept found in the Chinese, Indian and Arabic traditions, so I think it should be explained here. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Dom and Judith, I think we need to step back a bit and recognize that our resident astrologers know far more about this subject than we do. While the section might have problems, it would be beneficial, I think, if we let them deal with the section while we help guide it to policy. I gotta be honest, I think you're coming off as antagonistic, which I can understand considering the shitstorm in the science section for the last couple months, but lets try to calm the waters and work together from here on out.

Correlation is a standard fringe journal, yes? If that's the case then it should be fine to use as a source for things that astrologers say about astrology, outside of science of course. The section should probably discuss the Chinese/Western/modern/ancient similarities and differences to give it a more worldwide view of the subject, and the Bacon thing was a bit too POV, but I think this section is well written and flows very nicely. Let's assume good faith that it can generally be sourced and let's try not to focus on removal but fixing instead. When it comes down to it, we need a section on core principles otherwise the article will be severely lacking, and since there's no WP:DEADLINE, let's work with what we've got. N^oformation ^Talk 18:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, don't mind stepping back a bit. I do want to ensure that the history is done properly, though, since that's the bit I'm mainly interested in. There is a massive literature on astrology in Chaucer, for example. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Zac's edit summary point about the principles being core all the way through. That needs to be shown, in each case. It might not be too difficult to do that, but it does need to be done. If something is in Ptolemy, for example, you need to source that to a secondary source, then if it was transmitted by the Arabs then you need to source that, and if it's still important today, you need to source that too. Because, in fact, doing astrology in 500BC isn't the same as doing astrology in 2011AD. I appreciate it can be a drag writing about cultural forms that can be traced back into the distant past. There have been problems in the article Marriage, for example, finding wording to define an institution that is in some ways the same as it has ever been, and also highly variable. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@Noformation: Astrologers are not experts in astrology, our "redient astrolgers" included. They have no special insight or knowledge of the topic just by virtue of calling themselves "astrologers" (whatever that may mean) and attributing authority to themselves and each other. The experts in astrology that we should rely on for any material about the topic are real scholars who have studied the topic and publish their work in real third-party independent sources. The article should be based not what on astrologers say astrology is in sham "journals", but on what real scholars say it is in real reliable sources. Such sources undoubtedly exist, and there is therefore no need to resort to primary or fringe sources.

Sorry, but I am a stickler for reliable sourcing (I learned from the best, Hrafn, on the creationism-related articles), and anything that is not reliably sourced must go, ho-ho! If it doesn't exist in reliable independent sources, it doesn't exist at all as far as WP is concerned. Furthermore, there's been tons of OR and SYNTH going on here. In fact, the whole core principles section as it stands is nothing but OR and SYNTH based on primary and fringe sources. I don't see anything that is worth saving. A proper principles section would need to be written from the ground up, using only reliable third-party scholarly sources in strict accordance with WP policies, and using primary and fringe sources only when they are independently verified, as Itsmejudith has pointed out. Yes, sourcing for non-science-related content isn't going to be as rigorous as sourcing for scientific content. But that doesn't mean anything goes. Correlation, for example, is way beyond the pale.

This article could be great if we do not compromise and stick very strictly to WP policies. Otherwise, it will look like the embarrasing travesty that it was two months ago, when our "resident astrolgers" were editing unchecked. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's agree to work towards WP:HISTRS for history claims. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why "towards". Why not "in strict accordance with"? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Cos HISTRS is quite new, still building towards MEDRS. Also, we might need a bit of time to get good sources together. See the New Scientist source on Chinese astrologonomy, which no way meets HISTRS but is by an academic and based on careful research. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. I've read them and they are indeed quite rigorous (sounds like someone after my own heart wrote them). I guess we can allow for a little leeway until all the bugs are ironed out, like for your New Scientist article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ta. See (Google scholar) that there is a massive literature, not really in history, but in literary criticism, just on astrological themes in the Canterbury Tales. Of course also a huge literature on Ptolemy. And as for all the discussion of determinism vs free will in medieval Islam and Christianity, well, we need at least to tag for an expert in that. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot speak for other editors, but I know that I should not be referred to by anyone here as "an astrologer". I am a Wikipedia editor with sufficient knowledge of this subject and WP policy to know how important it is to be cautious and objective with this controversial subject. You are not being a stickler for reliable sourcing DV, when attempting to rule out any prospect of reference to influential astrological publications. 'Real scholars' do not do that, but know how and when to use their variety of sources according to context. You are equally mistaken Judith, in asserting that references to what Ptolemy wrote must come from secondary sources. Not at all, the primary source is always the best source for any direct quote, even here on WP.

I am glad you are interested in building up content on Chinese astrology. With regard to the historical transmissions, there is not much that can be built into the article here until the content is properly developed on the pages that specialise on those themes. As you know, those pages are tagged for development and the need to be properly referenced. As each is brought up to standard it will be possible to incorporate the summary into this top-level article. That is what I have been trying to work on, and why - unless we get a lot more contributors, instead of driving all but the hostile editors out - it is not going to be possible to make speedy worthwhile developments to this page. I have no problem with you proposing additions that serve to give a broader scope, even if we know that these are not ideal and might need to be placed on a temporary basis. Ideally you should work on improving the content of the Chinese astrology page, and then bring the summary of that page into this.

I want to respond to this comment you made earlier:

if you want a clear example of what we are saying about poor quality. You attribute a view to Francis Bacon that you know perfectly well goes back to Aquinas and before. You are trying to construct an argument that "astrology today is the same as practiced since time immemorial", and that's original synthesis, not supported by any respectable research.

That is not the case. Francis Bacon was reported to have been the originator of that comment, because it is often quoted in reference to him. I disputed this, knowing it to be a very old and well-used maxim, and found references to show that it goes back at least to Aquinas and others. This does not detract from the relevancy of Bacon quoting it. Please don't use quote marks to suggest that I have made an argument for a point that I have not and would not make. My motivation for adding information to the footnote was only to ensure that the information published by WP is reliable and informative. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The quote marks weren't meant to say that you would have used those exact words. I do find that many edits are tending towards that synthesis, but we can undo that. You will agree that we ought not to present any synthesis at all. You say that we don't need a secondary source, but can go directly to Ptolemy. You're mistaken there. Ptolemy is a primary source and we always need to resort to modern scholarship for interpretation. We might want also to include a quote for illustration, but we must us the secondary literature as our guide to which quote to choose and how to present it. At the moment we are not bringing out the importance of the Tetrabiblos in astrological thought. We have an informative article on the topic, with some scholarly sources, some perhaps not so scholarly. Given that, would you like to strengthen this article's references to Tetrabiblos? I will search around some more on Chinese astrology, but we will need a Chinese speaker to help out because there may be recent scholarship in Chinese. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

As I stated, I have not and would not make that argument, so whether you are implying exact words or not, it's just best to avoid criticism based on assumption.

With regard to SYNTH (or OR), if you consider there is a problem in any of the text you need to specifically identify where the problem might exist and why, as Noformation did; then the issue can be looked at. When criticism based on presumptions of SYNTH are vague and unspecified this suggests that the criticising editor may not have the necessary experience to distinguish synth from summary. Everyone has the right to question and raise attention to potential problems - but this should be done on the talk page, allowing due time for sensible discussion, so that unnecessary edit wars are avoided.

From WP:SYNTHNOT:

100%

The same page recommends that editors are not too rigid, should not be overly-zealous, and should not use this (or any) policy in a way that prevents improvement of the article. It also states that SYNTH should not be presumed, so "If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH". ... In any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception".

On your other point Judith, I'm really not mistaken. You had said: "If something is in Ptolemy, for example, you need to source that to a secondary source", which I corrected by saying "the primary source is always the best source for any direct quote, even here on WP" - See WP:RS :

"To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original)".

You are now talking about interpretation and the potential of OR/SYNTH, which is where reliable secondary sources are needed for points which are controversial or likely to be challenged. Again, this does not prevent objective and reliable editorial summary, but wherever there is a danger of OR or presenting controversial interpretation we should adhere to what is published in reliable secondary sources. (If we are talking about opinion, and presenting it as opinion, then the requirement of the sourcing changes).

Re Tetrabiblos, I agree this would be useful, but first the page on the Tetrabiblos needs to be completed (I've been working on that and hope to fill the missing sections soon). Then it will be possible to create reliable summaries for related pages. The page on the history of western astrology needs priority attention too because its content should be acting as the source for the summary of information that we present here – the points of which can then be explored in more detail via the wiki-links to the related daughter articles. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Correlation as a source. Again.

Zac, please do not add the McRitchie paper to the article again. The article is by a non-expert in fake journal, and it is clearly not a reliable source for this article or any article on WP.

As far as I can tell, Ken McRichie is not an recognized expert in anything. His book, "Principles and Theory of Natal Astrology" was published by Cognizance Books, Toronto. If you Google -- "cognizance books" toronto -- you'll see that they have no website, and have published only one book, namely McRitchie's.[[1]]. McRitchie's book also shows up as the only book Cognizance has ever published here: [[2]]. This strongly indicates that the book was self-published by the author himself. As for Correlation, you have been told time and time again that this is a fake "journal", with zero worth as a source on WP. As Jimbo Wales himself answered the editor of the "journal":

"Let me a bit more direct, while at the same time thanking FormerIP for being so diplomatic here. Those claims are so patently absurd, they instantly demolish any sort of claim that it is a "genuine, peer-reviewed journal". It's quackery of the worst kind, and should only be used as a source for Wikipedia whenever it might be necessary to illustrate what kind of nonsense some people believe. It isn't science, it isn't academic, it's just rank nonsense." (Wrong quote)

"Pat, thanks for these details. Based on reading this, I can say without hesitation that I do not consider Correlation to be a valid source for Wikipedia." [[3]]

Please stop wasting other editors' time with this nonsense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I answered Jimmy Wales on his talk page, within the context of that discussion. It wasn't the context of this discussion, and I have answered you above. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless Zac, Correlation, Journal of Cosmology, et al. do not satisfy WP:RS and cannot be used (with limited exceptions as described). ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Correlation is not a scientific peer-reviewed journal and since astrology is a fringe subject its journals cannot be used to counter the claims of mainstream science. I’m sure everyone understands that.

However, Correlation is the leading peer-reviewed astrological journal, so the articles published in it carry weight within the astrological community. The ‘limited exceptions’ are what apply to this article in general (meaning outside the context of scientific concern), because in articles about fringe subjects, the journals, books, and published sources that are known to go through an critical editorial process of the subject’s own peers are treated as reliable sources for representing what that fringe community thinks and believes.

The policies that apply are determined by WP guidelines on ‘Parity of Sources’, where, in an article on a fringe topic:

Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review, other considerations for notability should be considered as well.

What is needed on this page now is the restoration of common sense. References to astrological journals and books are acceptable on this page, because part of the purpose of this page is to demonstrate what astrological books and journals report. Sensitivities arise with regard to points of scientific analysis of astrology, and I can understand the concern that, but the point of reference here is entirely philosophical so it’s a different context and not one that needs to generate the concerns of previous discussions or be resolved by the same responses. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I just checked DV's quote listed above: "Let me a bit more direct,...rank nonsense." Jimmy Wales was commenting specifically about SciEx and not Correlation. Though I have seen editors comment that his opinion should not carry any special weight especially when he has not followed the debate on the discussion page, Wales's words are influential and should not be re-framed in an incorrect context to support an argument. Please confirm this correction and I suggest cross out the misquote both as a courtesy to Jimmy Wales and so that no one else reading the thread will be misled. Robert Currey talk 12:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I put in the correct quote: "Based on reading this, I can say without hesitation that I do not consider Correlation to be a valid source for Wikipedia." Which doesn't change the fact that Correlation is worth less than used ass-wipe as far as the real world, including WP, is concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You changed the misleading quote, but you didn't clarify that the context of the comment was in regard to reports of scientific research, not in demonstrating what astrologers report of the principles of astrology, which is the crux of this discussion. This leaves a misleading inference that Correlation can never be considered a reliable source, as well as suggesting that I waste other editor's time with nonsense, since "you have been told time and time again that this is a fake "journal", with zero worth as a source on WP". In fact you are the only editor who is repetitively making such extreme and disrespectful remarks. Look again at your last remark and consider what this says about your inability to approach this subject and its sources objectively. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. What astrologers have to say about the principles of astrology is of little or no interest to anyone besides them. They have no special insight or expertise in the subject just because they are astrologers. Furthermore, astrolgers have a long, proven track record of inventing and publishing utter bullshit, so it's impossible to rely on anything they say, even about themselves. There is no evidence that anything they say about anything is not pure bullshit.

And a particular astrologer speaks only for himself, or at best for a very small group of people. There is no evidence that astrology has clearly identifiable spokespeople who can provide reliable information about the "astrological community" as a whole, or even a significant portion of it. There is no evidence that modern astrology is internally consistent to the point that we can even start to speak of general principles, and the situation is only slightly better for ancient or medieval astrology, and even then one has to be hyper-cautious about drawing general conclusions. From what I've been seeing, the beliefs of present-day astrologers are nothing but a free-for-all every-man-for-himself make-it-up-as-you-go-along use-anything-you-can-that-impresses-the-suckers circus act. Perusing in-universe astrology publications is like wading in a vast ear-high cesspool with no hope of making sense of anything in sight.

We therefore only care about what reliable third-party scholarly sources have to say, and unfortunately, they say very little. It's not only because they hold astrology in very low regard. The same can be said about creationism and intelligent design, which are held in even lower regard, but for which we have abundant reliable sources. It's mainly because modern astrology is simply not a very interesting topic to scholars, and ancient and medieval astrology only marginally so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

DV - thank you for correcting your Jimmy Wales misquote. Since editors have responded to your original comments, I request that you adhere to WP guidelines as set out in WP:REDACT. By denying the reply of its original context your edits are now confusing to other editors. So instead of removing the text from the talk page, you should mark the original as struck-through text, coded like this and inserted text should be coded like this. Then you should add a placeholder phrase such as "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]" and sign with 5 tildes. Otherwise, if the comments are not corrected according to WP guidelines, an editor may wonder why you seem to wish to hide a simple error. [DV - thank you. I see the Jimmy Wales quote edit has now been done as requested. Robert Currey talk 23:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)]

Lastly, I suggest that you review and address your follow-up response "... worth less than used ass-wipe ..." in the same way. Rather than use invective and expletives in response to your mistake, it would show good faith if you apologised to Zac given the tone of your original comments about time wasting with nonsense. Robert Currey talk 17:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Worth less than used ass-wipe is an accurate assessment of Correlation. Zac is still wasting time with this nonsense. As so are you. Take it to WP:RSN if you disagree. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the McRitchie source has any value, and all Zac has been doing is claiming that it is written by and "expert" in a "peer-reviewed journal", the former of which is highly dubious, and the second of which is utter bullshit. ANY preoposed source used on WP is presumed to be worth less than used ass-wipe unless demonstrated otherwise. This is no exception.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

@ DV: its obvious you have passionate views and every one is forgiven an odd rant, but this is happening too much with your posts. If you have a logical argument you should be able to make it reasonably, calmly, and with respect for the positions of other editors. Note what was said when you raised this issue on the talk page of the Fringe theories policy, in the hope of changing the wording on WP:Parity:

Even when a fringe topic is debunked in highly reliable sources, the coverage usually concentrates on invalidation as opposed to a description of how it is conceived by its proponents, and the various cultural factors surrounding it. It should go without saying that in such cases ordinary-quality reliable sources can be used for this non-scientific, non-fact-based information (and in fact may be more reliable if they describe it in depth as opposed to throw-away comments in a debunking), but unfortunately it doesn't. Some fundamentalist anti-fringe editors try to prevent accurate descriptions of fringe topics, desiring articles that consist only of debunking but none of the background information that is necessary to understand it.

Not a ruling, but an observation of what happens when editors become too zealous and lose touch with objectivity. Trying to prohibit what has been reported by astrologers, in the article about astrology, is not sensible. Supporting this with the comment “There is no evidence that anything they say about anything is not pure bullshit”, and your repetitive references to the subject being “complete and utter bullshit”, is tiresome; and if anyone’s time is being wasted it’s on pointless comments such as this. Using this discussion page to issue statements like “the beliefs of present-day astrologers are nothing but a free-for-all every-man-for-himself make-it-up-as-you-go-along use-anything-you-can-that-impresses-the-suckers circus act. Perusing in-universe astrology publications is like wading in a vast ear-high cesspool with no hope of making sense of anything in sight” is unacceptable. I am asking you directly to stop using this talk page as a soapbox and end the flow of insulting remarks that are not immediately relevant to the content of article. All they do is waste time, demoralise, and prevent editors from different perspectives from being able to working collaboratively on difficult issues. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Some editors at Astrology believe that it is appropriate to add the following criticism of a peer-reveiwed study in Nature: [[4]]):

"Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in numerous astrological and other fringe journals. These arguments range from faulty design and conclusion by Professor Hans Eysenck (1986) and Professor Joseph Vidmar (2008) to the claim that the Carlson data provides statistically significant evidence favoring the astrologers by Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009)".

The sources used are: Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration. It is agreed that those sources lack substantial authority outside of Astrological circles. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's try it slightly differently
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some editors at Astrology are intent on adding the following criticism of a peer-reveiwed study in Nature into the article (see here for full context: [[5]]): "Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in numerous astrological and other fringe journals. These arguments range from faulty design and conclusion by Professor Hans Eysenck (1986) and Professor Joseph Vidmar (2008) to the claim that the Carlson data provides statistically significant evidence favoring the astrologers by Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009)". The sources used are: Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration, all of which are non-peer-reviewed fringe sources. Nevertheless, they are being used to challenge a genuine peer-reviewed scientific study, using WP:PARITY and the fact they they are identified as fringe journals as a justification. The noteworthiness the criticisms is questionable as none of these criticisms have been discussed in reliable sources. There is no evidence that they are part of mainstream scientific discourse. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Note: The following two comments were in response to the exact same question posted yesterday on RSN and NPOVN and answered on this talk page in the section above: My contribution was solicited by an WP:RS/N posting and I am a regular Reliable sourcing contributor. FRINGE sources should not be included when High Quality Reliable Sources such as articles in Nature are available. FRINGE sources that criticise HQRS should be excluded from articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC) None of these three journals (Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration) have been listed in the ISI Web of Knowledge database. That means that these journals are simply not scientific, and should be considered as self-published sources. By pretending that these sources have equal weight with the publication in such a top ranked journal as Nature we simply discredit Wikipedia as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I have to concede that one of the articles we discuss is authored by one of the most famous and reputable psychologists (Hans Eysenck), although this field does not belong to the area of Eysenk's expertise. We probably can include Eysenk's opinion, however, it is quite necessary to specify that this opinion belongs to the psychologist (although to the most famous one). With regard to other authors, I believe the users who added these sources should explain us why these persons are notable enough to warrant mention of their opinions published in non-scientific journals.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. If they were serious criticisms, then the authors should have no trouble getting their objections published in equally respected journals, at the very least in the correspondence sections. Fringe journals say a lot of weird things, and just identifying a source as fringe is not enough to work it into an article by any means. It is not our place to analyze the studies ourselves, in our roles as wikipedia editors. siafu (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose current phrasing; the position is deeply fringe so it's not neutral to say "One researcher says X; other people say not-X". I might support if there were alternative wording which gives appropriate weight & credibility to each side; neutral coverage of astrology's predictive ability could, hopefully, reflect the fact that some people still defend it - but it must also reflect the fact that their arguments are not taken seriously by the scientific mainstream. bobrayner (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion, per Siafu. Also, if the material is retained, the titles "Professor" should be deleted, per WP:CREDENTIAL which says: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name.". --Noleander (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion, per Siafu. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

For Siafu and those following Siafu, please note that this RfC does not IMO fairly represent the arguments in several ways. Editors should follow the thread to understand the background. The argument about authors being able to get "their objections published in equally respected journals" has been addressed a few times here and as stated in WP:PARITY "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia" This is the case with research into astrology, not because of the quality of the research or the credentials of the researchers but the nature of the subject. Robert Currey talk 17:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not correct, Robert. There are a number of reliable secondary sources that could be used instead. --FormerIP (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This debate also does not appear to be so much about sources the study of astrology in general as it is about the criticism of a particular peer-reviewd paper that came out in a scientific journal. Criticisms to that paper, if they are to be taken seriously, should rise to at least similar levels of notability or verifiability. The policy you are quoting is in regards to subjects that are not discussed in mainstream journals, and we should not expect to find, e.g., distinctions in and arguments between different schools of "Creation Science" in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This objection does not fit in this case. It is also somewhat ironic that the text of WP:PARITY makes it clear that it was intended to allow for non-peer reviewed criticisms of fringe theories (the cited example is criticisms of moon landing conspiracy theories) into articles covering those fringe theories, and you are applying it in reverse here. siafu (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Any mention of the criticisms mentioned as none of the criticisms have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and all of the "journals" in which they were published are clearly fringe, they should not be used at all to challenge a real scientific study. WP:PARITY explicitly states that fringe journals are not to be considered reliable sources, and that only reliable sources are to be used. The criticisms are furthermore not noteworthy of inclusion in the article because they have not been discussed in reliable sources, and are not in any way part of genuine scientific discourse. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: I am very cynical about peer reviews, fringe or otherwise, because I have seen too many examples of abuses and incompetence. However, the mainstream work sooner or later runs into inconvenient facts and if its conclusions are unsound all's well and ends. It even may end well. Conversely there is a shaking out of the rubbish, whether anyone notices, or whether the thesis ends its existence anonymously on some uncritical garbage pile. Peer review of meaningless rubbish however, is a far trickier thing. Astrology, homeopathy, and a job lot of other work that has "survived peer review" or "met statistical criteria" etc has a large number of imponderables. It is no good applying stats to data concerning ambiguous or meaningless claims. If I am permitted to do that, I can prove statistically that goobles wurble whenever one cages a sage in the flowering season, and do so with a significance of better than 0.0001. And I could get peers to review it too. These astrological peer-reviewed travesties might or might not be statistically significant, and they might be meaningful or not, but to the extent that they are meaningful they are not significant, and to the extent that they are significant, they are not meaningful. Remember what Pauli said: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" Not just extraordinary claims need extraordinary support, incoherent claims do too. It is only reasonable to demand that they demonstrate that the experimental design, execution, analysis, and above all, implications, be exposed to closer and more demanding examination than more routine work. There is more to the value of peer review than waving a sheet of paper with the claims and names of the reviewers. At any rate, that is what my peers say. JonRichfield (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Objection to the phrasing of the RFC, which can only yield one answer. A similar RFC can also be opened to question the presentation of Carlson's research before the page was locked, and you will be able to show that no consensus exists on that either. The only RFC that is valid with respect to Carlson is one that puts forth a complete phrasing on the issue. Your comments within the RFC are also heavily biased, which will influence the outcome. Consequently, I will not support this RFC in any shape or form regardless of the outcome. SLP (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Making a blanket statement that you will not honor the community consensus, regardless of what it is, is probably not going to be helpful to you or your position, and throws up a major red flag in terms of your ability to engage in wikipedia productively. I would suggest rephrasing the question yourself, right here, instead, as being a rather more productive avenue. siafu (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of what I have said. I will not support this RFC - this has nothing to do with "honoring community consensus". The rest of your argument is not relevant for this reason. SLP (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I was about to say the same thing as Saifu. I'll also point out that the original RfC is not without context and includes a link to past discussion. I have enough good faith to assume that editors commenting on this issue have read into it, and are not blindly agreeing with Dominus without considered opinions of their own. If you disagree with Dominus' assessment, the correct avenue is to either present alternate arguments in opposition to his, or to propose an alternate phrasing with a clear explanation of what issues the new phrasing corrects. Saying you refuse to accept community consensus without first making any effort to correct these perceived problems is bad form.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Same comment to your comment. Arguments resulting from misrepresentation have no relevance. You also do not understand my position with respect to reaching consensus, which does not include RFCs at this point for stated reasons. SLP (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Please do not change my signature, play with your own. SLP (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your removal. The SPA tag is wholly appropriate in an RfC when an editor who meets the criteria lends their opinion. This is not to reflect poorly on you as an editor, but rather it allows the reviewing admin to take into account what might be relevant to your contribution. If it's not then it's not big deal, but if it is and it's not posted then it doesn't give the review admin all the information s/he may need. Also, it does not fall under the jurisdiction of your "signature," it just happens to be at the end of your post, but not in your sig. N^oformation ^Talk 02:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose To using this phrasing or another, per the reasons I have given previously. It essentially boils down to the idea that it would be improper to use non-reliable sources to criticize reliable sources. Fringe journals publish what can't be published elsewhere because it wouldn't meet real scientific scrutiny. Any mention of the opinion of these journals to criticize Nature would be a serious NPOV violation, specifically DUE, as well as an RS problem. N^oformation ^Talk 18:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is clearly undue weight to the fringe journals, so it shouldn't be included in the article. Abhishikt (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I haven't yet seen a convincing reason not to include Carlson's research on the page, and simply because it is included is absolutely not justification to reflect jumbled criticisms from fringe sources. High quality sourcing is available on this topic, so WP:Parity doesn't apply, and per WP:DUE, including a paragraph from fringe astrological journals in equal size to our summary of Nature is inappropriate. I don't necessarily object to including a very short summary that "Astrologers disagree", if it is really necessary, but as of yet I don't see why it would be; obviously they disagree - that's why we have this page, and indicate people still believe in Astrology. Unless a convincing argument is presented otherwise, keep the Carlson paper, and ditch the fringe criticisms.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right in the sense that "Astrologers disagree" with Carlson's conclusions - though that statement invites the comment - they would, wouldn't they? The case for the criticisms of Carlson is stronger than that. If you follow the threads you will see that in this instance, two of the psychology professors Eysenck and Ertel cited are not astrologers and have both been critical of astrological research so it would be possible to write "Scientists disagree..." or "Psychologists disagree ...". Robert Currey talk 23:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as I have said previously, this is undue weight to fringe sources. This sort of wording while better than what I initially removed, still presents these arguments as near equal in terms of credibility. Nature is one of the most respected science publications, contradicting it with fringe source even while stating that the fact they they are fringe is still a problem. --Daniel 19:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. IMO, if criticism is fringe, we cannot devote any space to it. The first sentence ("Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in numerous astrological and other fringe journals.") is quite sufficient, otherwise we have a ridiculous and unacceptable situation when the mainstream views (Carlson) are being discussed in lesser details than the fringe sources that criticise them. Alternatively, we can refer only to the opinion of Eysenck, who is notable enough to be explicitly mentioned. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I have additionally reworded the RFC to prevent any arguments that it was not worded neutrally. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, but I fear it was too late. Also, it would have been better to have left the quote to stand alone without the additional spin "It is agreed that those sources lack substantial authority outside of Astrological circles." This comment leads other editors and leaving it out would encourage these editors to read the threads and make their own judgement. Robert Currey talk 23:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Snow Oppose. AstroNOMers of the world UNITE! Rational thinkers abandoned astrological explanations centuries ago. Try as they might, astrologers are unable to systematize their claims and evidence, and every single astrological hypothesis that has been scrutinized has been duly rejected and falsified enough to make all claims of scientific validity a pathological science. The credentialism being exhibited here is amusing, but irrelevant: a psychology professor pretending that the orientation of the Earth, sun, moon, planets and celestial sphere has any impact on human traits, interactions, or one-off events beyond that those that can be attributed to calendrical variation (yes, it is colder in the Northern Hemisphere in the month of December than it is in the month of June so your mother was more likely to be wearing more clothes when she gave birth to you in December than your friend's mother who gave birth in June) is not a reliable source for a very straightforward reason: the psychology professor is incorrect where the claims can be compared to evidence and otherwise is not even wrong. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No such claim is being made by any of the three psychology professors. Please show that you have read the thread over the past month, before commenting. Robert Currey talk 21:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with reading comprehension. It seems to me that the fact that astrology is rank pseudoscience as seen in practically every last non-major introductory astronomy textbook on the market should be more prominently described in this article and the fact that its champions have difficulty publishing in journals that are on par with where their critics have been published means that, unfortunately for the believers in hokum, that's the verifiable and reliable facts on the ground. The nonsense about pseudoscientists trying to prove that astrology is true or their wool-over-the-eyes critiques of people who point out the bleeding obvious (that astrology cannot possibly be true) is not worthy of inclusion or even discussion in the text of an article on this subject. Modern astrology is bunk so say the experts who are in the know. That's what Wikipedia should report and the protestations of those JSE and authors published in fake-journals should be excluded until they can get their act together. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think the RfC is worded properly. This content is currently in the article, so the question should be "Should we remove it?", not "Should we add it?". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The status-quo on this article lasted for over a month, and did not include the content. The correct question, therefore, is "should we add it?" Hipocrite (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a better way to have phrased this RfC would have been the following:

Should our article on Astrology contain the following text in the Carlson's experiment section:

"Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in numerous astrological and other fringe journals. These arguments range from faulty design and conclusion by Professor Hans Eysenck (1986) and Professor Joseph Vidmar (2008) to the claim that the Carlson data provides statistically significant evidence favoring the astrologers by Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009)".

The sources used are: Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration. It is agreed that those sources lack substantial authority outside of Astrological circles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, we have an article about Hans Eysenck. There should be a wikilink to it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see that an editor has objected to the sentence beginning with "It is agreed that those sources lack substantial authority..." so maybe that shouldn't be there either. I'm not sure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

• RfC comment: Oppose inclusion of the proposed changes as phrased. However, that does not imply and should not be see as implying that the inclusion of the information in some way and at some (possibly shorter) length is unacceptable. I concur with others that there might be some problems with the phrasing of the RfC above. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• RfC Comment I don't believe that an RfC is at all appropriate in this discussion and this RfC has been mishandled to the extent that it is now irretrievably bungled for the following reasons:

1. This Carlson issue has been under discussion for several weeks. Yet, most new editors invited in from outside are expected to understand the detail and the nuances from a snapshot. Many comments show that the new editors have not read or understood any of the threads. While I consider that all new editors have arrived in good faith, we have to consider that consensus involving new users to this page should not be based upon number of votes, especially when many are expressing the same opinion, but upon policy-related points made by editors.
2. The snapshot of the arguments has been presented by the proposer of the RfC in a simplified and misleading way to the extent that the well was poisoned. This influenced initial comments and many subsequent comments may have been influenced following this misrepresentation - even though most of the misleading comments are now hidden under a 'hat' link.

I propose that editors who have been contributing to this page work together to find an alternative way to reach consensus. Robert Currey talk 23:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sour grapes. If you can't win the argument, say that the argument was rigged. Classy stuff. I cast a horoscope for this page and it seems to indicate that the stars are not aligned in favor of the astrologers. Boo hoo. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

While the wording of the RfC could have been less biased (and now is), it wasn't done in such a way as to make the question fundamentally different. The editors who have commented in opposition did so with appeals to policy, namely DUE, FRINGE, NPOV, etc, and nothing about the new wording that's been added would seem to change that because the content itself is what violates policy, not just how the introduction to the content in the RfC was worded. However, since I can only speculate as to editor mindset, I'll point out that each person who opposed above is very much able to change their opinion now that new wording is being used. But again, what has been opposed generally so far has been the fundamental idea of using fringe sources to criticize RS - not just this particular way of doing it (with a couple exceptions of course). N^oformation ^Talk 00:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The text in question, which was edit warred into the article by astrologers who are coordinating offsite, violates numerous content policies that others have mentioned. Based on the results of this RFC, I suggest we ask for unprotection since there is a clear consensus to remove. Skinwalker (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a very inappropriate remark. Though Skinwalker names no names it leaves a nasty implication on every editor who has supported the inclusion of the remark. I can only speak personally: I have followed all the arguments in detail and make my responses in good conscience based on my understanding of the issues involved and the appropriateness of WP policy. I have not edit-warred on this, but have – for what I believe to be good reason – supported the inclusion of the comment or something similar.

To draw attention to the Carlson study, without also including reference to the serious criticisms that were subsequently highlighted concerning its flawed design and data analysis, means that it is being presented in WP with a greater sense of credibility and authority than it actually has. Independent and knowledgeable experts have refuted its reliability - this is a simple matter of fact. Good editors have contributed to this RFC discussion in good faith, but not having been exposed to the full arguments and the consequences of them. It can be seen that many RFC contributors have failed to realise that the reference to the Carlson criticism is not a vindication of astrology, merely an indication that this study, like the Gauquelin study, has been blighted by significant controversy. Whilever well known controversies like this receive no acknowledgement or mention in sources such as WP, adherents will feel vindicated in their belief that there is more to astrology than the scientific establishment is prepared to accept. It is therefore sensible, even for the sceptical argument, to make brief, objectively reported reference to the notable criticisms, and to give reference to other sources that detail them more fully. To not give some kind of representation feeds right into the hands of conspiracy theorists. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Serious criticisms are published in other peer reviewed journals, not in astrology fanzines - that has been the entire point of almost every oppose in this RfC. On WP it doesn't matter how logical we, as editors, think an argument is, what matters is how logical or important the correct sources say it is. This is a distinction that seems to be hard for some folks to grasp but it's one that really needs grasping as all these attempts to use fringe sources in this way are simply beating a dead horse and ignoring policy. N^oformation ^Talk 18:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I got here too late, the page has already been unlocked. The Carlson issue is tough nut to crack, but there must be some way to do it within the next 200 years. I think the old encyclopedias were better and I've heard others say it too. You had due diligence and you had to understand the subject. The WP: panoply is like a revival of scholasticism. Not good in my mind. Ken McRitchie (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a really easy way to do it in less than 200 years. N^oformation ^Talk 03:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Easy as pie. Just follow these simple steps...

1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
4. Perform an experiment and collect data, testing the hypothesis
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results (in actual peer-reviewed journals)
8. Retest and refine (frequently done by other scientists)

We call this science and it is the only method humans have for accurately predicing the future. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Rebuttals to an article published in Nature need to be in a similar publication. Editors should not attempt to overrule WP:DUE by claiming special privilege for the views of a psychologist (our views on the relevance of his expertise are not relevant). Claims made by supporters of astrology are appropriate in their own section of this article, but should not attempt to cancel the isolated examples of discussion that have occurred in properly reviewed scientific publications. Next time, the RfC should be more neutrally worded, something like "Should the following text be added to [link to article#section]?". Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, belatedly, per my many comments on this topic per WP:WEIGHT and this section of WP:FRINGE. Yobol (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree that the wording of the RFC was innapropriate and inclined towards yielding a hostile response. It failed to present the reason why the criticisms are notable despite the fact that they are only available for scrutiny in what are determined to be 'fringe sources', and that some of the critics (Eysenck and Ertel) are not astrology-sympathisers but offered independent assesments of the study whilst holding positions of academic authority outside of astrological circles. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose' WP:PARITY does not mention anywhere that a pseudoscience "journal" can be used to critize something published in a journal like Nature. What these pseudoscience journals can be used for is to show their views in general but not treated as an equal to a real journal. "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." IRWolfie- (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The edit conflict seems to be between a small group, who are trying to give fringe sources parity with reliable ones, and a larger group determined to maintain the distinction between the two. The consensus seems clear to me; I don't think "consensus" is synonymous with "unanimity."--Miniapolis (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I think it's fine, in an article about astrology, to report the opinions of astrologers, provided it's made clear that theirs is not a mainstream scientific view. In this case "astrological and other fringe journals" seems to do that adequately. 86.181.169.8 (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The criticism of the Nature article by astrologers is obviously WP:FRINGE. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr Stradivarius, your comment sums up the problem with this RfC. One of the three psychology professors is arguably an astrologer, the other two: Professors Hans Eysenck and Suitbert Ertel have been critics of astrology and never were or are astrologers. This was part of a long discussion on several threads and I think it was too much to expect outside editors to grasp sufficient detail to make informed decisions. Robert Currey talk 09:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding protection

It's gonna suck if this page gets protection again. Whatever the problems with the article, let's discuss changes here otherwise it's gonna get locked again. Don't have much time to get into now, will be back late tonight or tomorrow though. N^oformation ^Talk 21:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Academic research in astrology / online links suggestions

Some good online sources of reliably researched/academic papers on astrology (besides what can be accessed via Google books and Google scholar):

• THE 9TH HOUSE - Recent Academic Research on Astrology - http://www.the9thhouse.org
• Online theses: http://ethos.bl.uk/Home.do (type in 'astrology' or whatever. Some require payment, but many are free to access if you register)
• JSTOR - http://www.jstor.org - many good papers about various aspects of astrology, though a university account is needed for access.

Another link that is useful for access to historical texts is:

• CURA's Digital International Astrology Library - http://cura.free.fr/DIAL.html

I would like to propose adding the 9th house and Cura links to the 'external links' section of the article? Currently that has been stripped down to 1 entry - the astrology section of the Open Directory. Does anyone object to this? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:ELNO - "Any site that misleads the reader by use of ... unverifiable research." I do not believe an unverified repository of MA thesises is appropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the links section, I would like to understand your objection better. Could you be more specific about why you believe the site misleads the reader? The site states that its content is limited to

• Ph.D. or M.Phil. theses from accredited universities.
• Selected M.A. dissertations from accredited universities.

Why do you think it is an "unverified repository" when the university involved and year of submission is given on the papers? What form of verification do you feel is lacking and needs to exist to make such a site suitable for WP's standards -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Review WP:V. No reliable source has published those documents. Hipocrite (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This would only place a question mark over the reliability of the Masters dissertations for reference. There is no suggestion of misleading anyone by including this site in the external links, since the site is clear about their status. The site -fairly new - is featuring PhDs that are directly relevant to astrology and more are to be added soon. Therefore I still do not understand your objection to this site. WP:RS states:

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

Although this question is mainly directed at Hipocrite (and I'll leave a note on his talk-page), are there any unresolved concerns or objections to the inclusion of this site in the external links section? Since there is no commercial angle attached to it and its content is transparent and of interest to anyone wanting to know about theses in astrology, it seems an appropriate, non-spam-like link that offers a good "further reading" suggestion. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The page includes masters thesises that have no scholarly influence. Hipocrite (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll make the link directly to the page that offers the PhD theses. I don't think it matters that the masters theses have no established scholarly influence, since neither the site nor we are claiming that they do. I think the external links section should aim to give some good quality references to sites that offer resources for further reading on various aspects of astrology, from popular through to historical and specialist. This seems to be the most accessible site of its kind for the moment but we can replace it if another is found to be preferable. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The DIAL site is a keeper, and a good find on your part, I might add. It will be helpful not only to WP readers, but to editors looking for sources as well. Some of the sources listed on that site clearly meet WP reliability requirements, although there are some that clearly don't as well.

Ethos and Jstor are general and generic search engines that have nothing to do with the topic. Yes, they are useful tools, but neither is astrology specific. They are simply not relevant, and thus can't be used as external links here as specified in WP:ELNO, points 10 and 13.

The Ninth House site is a self-promotional website by Patrick Curry. He was the advisor on two of the dissertations listed, and is a subject of the third. One of the upcoming works listed is his own dissertation. Besides, as Hipocrtite has mentioned, masters theses and doctoral dissertations are not considered high-quality reliable sources in the academic community, especially if the material they contain has not been published in peer-reviewed journals or monographs. In the 450-odd articles and monographs I have written, translated or prepared for publication, I have seen dissertations cited maybe half-a-dozen times, and then only very cautiously and for very limited purposes (for the experimental data they contain, not for their conclusions). Our own policy states: "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." And that is provable only if they have been widely cited in real academic peer-reviewed journals. The site, therefore, does not provide reliable and verified information to WP readers. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I want you to understand that I did not ignore your post but was unaware of it until after adding the links. Give me a few minutes to answer your points and then if it is deemed to be a cause of potential editoral conflict remove it. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I do understand, and that's what I assumed, as well. No problem. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you had already removed it, so this is for the record. I think the argument that the PhD theses are not considered high-quality reliable sources is untennable. WP:RS sets out the defining view of them on WP "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community". Since we are discussing an external link the only effect is to deny an opportunity for the interested reader to know about these PhDs and areas of astrology that are being explored. It's irrelevant that Patrick Curry hosts the site and has acted as an advisor. He is notable for his role in furthering the exploration of astrology in academia, and will be, because of that, well placed to receive permissions and submissions. I offered the suggestion in good faith and if it doesn't meet consensus I've no problem with its removal, but I would have welcomed a more sensible reason for not including it than arguments which smack of intolerance, and cast suspicion on anything which does not treat astrology as a disreputable subject unworthy of serious exploration. Can either of you suggest an alternative site that is equally objective and offers something similar? If not, I'll leave it with you to consider how it looks that we are not allowing reference to a non-commercial site that is obviously of interest to anyone researching astrology and wanting to know about recent research projects.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Zac here. Ph.D. dissertations are certainly vetted by the whole academic process. They can't be used as reliable sources, but they are reliable enough for WP:EL. Yworo (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I just re-reverted the addition of the PHD paper here. Yworo, you said that the discussion was only opposed to the masters thesis. I don't believe this is true. Hipocrite posted that the papers have not been published elsewhere, and that the source "has no scholarly influence". DV posted that the site was self-promotional in nature, and said "doctoral dissertations are not considered high-quality reliable sources in the academic community". These appear to be proper objections to the link being added. I can understand you may disagree with the objections, but they are there. I have to agree that this probably isn't great to include in the EL, since it hasn't been printed elsewhere, and is a bit dubious in nature. I'm open to changing my mind (it would help if you could show it had some influence, somewhere), but I'd ask that the link not be reintroduced without forming consensus first. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, my last edit summary was intended to read "(I) read it again", not "Read it again(!)". Didn't mean for that to come off as combative.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear. The only comment on WP:EL that is being interpreted as relevant is this one (from the list of 20 reasons why links may not be suitable) - we should avoid linking to:

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.

If I am mistaken on that please correct me. (For example, although the question of scholarly influence is arguable, there is no requirement for this in WP:EL anyway).

There is no justifiable reason for any editor to suggest that this link to a simple list of PhD studies in astrology "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". AS WP reports, PhDs are considered publications by scholars because they have been vetted by the scholarly community. It is not necessary for PhDs to have been published elsewhere to be considered verified and not "factually inaccurate". It is only necessary, when they are used as sources, that they are publicly available.

I am not strongly attached to the link, but am concerned about the way that WP policies are being stretched beyond reason again, with baseless suggestions that even the scholarly community is not to be trusted if it endorses material of interest to astrology.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not opposed to the link because of any bullet in WP:ELNO, and I'm not sure other users are either (at least primarily). It isn't appropriate to include every possible link which passes ELNO; they are simply guidelines for the most common links generally described as inappropriate. External links should be included when they meet certain positive standards, and when their inclusion is supported by consensus. In this case, I don't personally believe it meets those positive standards. One such standard in WP:ELYES is "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". I'm not sure editors feel that the link is "neutral" or "accurate", nor is it necessary for "an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", since it is just one student's dissertation that received no outside coverage. To my mind, a published book or lengthy article which covered further details of Astrology which was (for some reason) not able to be integrated into the article would be a good external link. A student's research paper is probably not. Once again, I'm open to changing my mind, but I'd like to see that the paper was significant first.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I can relate to this sort of reasoning easily, but I don't understand why you think it was only to one student's research paper. The link went to a collection of completed PhD's in astrology see here. The reason I'm not too attached to the link is the site is new, it promises more additions soon, but currently it only presents three theses. I can think of better sources of astrological information in various forms, but I suggested that link at that time because there had been a lot of discussion about the need to reference academic papers. What worries me now is that suggesting a link that gives a comprehensive collection of articles, texts and resources, which would be really useful for the reader, seems doomed to start an argument - how can we talk about material that is 'accurate' when we are talking about a fringe subject that is intrinsically concerned with 'alternative' ideas? Any thoughts on that Jess? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, when I was referring to "one student", I was talking about any of the papers examined individually. If none of the papers individually qualify for inclusion, then a collection of them probably doesn't either. I'm not opposed to a "comprehensive collection of articles" generally, indeed I think that might be useful, but in this specific case I'm not convinced that this list is. As I mentioned, it's troubling to me that the list was compiled and hosted by an adviser who was involved in nearly all the papers listed, which almost guarantees a certain bias. A bias isn't necessarily a show-stopper - even a pro-astrology bias could be acceptable - but since the papers haven't (to my knowledge) received outside coverage or acclaim, that indicates to me we're dealing with a small, non-notable, biased list of student research papers which have not been examined, verified or critiqued. That doesn't seem like the type of quality encyclopedic link we want to be including in our article. I think it's a mistake to generalize from that opinion that any comprehensive list would be problematic. If, for instance, we had a broad list of papers published in academic mediums, some of which had received peer review or news coverage (similar to pubmed for astrology), I would very likely support its inclusion. I simply don't think this list reaches that standard.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that seems fair enough. Let's agree to that and not waste more time on this then. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Indian and southwest Asian astrology

I find the few lines about sidereal and tropical astrology more confusing than informative. I attempted to clarify/define sidereal astrology as best I could. The mention of Western astrology relating to tropical astrology does not give me an understanding of tropical astrology. I can keep trying to work on this but it would really be helpful if an editor who is knowledgeable on the topic could explain this in a clear, simple, and informative way. Right now, the wording is very technical and/or vague and is not helpful to someone who does not already know astrology.Coaster92 (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a couple sentences to help clarify the difference between Western and Hindu astrology. Even more clarification would be helpful.Coaster92 (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

The lead stated that astrology believes in the influence of 'visible astronomical phenomena' on earthly events, I have amended this to 'astronomical phenomena', as some astrologers believe in the influence of invisible planets. See Fred Gettings' Dictionary of Astrology, p. 158, in the entry on 'Hypothetical Planets': "Some astrologers have claimed the existence of a number of planets in our own solar system which are neither visible nor recognized by science, but which have been located (largely) by such psychic means as clairvoyance. Some astrologers have postulated the existence of over 1,000 such planets, called AROMAL PLANETS, while Blavatsky claims that there are six ETHEREAL PLANETs. At least 25 of the more widely used hypotheticals have been accorded ephemerides by various astrologers, while information regarding position, revolution and supposed influences has been furnished for some 35 such bodies.' (caps as in original) Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that needed changing. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello sir our website is http://www.futuretocome.com/ and if you find it useful, link it on this page. Site Title: Astrology & Horoscope — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.12.228 (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In my reading of astrology resources I found references to the influence of visible astronomical phenomenon with the corresponding reference that any influence of invisible phenomenon is negligible. I think the original lead was correct.Coaster92 (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"planetary object"

I was reverted for changing "planetary object" to "planet", ostensibly to include asteroids, but what is a "planetary object" if not just gobbledygook for "planet"? Does the phrase have any meaning re. the current Solar system? If so, we need a link here or to Wikt. — kwami (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.greatdreams.com/1950DA.htm. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Planetary object seems like a concept that would include planets, dwarf planets, etc, but I don't think the concept includes things like asteroids. Perhaps "celestial objects" would be more inclusive. N^oformation ^Talk 10:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the link above ("Incoming asteroids and other planetary objects")? It indicates that "planetary objects" is indeed a term used by astronomers, and one that specifically includes asteroids, thus contradicting what Kwamikagami asserted in his edit summary here reverting me (" 'planetary objects' would also exclude asteroids, and in addition is essentially meaningless"). Frankly, it looks as though Kwamikagami didn't know what he was talking about. I think Kwamikagami's latest edit to the article here is unhelpful and should be reverted. There is no advantage to changing "Astrology’s origins in Indo-European cultures date to the third millennium BCE" to "Astrology’s origins among Indo-European peoples date to the third millennium BCE" and the justification given for the change ("cultures don't invent things, people do") is spurious. ("Peoples" no more invent things than "cultures" do). Likewise, calling the sun a "planetary object" in the lead simply makes the article look ridiculous; astrologers may see the sun as a planet, but this article is not written from an astrological POV. The hidden message Kwamikagami placed in the lead ("in astrology, the sun and moon are planets") is useless and does nothing to help readers, most of whom will never even see it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never heard the phrase "planetary object" before for anything but a planet, proto-planet, fragment of a planet, unidentified object which might be a planet, etc. I'm happy to accept it, though I think we either need a redirect to an article that explains what the term means (are comets "planetary objects"? are moons? rings? brown dwarfs?), or at least add an entry to Wiktionary. We don't need to link to it, but it should be there, since phrases are often not defined in dictionaries.

One point of precision, though: Cultures do not invent things, people do. Those things constitute cultures. No "culture" ever developed astrology. (Your counter-argument is a straw man: I didn't say what you claim.) Petty, perhaps, but we are an encyclopedia, not a blog. No point in being inaccurate when it's just as easy to be accurate.

As for the sun and moon being planetary objects, that depends on what a planetary object is, and so far you have not provided a authoritative definition. They are not just planets in astrology, but classically as well. You say the article is not written from an astrological POV, and that's true in the sense that we do not proceed from the assumption that astrology is correct, but I don't see why an article on astrology wouldn't use words with the meanings they have in astrology. Astronomical articles use astronomical definitions, articles on chemistry use chemical jargon, theological articles use religious terms—why should this article be different? Perhaps that's something we should agree on for the article as a whole: do 'house', 'sign', etc. etc. have their astrological or general definitions in this article? — kwami (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Kwamikagami, I simply don't accept your reasoning for changing "cultures" to "peoples". We could argue until the end of time about whether or not you're right that "Cultures do not invent things, people do", but fortunately there's no need, because the reason given for your change wouldn't justify it even if it were correct. You say I'm misrepresenting you, but I can only go by what you say, and if you have some other reason I don't see it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't change "cultures" to "peoples". Please read what I actually wrote. — kwami (talk)

Ah, the Moon is a planetary object, so the 'other' is justified:

"Aside from the Moon, Mars is the only other planetary object which can be observed from Earth with ..."

"More than 1600 maps of the planets and satellites have been produced [by the USGS etc.] organized by planetary object."

"Combined with the various young flows observed on the surface [of Io], volcanic plumes indicate a highly active planetary object".

—Ronald Greeley, 1994, Planetary landscapes, 2nd ed.

— kwami (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC) For H. Jay Melosh (Planetary Surface Processes, 2011), large satellites are planetary objects, but small satellites and asteroids are not. Perhaps this corresponds to hydrostatic equilibrium?

Indo-European is incorrect here, isn't it? Astrology seems to have developed in cultures speaking Semitic languages and others. Indo-European is primarily a linguistic term, not necessarily a group of cultures. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I read that as "among IE peoples", not that astrology originated there. But you're right, the wording is at best ambiguous. — kwami (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, why don't you read what you actually wrote? Your edit did indeed change "cultures" to "peoples", and anyone who looks through the edit history of the article will see as much. As for "why an article on astrology wouldn't use words with the meanings they have in astrology" - that's because it might imply that astrology is correct, which obviously we aren't going to do. It might help to include an explicit statement in the lead that in astrology the sun is considered a planet, but not a hidden message please - again, hardly anyone will actually see it. Regular Wikipedia editors, yes, but not ordinary readers. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) Ah, you're right about "peoples". Sorry about that. I read your paraphrase of what I wrote, and got that in my head in place of what I had actually said. Very sloppy of me.

We've got the other problem, though, which is that the wording does suggest that IE-speakers invented astrology. IFAIK that is not justified, though I may be wrong.

(2) I disagree about terminology. Using astrological terminology in an article on astrology does not imply astrology is correct, any more than using theory-dependent terminology in an article on a scientific theory means taking sides in favor of that theory. We speak of "signs" and "houses" without (IMO) implying anything of the sort. If it does mean taking sides, we need to change our wording for every topic that is not universally accepted, which would mean a major policy change for WP. But according to astronomical sources, the Moon is a planetary object, so the 'other' is correct regardless of whether we are using astrological or astronomical definitions.

(3) As for the hidden message, that's why I requested that we either link to planetary object (perhaps a redirect), or create an entry at Wiktionary. Have you been able to come up with a definition? — kwami (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created a provisional Wiktionary entry based on what I've seen in the lit. It would appear to be a poorly defined term, so I have three competing definitions. Please correct as needed. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, if you were right about the terminology issue, then AIDS denialism would be called something like AIDS reappraisal and it would refer to "AIDS dissidents" rather than "AIDS denialists." Try making that argument there and see where it gets you. There are good precedents for not using terminology accepted by advocates of minority or fringe positions in articles about their views. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between spin or propaganda, intended to shape people's opinions, and the normal terminology of a field, which are simply labels. That's why I've objected to all attempts to remove the term 'pseudoscience' from the article, but have no problem with astrological definitions of 'planet'. Besides, I've demonstrated that this is correct for astronomy as well as astrology. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead again

Noformation reverted a change I made to the lead, commenting, "Cultures is inaccurate; astrology can be part of what defines a culture, not a product of it." I'm sorry, but I find that comment to be completely meaningless, and I fail, in any case, to see its relevance. How is it supposed to show that "peoples" is more appropriate than "cultures"? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording to reflect the other objection (IE-speakers d n invent astrology), and as it now stands, I don't think it would make much difference if we used 'cultures'. — kwami (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the lead needs to be removed. 'Astrology makes no attempt to find solutions for its problems' does not 'follow.' What I mean is, its an obtuse statement that can't be deciphered, and frankly looks a bit biased. The statement portends to suggest that astrology has problems. This would be much better moved into a controversy section, not in the lead. If the statement is moved, not just deleted, Astrology's 'problems' should be explained more clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParksTrailer (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The fact that astrology is pseudoscience must definitely be mentioned prominently in the lead. Hiding it in a "criticism section" would be incredibly dishonest and against policy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I was speaking more to the statement of astrology's 'problems.' The 'problems' are lumped in with the pseudoscience statement, and should be separated. I have an issue with the problem statement because, well, its so arbitrary. There isn't anything specific to Astrology, simply 'it has problems it can't address.' What problems is this statement referring too? Why doesn't Astrology address these problems? These are questions I think in my head as I read this statement, and very much why I see this statement as biased. It portrays Astrology as irresponsible but supplies nothing to back it up. I propose separating the 'problem' statement and the pseudoscience statement; the problem statement should be deleted or, if applied with more detail moved to a controversy section. What is everyone's thoughts ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParksTrailer (talk • contribs) 17:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Astrology as a science

There is a problem with the lines: While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience because it makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations.[4][5]

To keep this in, you need to provide references that show that astrologers do generally consider their subject to be a science. My experience is that generally they do not do this, in the same way that a Christian or a Muslim or a novelist or a painter would probably not consider their subject to be a science. Dharmaruci (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been amply talked about in the talk page archives, and yes, modern astrologists often make claims of scientific validity for astrology. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, whether they think or say that is irrelevant. It's pseudoscience because it makes scientifically testable claims which are not scientifically tested. Intelligent Design is also pseudoscience, but generic Xanity or Islam are not, because they do not make scientifically testable claims. — kwami (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I blocked the user after warning not to vandalize the page again (blanking whole section a 2nd time after POV edit had been reverted twice). — kwami (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, I accept that these edits should have been discussed on the talk page. WP:TALK However, we have to accept that new editors do not know the procedures for editing or how messages on the talk page work especially if it goes to an IP when you have opened a new account. WP:NEWBIES If Dharmaruci were to look back at the edits since September, he will discover that many were done without discussion on the talk page and almost all were without consensus. Various editors including myself had some false warnings on our User Page WP:HUSH. This was the time when you should have been using your administrative powers. What you have described as vandalism, other editors here would consider bold editing. WP:BOLD I trust that you will allow Dharmaruci to contribute to the talk page and will be unblocked from editing within a reasonable time frame. (The OTT use of links is mainly for the benefit of any new editors.)

Even if a number of editors have been unreasonably blocked or frustrated by POV wikilawyering WP:LAWYER, there is still no consensus on the contents of this page as it is not neutral WP:NPOV or Encyclopedic.

With this in mind, I plan to make a minor edit and will discuss it here if people disagree. Robert Currey talk 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't intend to play with the pseudoscience statement, again. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I also hope he's not recruiting shills from his social media networks, again. Skinwalker (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Off-site, the blocked user has confirmed that he had made the edits in question in direct response to Robert Currey's recruitment drive last March. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think not - since my advice to would-be editors last winter was to learn and follow WP rules and not go to the Astrology page unless they were already an experienced WP editor. If anything, I think it put him off editing for 10 months and his claim is that he was prompted by the current state of the Astrology page.

Blocking editors without justification is the most powerful recruiting drive. Robert Currey talk 20:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience again again.

I note again the Pseudoscience in the lede is being argued over. I've reverted to the last stable version, and now I'm prepared to talk here. I would note that the section as it stands now is reliably sourced, and that to adjust said sources to be the weasely "It has been put forth that astrology bears," is not really in line with said sources, and is terrible passive voice. Please express your concerns with the passage here. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never liked the particular phrasing of that sentence. It would be nice if we should just succinctly state that astrology is bullshit (in a more encyclopedic way obviously) rather than the clunky wording we have now. Something like, "astrology is a pseudoscience and as such is not taken seriously by the academic or scientific communities, instead being relegated to certain aspects of popular culture such as newspaper horoscopes. Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted and no evidence has been found to support either the premises or purported effects outlines in astrological tradition. Furthermore, the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood basic aspects of biology and physics" I think this sums up the issue nicely, thoughts? SÆdon^talk 23:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that, though it is a bit more than just newspaper horoscopes. The details of why it's a pseudoscience, which we currently have in the lead only because of the POV war, would really be better in the text. — kwami (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have problems with it. Saying that Astrology is a pseudoscience is basically the same thing as saying that it is not taken seriously by the scientific community, so "astrology is a pseudoscience and as such is not taken seriously by the academic or scientific communities" is like saying the same thing twice in slightly different ways. More importantly, it's clearly true that astrology exists in a variety of different forms, and I don't thing it's either accurate or helpful to say that it's "relegated to certain aspects of popular culture such as newspaper horoscopes". Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Decided to be bold and I added the text. Feel free to improve, I think it can be adjusted to incorporate your points and will still sound better than what we have now. SÆdon^talk 23:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I don't think that the wording you used was very good, and I have questions about how accurate the content was. Please let's work this out carefully on the talk page. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the redundancy a problem. Most people don't really know what pseudoscience is, and this helps clarify. Otherwise we're just spouting jargon. — kwami (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't my main reason for reverting. I do have doubts about the factual accuracy of Saedon's version - it ignores, just for one example, professional astrology, which is not the same thing as those sun sign columns in newspapers. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think your point can be incorporated into the new version and it would be better than what we have now? I don't disagree with your assessment, I just think that the new version can be fixed. SÆdon^talk 23:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and re "Please let's work this out carefully on the talk page" - don't worry, I wasn't planning on edit warring this in :). SÆdon^talk 23:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To your points. (i) While pseudoscience is never taken seriously by the scientific community, it's not the same statement. If those were equivalent then it would be akin to saying that "astrology is a pseudoscience and because it is a pseudoscience," but in fact my statement is that because astrology is a pseudoscience it is not taken seriously by the scientific community. (ii) I don't know how it's inaccurate to say astrology has been relegated to popular culture. It's not being pursued as an academic field by any serious scholarly body (with the exception of some schools in India, where political motivations based on superstition have allowed it to be taught in schools, but the Indian scientific community has rejected it just the same) and is only taken seriously by non-scientists. This is essentially what our article goes on to say, so per WP:LEDE it makes sense as a summary of the article. SÆdon^talk 23:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) on adding the same objection to my response. Newspaper horoscopes are a bit like the tide tables in the newspaper are to oceanology. They're the fortune cookies of astrology. I don't know this, but I suspect that many professional astrologers think they're bullshit, yet truly believe in astrology. — kwami (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's probably true. How do we describe professional astrologers without giving undue weight to astrology? SÆdon^talk 00:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's inaccurate to say that astrology has been relegated to popular culture because professional astrology still exists - and it's not the same thing as popular culture. There are any number of ways in which astrology might be significant that aren't about sun sign columns or per se about popular culture (it's one of Camille Paglia's influences in Sexual Personae, a work of literary criticism - which is just a single example). I was about to mention the example of India, but you beat me to it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, point taken, can you please find a way to fix the version I introduced to compensate for your points? SÆdon^talk 00:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's consider your version point for point: "Astrology is a pseudoscience and as such is not taken seriously by the academic or scientific communities, instead being relegated to certain aspects of popular culture such as newspaper horoscopes. Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted and no evidence has been found to support either the premises or purported effects outlines in astrological tradition. Furthermore, the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics." I've no problem with the "pseudoscience" part, but everything from there needs to be qualified. "Not taken seriously by the academic or scientific communities" leaves out India - and I'm sure we don't want to do that. Some mention of professional astrology would have to be added to "certain aspects of popular culture such as newspaper horoscopes." I'm unsure about the details of testing astrology, but I won't quibble over that, being a non-expert. I am aware that the part about astrology contradicting well understood, basic aspects of biology is contradicted by what Carl Sagan said on the subject - there may be no known way in which the planetary bodies could influence us in the way astrology requires, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't, since we don't know everything about how the universe works. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've been trying to figure out a way to integrate your changes and haven't been able to do so without significantly expanding the paragraph and so I'm just going to remove that sentence entirely. Since you said you didn't object to the rest I assume we're good with the new wording. If you have any suggestions on how to readd that sentence with your concerns addressed (i.e. specific wording) then please edit it in. Thanks. SÆdon^talk 20:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You reverted again because you dislike that version, but above you outlined your problems and I addressed them. What do you dislike now? Also, what do you like about the current version? SÆdon^talk 20:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I dislike nearly everything about your preferred version of the lead. To begin with, it removes sources. While the lead may not technically need sources, they do help to clarify matters, and removing them isn't the way to go. If you could propose a sourced version here, we could discuss that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Disliking it is not an argument that holds much weight unless you have specific objections. As you said yourself, the lede does not technically need sources so long as it summarizes sourced statements in the article and this is the case, so sourcing is an irrelevant objection. SÆdon^talk 20:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I made my objections fairly clearly earlier. You have simply reinstated your preferred version, which is poorly written, without making any changes to address my concerns. I'm not interested in discussing matters if you insist on trying to force your changes through by edit warring, whatever ridiculous excuses you give for that. "It takes two to edit war" is a juvenile comment, implying as it does that something I do gives you an excuse for bad behavior. Apologize, then maybe we can make some progress. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't address your concerns? Your concern was that one clause of the statement was not factually accurate, I addressed this by removing that clause. Your other objections have been answered by myself and by Kwami. You went on to say "I'm unsure about the details of testing astrology, but I won't quibble over that," so I assume that the testing portion is not the problem, and I explained that the first sentence is not actually redundant because it is making a claim of cause and effect, not a repetition of the same claim . Your new objection is that it is not sourced, but since being sourced is not a requirement so long as it's sourced in the body it's not a relevant objection. What would you like me to address? I am vehemently against edit warring when the person reverting gives a valid reason to revert, but you just not liking it is not a valid reason without specifics. SÆdon^talk 20:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should listen to what the other fellow has to say first before deciding whether there's a "valid" reason for reverting? Or is a "valid" reason one you personally agree with? That's a very lame excuse for your bad behavior here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please address the points I made above regarding your objections. SÆdon^talk 20:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop making excuses for your edit warring. I don't accept your arguments, and had you bothered to try to understand what I was saying, you'd realize that I do indeed have "valid" reasons for reverting you, whether you like it or not. Your preferred version is, "Astrology is a pseudoscience and as such is not taken seriously by the academic or scientific communities. Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted and no evidence has been found to support either the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological tradition. Furthermore, the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics." In comparison to the other version, that's vague and very badly written. The older version gave clear reasons why astrology is a pseudoscience; yours does not. You gave no reason at all for removing mention of the fact that astrology "makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations". It's quite unhelpful to say something like "Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted", without further elaboration. You claim that your version is supported by the main text of the article; I'm skeptical of that. Exactly which parts support which statements? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a metaconversation about editwarring, I'm here to talk about content. So far two editors have expressed problems with the current wording, Kwami says above "The details of why it's a pseudoscience, which we currently have in the lead only because of the POV war, would really be better in the text." My version gives exact reasons why it's a pseudoscience: "the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics." There is nothing "vague" about my version at all, it very concisely and succinctly states the following facts: astrology is pseudoscience, it is not seriously studied by academia and no evidence exists to support it. The lede isn't supposed to delve into detail, it's supposed to summarize the respective sections of the article. The old version is difficult for someone not educated in the sciences to understand. For instance, the statement "is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations." would make no sense to someone who doesn't have a scientific background, while "contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics" is very clear. "Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted" is supported by the section in which we describe the scientific testing that has been conducted. "the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics" is supported by the Hawkings and Tyson refererences. SÆdon^talk 20:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of editor behavior is perfectly appropriate for the talk page. It's just tough if you don't like it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's appropriate for a noticeboard, article talk pages are to discuss improvements to articles. Please comment on content per WP:TPG#YES. SÆdon^talk 21:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I will comment on content. I will also comment on your behavior. Too bad if you don't like it. If you run to an admin and try to stop me, we'll see what happens. You're guilty of edit warring, and your behavior is obnoxious. I'm unmoved by assertions that the details of why astrology is a pseudoscience belong out of the lead, regardless of whether the assertion comes from Kwami or anyone else. I am not a scientific expert, but I have no trouble whatever understanding the statement that astrology is "selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations" - maybe you shouldn't assume that readers are all likely to be sub-par morons? 21:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Polisher of Cobwebs (talk)

I am a biologist and I have only the slightest idea what that sentence means without making some assumptions, so if you as a non-scientist somehow grasp it then I imagine you have super sensory powers of mind reading because the sentence is not very clear. I don't consider our reader's comprehension to be sub-par and I never called anyone a moron, that is a strawman and in violation of WP:TPG#NO which states that one should "not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: Be precise in quoting others." Kwami's and my point is not simply an argument by assertion, it's based on WP:LEDE which states that greater detail should be covered in the body and not in the lede. SÆdon^talk 21:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Detail is a matter of degree. Whether any particular piece of information is appropriate to the lead or not should be subject to discussion, and you have not bothered to provide any reason at all for removing the information in question. So I will be restoring it, and undoing your other changes. Making the lead say that "conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics" is POV pushing, not because it reflects badly on astrology, but because it's contradicted by Sagan's views: "dismissing astrology because there was no mechanism (while 'certainly a relevant point') was not in itself convincing". Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see that your interest is only in using obstructionist tactics to prohibit changes to the article and so rather than deal with you I will just call an RFC. SÆdon^talk 21:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Do what you like. You've been engaging in edit warring to push though a poorly written, POV version of the lead (despite what you claim, it clearly does not reflect the article fairly), and that's clear for all to see. For my part, I will be reverting you, if no one else does so before me. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Astrologers' definition of planet more historical?

Our text implies at the moment that astrology somehow has a better definition of "planet" than that used in astronomy. We need to find a more neutral way of outlining the difference in definitions without. I don't think Merriam-Webster is quite enough to source the change in definition among astronomers in C18. We need to refer to standard histories of astronomy. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It did not imply that it was better, merely that it was earlier. Our description was wrong, however: the break came when Earth was recognized as a planet, not Uranus. — kwami (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I like your improvement to the section. Is it possible to find a better wording than "move in the sky" for the seven classical planets? Because even the "fixed stars" appear to wheel around in 24 hours and in 365 days. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There are issues to resolve before putting the proposed text to a vote

Before anything is actioned by a vote editors should consider the fact that the proposed text is unsupportable. In fact the proposer of the alteration reveals a worrying motivation in the comment he made when he started proposing changes – “It would be nice if we should just succinctly state that astrology is bullshit (in a more encyclopedic way obviously) rather than the clunky wording we have now.” (SÆdon 23:20, 8 May 2012). Actually, I don’t see how the wording was clunky.

Wikipedia’s purpose is to provide objective, impartial and verifiable information that is free from prejudice and bias. If Saedon’s motivation is not in line with that he should resist from editing this page. I have included a reference in the article text which demonstrates that academic communities take a very different view of the subject than the one they are claimed to take in the lede. Academic communities adopt a scholarly attitude and it would be an unsupportable change to claim that they do not take the study of this subject seriously. In addition, to imply that scientific communities don’t take seriously any subject they concern themselves with is just a ridiculous nonsense point to make. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You have re-added text that is undue for reasons I have already stated. You can not say that "The history and cultural impact of astrology remains of interest to scholars for reasons summarized by David Pingree" when it is very obvious from the quote that this is in fact no summary but him stating his own position with I would argue,.... IRWolfie- (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for appearing to give no edit-reason. This was a mistake based on catching up again with WP procedures and not intentional (and doing two things at once). Let me explain here so you understand - you took out the quote from David Pingree, who held the reputation of being, without doubt, the leading academic scholar in the relevant field. He was also, BTW, quite clear and outspoken in the fact that he was not a believer of astrology (so no bias on his part - he merely represents the academic approach to this subject). When Pingree presents an argument, it becomes a definitive stance within his community. There are numerous scholars and notable academics who take seriously their research into astrology for the reasons Pingree outlined. To quote Pingree is to quote the most significant and reliable source, and it is a matter of interest to anyone who turns to this page for information on the history of astrology - why else is the cultual impact of astrology on the development of science of such interest to academics? Since some editors want to present a false scenario they should see this quote which proves otherwise. We cannot state that the academic community does not take the subject seriously when it clearly does. I suggest that before anyone else change the text to state that the academic community does not approach the subject seriously, they present a reference of similar weight by which to justify a comment which (I would argue) makes a spurilous assertion. As a WP editor I think it is only right to remove unverifyable comments and that is why I reverted what appeared to be a hasty change on your part. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Note; you have inappropriately rolled back my edit, this is clearly inappropriate per WP:BRD while we are discussing the issue here. rollback is used to undo problematic edits such as vandalism not good faith edits. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoting him when it is clearly his own opinion is inappropriate, if he was summing up the consensus it would be stated. His use of I would argue, indicates clearly that his opinion isn't the consensus but his own opinion. The reference does not support the text you have added. IRWolfie- (talk)

Re the roll-back - explained in my post above. There are degree courses on the history and cultural impact of astrology, and many notable professors of classics and other fields of study are continually publishing papers on the subject. To suggest otherwise is false I'm afraid, and to suggest that scholars engage in such research without taking it seriously is obviously innapropriate. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what you think is wrong or false if you do not have the sources to back it up. What we need is reliable sources, not original research on whether Pingree's quote reflects the reasons why Astrology is of academic interest. I note from the quote that he also does not appear to be directly discussing astrology either. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he specified astrology and astral omens, which is of direct relevance I'm sure you'll agree. In any case, though I didn't personally feel it was necessary have added another reference in response to your request for further citation. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The first source appears to give a different reason for the study compared to the second. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Don't lose your credibility by inventing more reasons to pretend not to see what is written in reliable sources. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is one fundamental issue to be resolved before putting the issue to a vote here. We don't resolve issues by voting. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd care to tell us what you think that issue is, would you? Agricolae (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think HiLow is saying that the issue is we do not resolve issues with a vote. I'm not sure that's true given that there are many issues which are routinely resolved by a show of consensus. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. So obvious I missed it entirely. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A vote is almost the antithesis of a consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Historians (like Pingree) studying the "historical and cultural impact" of something, doesn't equal research "into the field itself". I am sure there are also historians who study the historical and cultural impact of voodoo magic, phrenology or bloodletting. But that doesn't mean that voodoo magic ceases to be pseudoscience and is now a serious field of study. For historians everything from astrology to voodoo to phrenology can be a "topic of study", but that doesn't imply that academics are now taking the beliefs or theories of astrology and voodoo serious. The only thing they take serious is the historical or cultural impact it has or has had.

The historical impact of astrology already gets plenty coverage in the second paragraph of the lede. There is no need to mention it in the pseudoscience paragraph as well. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The historical section introduced by Zac is a misleadingly presented cherry-picked quote that violates weight and relies on a quibble. While Classical astrology and medieval astrology may be of some interest to scholars, modern astrology is practically ignored, and universally disparaged. Futhermore, it is only one man's opinion, and is given undue weight. The implication that scholars give any scientific credence to the non-astronomical elements of classical and medieval astrology, or to any aspect of modern astrology at all, is patently false. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

To answer you fully:

The historical section introduced by Zac is a misleadingly presented cherry-picked quote that violates weight and relies on a quibble.

Not at all. It’s not "a section" but a highly pertinent comment, substantiated by further credible reference to the same view, which also gives reference to many other similar opinions recently expressed in academic works (check for yourself, if you doubt this). It is very relevant to its section, because (for one thing) it explains why the history of astrology is worthy of encyclopedic coverage. The quote, placed as it is in the history section, does nothing more than demonstrate the reasons why the history and cultural impact of astrology is a subject of interest, which still receives scholarly exploration.

While Classical astrology and medieval astrology may be of some interest to scholars, modern astrology is practically ignored, and universally disparaged. Futhermore, it is only one man's opinion, and is given undue weight.

a) How would your comment on modern astrology justify the removal of content related to the historical significance of astrology?

b) As the two references you removed demonstrate, the information presents far more than “only one man’s opinion”, and by removing it I think you gave undue weight to your own personal opinion, rather than that of credibly published and verifiable academic comment which is in keeping with the aims of wikipedia.

The implication that scholars give any scientific credence to the non-astronomical elements of classical and medieval astrology, or to any aspect of modern astrology at all, is patently false.

Before removing the referenced information again, please explain how you would justify your opinion that Pingree’s declaration that “the intellectual content must be related to the culture that produced and nourished each, and to the social context within which each arose and developed” presents patently false implications of relevance to “scientific credence” rather than being the academic statement that it is, on why the history of the subject is considered to be worthy of serious attention by historians of science.

I note that you also removed the referenced material in the lede which clearly explains the categorization of astrology as a pseudo-science, despite all the above objections as to why the proposed alternative is unsuitable. This sort of runs roughshod over the efforts of editors who have and are contributing to the discussion on that point. Rather than simply delete encyclopedic material, please make the attempt to engage in consensus-building discussion, as others are doing. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Part of the WP:BRD cycle is to not re-insert the material after the initial revert but instead get consensus. You have now re-inserted the section 3 times, instead of getting consensus after the 1st revert. You also appear to have misused your rollback features again. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, after every objection I made amendments to attend to the concerns of the objection (as I did here before Dominus Vobisdu removed the material and its accompanying references without due cause again). This shows that I am applying thoughtful consideration to the process, not just reverting/deleting appropriate material based on whether it suits my own point of view. So let's see what reasonable objections are to be made about the content (reproduced below but without the supporting references which can be seen in this diff) I don't believe that Wikipedia has a policy of censoring information that is relevant and verifiable, and the only reason I can assume that this comment is being censored is that it doesn't suit the case that some anti-fringe editors want to make, that astrology is "universally disparaged", (despite the fact that I exist, clearly don't disparage the subject, and so it is comments like this that are seen to be "patently false")

Disputed content:

The history and cultural impact of astrology remains of interest to scholars.[ref to Kassel] The reasons for academic interest were demonstrated by David Pingree, one of America's foremost historians of the exact sciences in antiquity, who argued that astrology and various forms of astral omens:

... deserve to be studied by historians of science with as serious and thorough a purpose as are the topics that we usually find discussed in history of science classrooms or in the pages of Isis. This means that their intellectual content must be probed deeply, and not simply dismissed as rubbish or interpreted in the light of modern historical mythology; and that the intellectual content must be related to the culture that produced and nourished each, and to the social context within which each arose and developed. [ref to Pingree]

Am happy to allow time for reasoned discussion and sensible feedback on why content such as the above could legitimately be defined as breaking WP policy. I welcome that and will wait to see it materialise before editing again -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than making amendments and then re-inserting it again you should be putting the case for why it's relevant and then modifications would be made here first as a result of the discussion, constrast that with the current edit warring in the article. See WP:EW: Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A final comment before leaving the discussion so that other editors can express their opinions. I think I've sufficiently done that and have not made any edit without fully justifying it and making my case on this talk page. That should be easily apparent from the record of discussions above. I have no intention of engaging in 'editorial fights'. I am simply asking that (what I perceive to be) appropriate content is not deleted without logical reason, (or "scare-mongering criticisms" that don't actually apply to it). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

2C. Paraphrasing. The paragraph says the 'history and cultural impact of astrology" is something (of interest to scholars). The Pingree statement says astrology should be studied, and does not say anywhere that it is being studied. Pingree's quote does not support the statement "The reasons for academic interest were demonstrated by David Pingree.....". Synth. Moriori (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read. The paragraph says "The history and cultural impact of astrology remains of interest to scholars". The verifying reference goes to Kassell's paper, published in Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences; vol 41, issue 2 (June 2010). It amply verifies that this is the case, and includes reference to a number of other scholars who have reported on the continuing academic interest in the history of astrology. Lauren Kassell is a senior lecturer in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there any proposed reasons why this text is problematic in its current state? If so please explain the basis of any applicable objections as I am under the impression that its modifications have addressed any relevant earlier concerns. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 08:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Pingree is stating that this is his own argument and opinion and not necessarily widely held: All of these subjects, I would argue, were or are sciences within the contexts of the cultures in which they once flourished or now are practiced. As such they deserve to be studied by historians of science. That he demonstrates the the reasons for academic interest rather than just elaborated on his own opinion appears to be original research on your part. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to accept that argument myself, but to eliminate the concern:

The history and cultural impact of astrology remains of interest to scholars.[ref to Kassel] David Pingree, one of America's foremost historians of the exact sciences in antiquity, argued for the value of such research, saying that astrology and various forms of astral omens:

... deserve to be studied by historians of science with as serious and thorough a purpose as are the topics that we usually find discussed in history of science classrooms or in the pages of Isis. This means that their intellectual content must be probed deeply, and not simply dismissed as rubbish or interpreted in the light of modern historical mythology; and that the intellectual content must be related to the culture that produced and nourished each, and to the social context within which each arose and developed. [ref to Pingree]

-- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the sub-heading of this section. There "are" things that need cooperative resolution, and the better prose suited for the lead will be a by-product. I came here by random invitation without reservations regarding the topic. My initial impression is that the current presentation begs for modification, while the suggested change requires the benefit of more collaboration. Collaboration is obviously stifled amidst allegations of tendentious editing and frankly I offer these with reluctance, for I do anticipate an ad hominem demise. I'll certainly observe with interest and perhaps more. Good luck - My76Strat (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Per your request for further comment: the proposed wording states (without citation) that no evidence has been found to support either the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological tradition. It's quite easy to unaware of all of the history of this question, but blanket statements like "no evidence" -- apart from being essentially impossible to verify but easier to falsify -- are only confirmatory of a particular reality tunnel on the question.
I'll just mention, for one, that famous Swiss psychologist Carl Gustav Jung thought he'd found some evidence ... and that just to carry off the "no evidence" claim you'd need to cite someone who'd disproven his findings. (Who would that be?) And that's just one.
I suggest that a campaign to debunk astrology via a scientific POV is ill-conceived and doomed. Apart from the many charlatans and unconvincing causalities, respectable people can disagree on things, particularly on the fringes of issues which are decidedly outside the present range of scientific inquiry. (Many things are!)
I think it's enough to say something to the effect that the claims of astrology are unscientific, and that there's no consensus on the question, and let it go at that. To go further and claim that it's all just irrational bunk is to be guilty of the air of dogmatic certainty that positivists, like religionists, have always gotten in trouble over. Twang (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

@Twang. You say: "..famous Swiss psychologist Carl Gustav Jung thought he'd found some evidence ... and that just to carry off the "no evidence" claim you'd need to cite someone who'd disproven his findings."

My question:

• 1)Is it as you say: "..Jung thought he'd found some evidence" ?
• 2)or did Jung actually present his evidence? And if so, where?
• 3)and if #2 is the case, then was his "evidence" independently confirmed? By whom?

We don't need someone to disprove his findings, we need his findings to be verified before there is concensus that it is "evidence". Has that happened?

The sentence could probably be improved by replacing "no evidence" with "no independently verified evidence", because a lot of astrologers believe(or think) that they have "evidence" for the working of astrology, it is just that their "evidence" has never made it past the "verification" steps that science typically requires. And that's what we report in the article. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)