Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tetrabiblos/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 [1].

---

Tetrabiblos

Tetrabiblos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Tetrabiblos/archive1

Nominator(s): -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this article because it provides a comprehensive and well-researched report of a famous book by a notable name in the history of science. The book has held a position of great influence historically and although its subject matter is quite complex, it continues to be of interest to many scholars. Astrologers still refer to it, and historians of the classical culture need to be aware of its arguments, the extent of its impact, and the principles that extended into the other 'liberal sciences' of that era. The creation of this article ranked high on the ‘to-do’ list of a number of wiki:projects for several years, but it wasn’t created until September this year. It has had a lot of time and effort invested into it over the last 3 months to ensure it is clear, comprehensive and based on the best available sources. I believe it now meets the criteria necessary to achieve FA status. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Source comments - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. If possible I'd like to get a reviewer more familiar with the topic to take a look at sourcing, but here are some preliminary comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• "In this topic his logical arrangement of complex considerations gives sufficient clarity for an astrologer to apply the techniques in practice without reference to other texts." - source?

I felt this was sufficiently demonstrated by the following example of how the topic is fully explored; however, the comment was not integral, so it seemed safer to remove this (so done). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Don't use blockquotes for short quotes

Done - the shortest blockquote is now 52 words.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ranges should use endashes

Done. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?

Done - I have replaced this with a reference to the Liddell Scott Jones ancient Greek dictionary at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu, which is the standard, authoritative source of reference.

• Foreign-language sources should be identified as such

Done -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why the duplication of dates in some Works cited entries?

Fixed -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced

Fixed -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books

Fixed: I have ensured that locations are provided for them all. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• ISBNs should be linked

I believe I have fixed this although I wasn't certain what you meant. They are all now linked through to their entries in book catalogues (like World cat). If this is not what you meant, could you point me to an example please so I have a better understanding of what you need?

I fixed this the other day, not knowing about this page. You just put ISBN 1234567890, it automatically makes a link. The links weren't there because there were colons after ISBN, which breaks the linking. Yworo (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• What is JHU?

Fixed;I hadn't realised this was an abbreviation for Johns Hopkins University Press - I've put in the publisher's full title now. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

In general, reference formatting could be cleaned up. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been through them all carefully, and believe I have picked up the last of any inconsistencies. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thanks for taking the trouble to review. I will happily fix all these problems. I have done some today and will have the rest done by tomorrow night. I appreciate your critical eye. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I now believe all the above points have been corrected, please let me know if anything remains. Thank you -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Though I don't have the expertise of most of the contributors to this article, I have studied the life and works of Ptolemy and read parts of my own copy of Tetrabiblos. Nearly two thousand years after publication, Tetrabiblos remains the most significant book on astrology and is still used as a reference point for certain key definitions such as the Tropical Zodiac. The article appears to be of a very high standard, well ordered and illustrated and the sources appear to be solid. Robert Currey talk 15:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Note, I had to undo many of Zac's fixes to the Works cited section above (locations?), because he mixed in changing Wikipedia automatic ISBN links to searches of Worldcat. He did it not as a single edit, but as multiple edits, then continued to make changes to the Works cited section. There was no way to simply reverse this one inappropriate change. Yworo (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yworo, I hope you don't mind but I will revert your edit and then change the ISBNs manually. This will be easily done and otherwise I lose too much work on details that have taken me most of the day to get right. I wasn't sure about the ISBNs as you can see from my comment above, because I was under the impression that they were already linked this, so I thought there must be something more specific required. Please give me time to overhaul the works cited again and I will make a note here when I am done. Thank you -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok , that's been fixed again, with the ISBN's put back and the other changes I listed above. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I specialize in Hellenistic astrology, and the article seems to be in good shape to me. I would only suggest a few minor changes:

• Change effects to "effects" (with quotes) in original title paragraph.
• In the first sentence under Introduction of Principles I wouldn't say "Aristotelian logic" but I would explicitly refer to it as Aristotelian or Peripatetic "philosophy." Aristotelian logic is a specific category of its own that doesn't necessarily imply Aristotle's cosmological paradigm, which is what was important for Ptolemy.
• Change "No other ancient text offers a comparable account of this topic, in terms of the breadth and depth of detail offered by Ptolemy" to "No other surviving ancient text..."
• Change "Books III and IV explore what Ptolemy terms “the genethliaogical art”: the interpretation of an individual horoscope." to "Books III and IV explore what Ptolemy terms “the genethliaogical art”: the interpretation of a horoscope set for the moment of the birth of an individual." The genethlialogical art is the art that pertains to births. Additionally, it should be "genethlialogical" here rather than "genethliaogical."
• At the end of the section on book 4: add "annual profections" just before "ingresses": "The book ends with a brief discussion of astronomical and symbolic cycles used in the prediction of timed events, which includes mention of (primary) directions, annual profections, ingresses, lunations and transits."
• Centiloquium: may want to add that it was known in Greek under the title "Fruit" as well (Καρπός). See James Holden, Five Medieval Astrologers, American Federation of Astrologers, Tempe, AZ, 2008, pg. 69.
• May want to emphasize a little more that the Centiloquium was not written by Ptolemy, or at least that there is no evidence to indicate that it was.

Since these changes are all rather minor I will go ahead and add them in myself now. I think that this will make an excellent featured article. --Chris Brennan (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose the article is significantly weighted and written out of a primary source—the subject of the article (in a scholarly translation). Secondary sources appear to not drive the narrative or interpretation: compare the discussion of chapter 10 at footnote 93 where two secondary sources explicitly authorise the reliance upon the primary source; with the discussion of chapter 13 and 14 at footnote 96 where no secondary appreciation is relied upon for weighting, significance or interpretation. The article is comprised largely of the latter; as an attendance to the runs of footnotes reading "Tetrabiblos (Robbins ed. 1940)" in sequence demonstrates. This is an important article for the encyclopaedia; but, as it stands the research is deeply flawed. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • In addition works are not correctly cited, "Burnett, Charles and Greenbaum, Dorian Gieseler, (eds.) 2007. The Winding Courses of the Stars: Essays in Ancient Astrology. Bristol, UK: Culture and Cosmos, Vol.11 no 1 and 2, spring/summer and autumn/winter. ISSN 1368-6534." is not a work; nor is " Burnett and Greenbaum (2007) 'The Transmission of Ptolemy's Terms: An historical overview, comparison and interpretation' by Deborah Houlding, p.266, footnote 12". There are very clear ways to cite journal articles in the style you're using; and you're not citing them correctly. In the bibliography Author, Year. "Title" Journal Volume number. page range. Compare to Riley 1988 where you get it right per your own style. Debra Houlding deserves to be recognised as the author of "The Transmission of Ptolemy's Terms: An historical overview, comparison and interpretation". Fifelfoo (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look at this. I have a question whether this applies to books that present chapters by guest authors as well as journals. I'll place the details on the talk page shortly. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• No worries. With books, we cite (and add to the bibliography where appropriate), chapters which are authored by an author other than the author or editor of the book as a whole. So Jone Joneson, "My dog Fred" Book of Dogs Robert Robertdaughter ed.; or Kevin Spacey "Introduction" Don't confuse your Kevins Kevin Bacon (author). Fifelfoo (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• • This "Ptolemy's Terms and Conditions by Deborah Houlding, 2007; The Winding Courses of the Stars: Essays in Ancient Astrology, pp.261–311. (Bristol: Culture and Cosmos). Presents a history of transmission of manuscripts and texts and a detailed analysis of Ptolemy's table of planetary terms." isn't further reading btw, you cite it twice, and both times poorly and out of style. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In good news, Corensearchbot shows clear. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You may wish to look at how you're using your sources, as I noted this at RS/N in relation to a query, "compare Wiki "the fact that the Tetrabiblos presents one of the oldest almost complete manuals of astrological principles and techniques" and Houlding 1993 "Modern astrologers remember Ptolemy as the author of one of the oldest complete manuals of astrology, - the Tetrabiblos (Greek) or Quadrapartitium (Latin) meaning 'Four Books'." That's close paraphrase out of the box (bold), plus misrepresentation of opinion as fact (ital)." The bolded sections appear to be too closely paraphrased for me. The central noun phrase "oldest complete manuals of astrology" has moved from the source to wikipedia unchanged. Close paraphrase constitutes plagiarism, even when acknowledged as it takes the words out of anothers mouth. You can, of course, quote reliable sources: According to Houlding, "modern astrologers…manuals of astrology." and with short quotes that is fine and good scholarly practice for attribution of opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As you say, it is attributed to Houlding, but I will take a look at this and all your other points. If there are other points, could you add them to the talk page please? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to Fifelfoo's remarks - I am confident that this has been impeccably researched and the narrative is completely reliable. A full range of secondary sources has been utilized and referenced, and although I am very familiar with all of the English language editions (as well as possessing many of the the Greek and Latin editions) I have offered most of the references to the Robbins’ edition specifically because the online edition is known to have an excellent reputation and the pertinent points are able to be specifically hyperlinked, (hence the reader can check any point if required).

It was not necessary to refer to a secondary source for the discussion of chapter 13 and 14 because the narrative does not make a controversial point, but merely presents a brief summary of what is found in those chapters – this is easily verifiable by reference to the Robbins edition text (and there is no controversial difference between the Robbins text and the other texts editions on this point). Fifelfoo, if you feel there is any point of unreliability, please explain on the talk page, because I am unaware of any content that could be considered controversial. If there is, I am sure it can be easily fixed. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your rapid response, but I still feel obliged to oppose. The weight, focus and nature of the explanation of these chapters is derived from (or is seen to be derived from) personal synthesis, rather than appreciation in secondary literature. Imagine King Lear if I summarised Act III based on reading Act III of King Lear. While this is a scholarly account; it appears to be and is readily seen to be derived from a personal reading of a primary source—it appears to be and to me is Original research. It is impossible to pass OR as encyclopaedically relevant. I would suggest you consider the introductions and scholarly appreciations, and add citations to indicate that your narrative is broadly synthetic of the scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is why I have asked you to specify any concern on the talk-page, because exceptional pains have been taken to ensure there is no area where OR could be suggested. If there is, then concerns can be easily answered or addressed of course. On a specialist topic like this it is easy to mistake effective summary for synth, but here the article is seen to be reliable by the fact that every point has been qualified by a reference to a secondary source or the text itself, whether controversial or not. Please appreciate that reliable summary is not frowned upon by Wikipedia. In addition to the policies on OR and SYNTH this is also clarified in WP:SYNTHNOT which states

"If it's an accurate, neutral summary, then it's verified by the sources for the statements being summarized. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process".

I am confident that this article adheres to those standards but if you are able to identify any part of it that you feel is controversial in its summary of the book's content please do specify so concerns can be seen to be addressed. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• More work needed. Per Fifelfoo there is too much summary just relying on the text itself rather than on what scholars have said about the text. The nominator could ask for advice on sourcing at the various WikiProjects to which this article belongs, not just WikiProject Astrology. WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome may be able to find experts who can help. Deborah Houldings' work doesn't appear to be scholarly, and the nominator would need to make a case that she has been widely cited by historians if she is to be used as at present in interpreting the material. She might be a good source for how the Tetrabiblos is used by contemporary astrologers. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting an independent view from someone in the Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome might be sensible. The reason is that Itsmejudith and Fifeldoo were involved in recent controversial arguments about whether Ptolemy’s work on the theory of astrology can be quoted at all on Wikipedia! This may have influenced their decision to oppose. (In the same thread it was proposed that “The Loeb translation is available at Bill Thayer's Lacus Curtius, here, … We should use this translation, I'd say, and definitely avoid earlier ones” – this source appears to have been used throughout.)

Reference to Deborah Houlding’s work is essential as a well-known reliable secondary source on some key details. Her work was peer-reviewed by experts in the field (Charles Burnett and Dorian Greenbaum) and its reliability has been commented on by independent and influential academic sources. See here, where Stephan Heilen – in the most authoritative account of Ptolemy’s work to-date (Ptolemy in Perspective, edited by Alexander Jones) refers to her contribution and how it influenced his own theories. He describes her work as “rigorous research” which was conducted with “painstaking accuracy”. This is obviously an excellent testimony which demonstrates that her work is treated seriously, discussed and deemed worthy of consideration by the other notable historians who work in this specialist area.

I cannot imagine what additional work could go into this article at this stage. Perhaps Itsmejudith could itemise any points that she feels are unreliably reported so that other editors can review them. To my mind, there is no doubt this is a scholarly and reliable article in its present condition that should receive featured article status. Robert Currey talk 17:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of floating this to WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and will add a notice to their project pages. It is important that any reviewer who suggests that this may not be reporting what the scholars are said, is actually aware of who the influential scholars are, and what they have reported - such a person would, I'm sure, be both capable and willing to specify what pertinent source has been omitted, or what point needs further development (and why). As Robert Currey has noted, Houlding's research is taken seriously and is seen to be influential in that it is discussed and referred to by leading scholars in highly respected academic works. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 19:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Good. I think you will get some comments worth considering. On Houlding, I think you may still be setting the bar pretty low for scholarly acceptance, but we will see. Robert Currey misunderstands the argument about Ptolemy as a source on Wikipedia. Regulars on RSN have pointed out to you that Ptolemy is a primary source in Wikipedia terms. This issue comes up all the time, as you can see if you look through the RSN archives, and the reponses are consistent. We write articles up from reliable secondary sources. That means recent scholarship, scholarship that meets today's standards. Ancient texts are never regarded as reliable secondary sources. As Wikipedia editors, we are not qualified to interpret them, and we need recent scholars to do this for us. Even to summarise ancient texts requires a level of competence that we do not necessarily have. Students in higher education are taught never to use a text that they have not read and understood. To read and understand the Tetrabiblos means reading it in ancient Greek. If you can't do that, then you need to use not Tetrabiblos itself, but the comments of the learned editor who presents it. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(To continue the standard RS/N response to attempts to use primary sources: even if an editor can read ancient Greek, when they're on Wikipedia they're an encyclopaedia editor, not a historian of science, nor a religious studies academic, nor an academic research astrologer) Fifelfoo (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only repeat this point: it is not problematic to summarise content when the translations are trusted and there is no controversy attached to the point being summarised, or to refer to the primary source when quotes or direct reference is being made to its contents. The article reports what the notable secondary sources say wherever interpretation of meaning or assesment is made. I have requested review from members of the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, and if there is a problem of unreliability in any comment in the article, I am sure that someone on Wikipedia will be able to specify this. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Certainly not yet. Collation with the learned preface to the Loeb edition, conveniently available here suggests a certain level of carelessness, and the presence of a fixed idea.
  • As an example of the first, Robbins quotes two titles found in the MSS. and says that one is more likely to have been used by Ptolemy. Our article says that the formal title is "unknown", and then proceeds to discuss the other, citing Robbins. This is misunderstanding.

But that’s not actually the case: the article cites Robbins, Jones and Helien, and shows by the footnote references that the text in the article is based directly on the comments of Jones and Heilen. This is because Robbins wrote his introduction in 1940, and our knowledge of Ptolemy’s work has advanced since then. Alexander Jones, Professor of the History of the Exact Sciences in Antiquity, is the author of the Springer edition of Ptolemy in Perspective (2010), which presents nine recent scholarly studies of Ptolemy’s work, including one by Stephan Heilen, a Professor of Classics. Both Jones and Heilen discuss the title, and what the article reports in the section entitled 'Original title' can be seen to be closely and carefully based on their comments by reference to the quotations given in the accompanying footnotes: 1 and 2. This is supported by the detail in footnote 1 of the page cited in Robbins, where he reports that the anonymous author of an ancient commentary on the work “says that some considered it [i.e., Tetrabiblos] a fictitious name”.

Therefore, it is correct and more reliable to give the emphasis to Jones and Heilen on this point, which the article currently does. I will, however, add more detail on what Robbins wrote into the footnote, so that the reader understands more clearly that what Robbins says is more likely to have been used by Ptolemy is the fuller title found in the Norimbergensis manuscript ‘Mathematical Treatise in Four Books’ than the common title (which Jones refers to as the “nickname”) Tetrabiblos: ‘The Four Books’.

-- Zac Δ ^talk! 05:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is now done. I have added information to the footnotes, and also to the main article text to cover all relevant scholarly opinions. As can now be seen more clearly, the opinion of Robbins is no longer considered authoritative. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• A far more serious misunderstanding is this:

  • Robbbins says Though the Tetrabiblos enjoyed almost the authority of a Bible among the astrological writers of a thousand years or more, its Greek text has been printed only three times, and not at all since the sixteenth century.

    What millennium does Robbins mean? The 1800 years from Ptolemy to himself? No, the 1300 years from Ptolemy to the High Renaissance after which Ptolemy was absorbed into the Latin astrological tradition.

    This has been quoted incompletely and misleadingly by ending at "...more," probably through a sincere misunderstanding of the case.

I don’t accept that there is any point of misunderstanding here, because:

1. In the introductory section (General overview and influence) the article merely states that the book is said to have "enjoyed almost the authority of a Bible among the astrological writers of a thousand years or more".(ref to Robbins). This is used only as a demonstration of the book’s indisputable notability. Robbins was not specific, but only said “the writers of a thousand years or more”, so it would be WP:OR to speculate on what he meant specifically, and unecessary to elaborate further at this point of the article anyway.
2. The section on Editions and translations explains the reproductions in detail – and this is where the reader can establish when there were periods of increased attention in the work. It is very clear that the book's influence in the West did not collapse at the end of the High Renaissance but increased dramatically following the flurry of 16th century Greek translations by Camerarius (who produced two of the Greek editions Robbins’ refers to) Allatius’ Paraphrase, the publication of the Anonymous Commentary by Hieronymous Wolf, and the highly influential inclusion within astrological compendiums of leading astrologers such as Junctinus (another reproduction of the Greek text) and Cardan.

In addition, Robbins’ comment, that “its Greek text has been printed only three times, and not at all since the sixteenth century”; is no longer correct. Following his own publication of the Greek text, a Greek edition was published by Boll-Boer, and then there was the Hübner edition of 1998. So in fact omission of the comment that it has not been reproduced in Greek “at all since the sixteenth century”, leaves no misunderstanding, since this is not the case. The more relevant point however, is that the quote is only demonstrating notability, and it is not in any way misleading to suggest that the book did hold this position of notability and to refer to Robbins' comment as an example of how this has been commented upon. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 05:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The text on this point is greatly improved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • The article is a paean on Ptolemy's direct effect on modern astrology. This would be inappropriate if it were supported by sources, and it is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you mean ‘appropriate’ where you say ‘inappropriate’ and build my response in relation to that.

No. Campaigning for a POV is inappropriate even if the sources are polemics for it, which (aside from Ptolemy himself) these are not. Stating their claims as facts (provided they are consensus, which the assertions of polemics often are not) would be a different matter. But the accuracy of judicial astrology is not a consensus position, so that does not apply. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an important point which requires consideration: I realise that this article touches on issues that arouse feelings of discomfort from some – in fact, probably many - WP editors. Astrology is a controversial subject, and as a fringe topic the general attitude towards its presentation on WP is that it should not be treated with respect. The article aims to be objective and explains the topic as it was presented in the Tetrabiblos, according to the viewpoint of its author. Since Ptolemy’s philosophical defence of astrology was one of the reasons why this book, and as a consequence astrology itself, generated such historical significance, it is impossible not to discuss those arguments. On the other hand the article makes clear that Ptolemy held an ambivalent attitude towards some principles and practices of astrology, and was highly critical of others.

At an early stage of the article’s creation it was featured in a DYK entry because of the fact that the Tetrabiblos remains an important text book for modern students of astrology. The attention given to this point has since been toned down, although it is acknowledged in the lede and demonstrated by inclusion of footnote 6.

It would be easy to add more references of a similar nature to support the point, but this would increase the prospect of controversy, I believe, as many WP editors would not like to see an increased emphasis on modern astrological works. However, a substantial percentage of the WP readers who refer to this article will be students of the historical and modern practice of astrology. At the end of the day this was Ptolemy’s astrological work and astrology is its theme. The article therefore includes reference to the points that remain most notable in the subject, discussing where its core principles are evaluated or established, (for example, the article text that is referenced by footnotes 65-66) and points that have caused notable astrological controversies are introduced (for example: the discussion of the Lots made in the introductory paragraph to Book VI). It is necessary to give a clear explanations of the book's contents and to show how it is has had an effect on modern astrology, although I am wary that this, whilst to the liking to those who want to understand what the book was teaching, will also be to the disdain of many who dislike the whole concept or practice of astrology, historical or modern. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 07:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for being so frank. Now I must straightforwardly oppose; that is an argument for an in-universe POV, which is contrary to policy. That is not unreasonable when summarizing Ptolemy, and may be unavoidable - but those are not the sections under discussion. I shall be tagging the article accordingly.
• On the matter of fact, if what the article said or implied was that Ptolemy had been indirectly influential since the Renaissance, that would certainly be defensible, and might well be unquestionable - although it would require a secondary source which said so explicitly, which Robbins does not. But it says something much stronger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• For more, see Talk:Tetrabiblos#POV_and_in_universe and Talk:Tetrabiblos#Accuracy. These are smaller than the declared intention to violate core policy, and may be resolved rapidly. I have no objection if somebody brings them here, but it seems unnecessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose agree with the above comments. My two main problems with the article are that it's not backed up by reliable sources and there needs to be a section about its impact and which texts it subsequently affected. I understand the majority of the article dealing with the content of the book needs to be sourced to the documents, but most of this needs to be backed up by other sources, in context of an analysis. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.