Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Objective validity of astrology: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:44, 9 June 2006 editAquirata (talk | contribs)1,411 edits →[]: keep← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:46, 1 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(125 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the debate was '''Delete'''. This was a hard one to close and required a ''LOT'' of reading. What it boils down to is that the arguments for deletion (most of which are valid policy-type of arguments) definitely outweigh the arguments for keep. ] ] 04:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
{{afdanons}}
Fundamental concern is that this is a POV-fork used as a platform to present questionable, obscure astrological research that would not pass ], ], and ] on a more frequented page. The one entry here that has received sufficient attention to warrant Wiki-coverage is the ], which has its own page. The main ] article has a ] which can be expanded somewhat to include any other critical points. We have an ] to boot, which we can use if we really need comparative analysis. The page is also a gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over. '''Delete'''. ] 16:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Fundamental concern is that this is a POV-fork used as a platform to present questionable, obscure astrological research that would not pass ], ], and ] on a more frequented page. The one entry here that has received sufficient attention to warrant Wiki-coverage is the ], which has its own page. The main ] article has a ] which can be expanded somewhat to include any other critical points. We have an ] to boot, which we can use if we really need comparative analysis. The page is also a gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over. '''Delete'''. ] 16:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


*'''Delete'''. Only the Mars effect is of any notability in this page and it has its own article. The rest is built upon papers from unreliable journals. ] 16:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Only the Mars effect is of any notability in this page and it has its own article. The rest is built upon papers from unreliable journals. ] 16:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' looks a lot like a POV fork. Cited sources appear unreliable, and in any case this is more than adequately covered at ]. I see no evidence that the complexity of the argumewnt warrants a separate article, and past history indicates that this is just a venu for ]. ] 16:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC) * '''Delete''' looks a lot like a POV fork. Cited sources appear unreliable, and in any case this is more than adequately covered at ]. I see no evidence that the complexity of the argumewnt warrants a separate article, and past history indicates that this is just a venu for ]. ] 16:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. The history of the ] page and this one indicate that there was a need to create a separate article exactly because of the issues being argued. The Astrology page was getting too big, hence the creation in April 2005. The title is already implicitly questioning the objective validity of astrology, so if it's a POV-fork, it can only be a ''scientific'' POV-fork, which is not what the described concern is. The main Astrology article cannot be expanded to give sufficient coverage to this topic: the objective validity article is already too long in itself. In fact the possibility of creating an ''astrological research'' page has just surfaced due to the amount of material still not included and the size of the article. The ] article doesn't deal with the objective validity of astrology. I agree that the page is a "gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over" -- mostly by Marskell and Jefffire. ] 17:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. The history of the ] page and this one indicate that there was a need to create a separate article exactly because of the issues being argued. The Astrology page was getting too big, hence the creation in April 2005. The title is already implicitly questioning the objective validity of astrology, so if it's a POV-fork, it can only be a ''scientific'' POV-fork, which is not what the described issue is. The "fundamental concern" referred to in the opening is a concern only of those editors who oppose the presentation of arguments for the objective validity of astrology. The main Astrology article cannot be expanded to give sufficient coverage to this topic: the objective validity article is already too long in itself. In fact the possibility of creating an ''astrological research'' page has just surfaced due to the amount of material still not included and the size of the article. The ] article doesn't deal with the objective validity of astrology. To think that the complexity of the argument doesn't warrant a separate page is to ignore numerous researchers spending lifetimes on attempting to determine astrology's objective validity, and then leagues of other researchers arguing about the results for decades. I agree that editing the page is a "gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over" -- mostly by Marskell and Jefffire, without discussion. Let me also point out that this AfD was also brought about without input from the other editors. ] 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:*The article only got big because there was a drive by proponents of astrology to make ] arguments to counter the scientific perspective. This is not what Misplaced Pages is for. The objective reality section in the main article appears to me to be both balanced and sufficient. ] 22:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::*I appreciate your point; however, the implication is hard to accept without specific examples. This is an extremely complex subject as I'm sure you realize, and a few paragraphs cannot do justice to it in my opinion. What's the point of deleting over a year's worth of hard work? If the article doesn't conform to certain policies or guidelines, I invite you and all editors interested in and knowledgeable about this subject to come and join us in our work until it does meet all required standards. ] 00:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:::*Actually I don't think it is extremely complex. "Objective reality" implies the ], none of the evidence presented here stands up to that. It's a POV title for some ] and really has to go. I am sorely tempted to engage in a bit of ], in fact. ] 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::::*''I don't think it is extremely complex'': How deeply have you studied astrology to be able to make this statement? It took Geoffrey Dean (PhD DIC ARCS analytical chemist, science writer, astrologer, and also the foremost skeptic on astrology) and company (50 astrologers and scientists) 7 man-years of effort to compile just 77 years of research on natal astrology alone (which is just one branch of astrology). The result was a 600-page, highly condensed, encyclopedic book. They summarized over 300 astrology books, 400 journal articles and 300 scientific works. He writes: ''" today ... has a vast burgeoning literature"'', and ''"The subject is very a big one and the result is a very big book... about 250,000 words."'' Researchers have been arguing about the Mars effect for decades. Simple topic?
::::*''None of the evidence presented here stands up to that'': To what, the scientific method or objective validity? What are you basing your opinion on? As it stands now, this is a blanket statement without presenting evidence.
::::*''POV title'': Most astrologers don't question the objective validity of astrology - scientists, skeptics and debunkers do, so, if anything, the title is SPOV. Numerous suggestions have been made with respect to the title. What is yours? ] 15:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::*That astrologers don't question the objective validity of astrology is completely irrelevant and a poor reason for the title change. A better reason for the title change is that leads the skimmer to assume that objective validity is a fact. The article is about research on the topic. ] 16:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' POV fork--] 18:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Misplaced Pages readers know that astrology is a controversial subject and expect to read details about both sides of the controversy. This article, on who has attempted to validate or invalidate astrology, provides this. In the article readers expect to see names like Gauquelin, Hill, Carlson, Dean, Kelly, Urban-Lurain, Tarnus, and Nanninga. That is what makes any encyclopedia worth reading. Don't take away the knowledge and the views that have been gathered for this article. This information needs to go somewhere. If this article didn't already exist, it would need to be created. Most of the objection here is over sources. Probably the most objected to source is the peer-reviewed British journal ''Correlation'' published by the University of Southampton. Although this source is used by both sides pro and con, it has been described (by Jefffire) as no better a source than a tabloid. Ask yourself before you vote if this is reasonable. The anti-validity side has used many questionably sources, such as web articles and blogs. Instead of creating a controversy over sources, the anti-validity side should participate in the examination of the methods and findings, as the validity side has done.] 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:*Both sides are already presented at ]. The case at issue is whether this very large and strikingly non-neutral article should exist ''as well''. ] 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::*The main ] article presents opinion but does not explain how those opinions came about. This is an interesting and complex issue that involves many people with strongly held views and half a century of research. The pro-keep editors are strongly in favor of bringing the two sides of this controversy (since they have much to say about each other) closer together, working through POV issues, and merging the information based on consensus. ] 01:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:::*Consensus is that, per ], the article should reflect orthodox opinion, which is that astrology has no objective scientific validity. That is a very simple conept to get across, and is stated in carefully neutral terms in ]. I really don't see any need to have a long he-said-she-said ramble which amounts to much the same thing but with all kinds of red herrings trailed across it. ] 12:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::::*Where do you see in ] that the neutral point of view equals orthodox opinion? I think this is a misinterpretation. ] 12:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' POV, a lot of unverified or unsourced material. Interesting argument that, to be "fair" WP must present POV unverified unsourced material. To think of all the time I've wasted looking at encyclopedias for facts... ] 18:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. The title screams "POV" to me and while the content makes a wild stab at neutrality it only arrives at encyclopaedic content by accident. Take what little is useful and merge back into ] then delete. ] | ] 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or further fork.... The article, at present, discredits (or deletes) scientific '''disproofs''' of the pro-astrology papers, while allowing marginal (at best) astrologer-reviewed articles. (As there are no scientific peer-reviewed journals covering fringe science, allowing astrologer-peer-reviewed articles provides undue weight.) &mdash; ] | ] 19:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' POV fork. Already covered at ]. -] 21:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Strong keep''' per ]. --] 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' except the article should probably be named ''Empirical validity of Astrology''. ~ ] 23:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' wanders dangerously close to POV territory. ] 23:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The page is in pretty poor condition and needs to be improved substantially, but there does need to be a centralized page for some of the information and arguments contained in it, regardless of how bogus they may be, and the main astrology article is not the place to do it. There is going to be another page like this one if it is deleted, so I'm not really sure what the point of deleting it would be except to start fresh perhaps. Still doesn't quite seem worth it --] 00:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' though the title should definitely change. Perhaps "Attempts to prove or disprove objectively valid in astrology" or "Research into the empirical validity of astrology." The title as it stands appears to set up an expectation that objective validity will be proven in the content. The comments by the editors when they remove or edit sections indicate this expectation - all these calls to 'prove it' and the responses of astrologers who think they are 'proving it'. It strikes me as very odd that people think an online encyclopedia, where contributors are largely anonymous and of any possible educational background, is the place to decide upon the 'objective validity' of a phenomenon. Give only the data that reflects the state of affairs of the astrology world and let people do as they will. The article much needs work to remove exactly what is strikingly POV, but it does reflect attempts to find some type of validity to astrology - some of which appear to be important enough to astrologers and skeptics alike, having a significant contribution to how people think about astrology. ] 00:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:*A few days ago I suggested a rename to ''Astrological research'' or ''Research into astrology'' for similar reasons, so I'd support a title change along these lines. ] 00:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::*Combining this with a suggestion made a few lines earlier, I'd add ''empirical'' to the title ''Empirical astrological research'' or ''Empirical research into astrology''. ] 01:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:::*Why not be really honest and call it "Astrology fans' excuses for the lack of scientific verifiability of astrology" ;-) ] 12:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::::*Please try to remain constructive. Ridiculing others' work does not facilitate collaboration. ] 13:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::*It seems to me there are two approaches in this controversy, there are the ''validationists'', who claim to have found no positive results, and there are the ''empiricists,'' who claim to have found positive results. The validationists want to compare astrology to some authoritative modern standard such as self-reporting questionnaires (]) and the charts or interpretations of the charts are always matched 1:1. The belief here is that a chart at any point in time is a set of fixed values with only one necessary outcome and (when questionnaires are used) that people can accurately assess themselves. The empiricists carry on the astrological tradition of collecting exemplary cases and looking for strong chart patterns. The modern approach is to collect a lot of charts and use statistical analysis. The belief here is that a chart at any point in time is a set of variables (because this is what you see in astrology texts), each of which can have numerous related values, but the values approach each other when closer to the most exemplary cases, thus there are patterns. How about structuring the article in this manner, showing the validationists versus the empiricists? ] 14:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::*That's fine to make this distinction. But I think the whole issue over keeping or deleting the contents of this article is the product of a categorical mistake. The title leads editors to believe that the purpose of the article is to give evidence that proves or disproves astrology. I think the content (merged or retitled) should be kept because it reflects the state of affairs on studies of astrology, and that it falls under ]'s '''Popular culture''' category. The same mistake is being made on articles dealing with topics pertaining to philosophy of science or sociology (such as pathological skepticism) rather than scientific research. ] 15:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::*I think you may be right about this being ] '''Popular culture''', with regard to the sources anyway. One study was extremely lucky to get an article published in ''Nature'' by some fluke, when the whole controversy was very immature at the beginning. That's not likely to be repeated. Most of this controversy takes place in books, and articles in ''Skeptical Inquirer'' or astrological society journals. It rarely goes above this level. A few weeks ago ] was very POV with 90% arguments against astrology. This has changed now. ] 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::*Yes, now instead of being very POV with 90% arguments against astrology, it's very POV with mainly apologia in favour of astrology. It's a POV see-saw, and at root there is a basic problem that there is not that much which can be said about the scientific view of astrology - science views it as bunk. Of course astrologers don't, but that's what the ] article is about. What's been published is not "research" in the sense it would be understood by any scientist, but opinion; there is no shortage of that but to represent it as research is silly. The two comments below come from two of our longest-serving and most respected editors. ] 09:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', an embarrassment ] 12:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''': irredeemably POV, unverifiable, and bloody awful ] 13:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' for just about all the policy reasons given by others above - this is not how we (should) do things here on WP. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 13:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Don't delete''' - merge, rename to ], move the content back to ] etc. There's enough interesting, referenced material there to make straight out deletion not in the best interests of the project. ] 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' -- we shouldn't have an article at this title. We shouldn't be making POV forks, either. Current content may belong in other articles. ] 16:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' POV fork. Already covered at ] -- <small> ]</small> 18:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' An obvious POV fork. --<span style="background:gold;">]]</span>] 19:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' but re-title or merge ]
*'''Delete''' my read is that it contains too much OR and per the Epopt ] 05:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' POV fork ] | ] 08:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. POV fork. When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way. -- ]
*'''Delete''' POV essay --] ] 10:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Certainly POV at current, but I wouldn't say it's irredeemably so. Would support retitle or merge with substantial rewrites. --] 14:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Delete''' Very POV and blatantly violates ]. In my opinion, this article is an embarrassment to wikipedia ] 15:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' Neutral point of view means we set out fairly all sides and arguments whether we agree with them or not. Possibly rename "Astrology, the case for and against". This article is not a fork it appeared when the section in the main ] article became to big and unwieldy. Look at its history. Its just a detailed view of the summary in the main article as happens in all major Misplaced Pages articles.] 15:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
**"Astrology, the case for and against" is precisely what we do NOT need. ] 16:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
***How about "Research into Astrology"? Misplaced Pages should not try to avoid a topic just because it is controversial or unexplained to everyone's satisfaction. The POV weight of this article has shifted back and forth as weaknesses and sources were examined. The research, like the article, is work in progress and continues to grow as more people get involved and more books and articles are published. This material has to go somewhere. ] 19:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
::*''Research into astrology'' is probably the best option. There are tons of material that is still not covered. Dean et al published their ''Recent advances in natal astrology'' in 1977 covering research in natal astrology only, and only to 1976. This book is 600 pages referencing 1020 (yes, over one thousand) other works, and it is highly condensed. How could anyone think that this could be described in a couple of paragraphs within the main article? ] 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
:::*A rather obvious POV fork and a dumping ground for non-notable studies. All in all a terrible idea. ] 21:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
:*The article in fact contains studies with evidence both supporting and refuting astrology. There is no definition of what a non notable study is. Any published study could be considered notable, particularly if others have already used it ie noted its existance by citing it. Its clear that many voting delete here are reacting to the title ( which is poorly constructed) rather than what the article says. ] 15:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' The fundamentalists of scientism need to realize the objective consideration of any subject should not be restricted to the narrow dictates of their definition of science. ] 00:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:*Which fails to address the fundamental issue: this is a POV fork. ] 11:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::*JzG: Why do you feel a need to push your POV? You have stated your opinion in your first post already. What is the value being added by repeating it over and over? Perhaps you wish to address these questions: How an article existing and supported by consensus opinion for over a year can suddenly be considered a POV-fork? How can an article treating a small subset of the main ] article can be considered a POV-fork? In order to help you prepare your brief and to-the-point answer, let me quote the first two sentences from ]: ''"A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all '''treating the same subject'''. A POV fork is a content fork '''deliberately created''' to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."'' ] 13:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Aquirata, at this point, the article is being ''deliberately'' used to present a laundry list of any possible study you and Piper can find that astrologers have performed supporting your POV. Because the main Astology could not and should not accomodate the content, this constitutes a fork. It's an indiscriminate collection of info, a soapbox giving undue weight to one POV, reliant on dubious sources, and riddled with OR phrasing. That is, it violates all of NOT, NPOV, V and NOR. We need to it tie up in a sac weighted with rocks and throw it over-board. ''Perhaps'' something like it will need re-creating—but this page, with this content, is not going to get us there. ] 13:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Precisely. "Objective validity" is the language of science, but science pretty much universally rejects the validity of astrology. I see no reason why it can't be treated like other belief systems. We do not have an article on the "objective validity of Christianity" (thankfully), and the ones we have on things like creationism make it perfectly clear that, while proponents may use the language of science, science as a whole rejects the idea. ] 15:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::] Please view this list of studies from scientific journals and answer whether you are saying there is no possible dissent among scientific researchers. 'Universally' means each and every research scientist rejects all of it. ] 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::: I'm curious, how many of those were in peer-reviewed scientific journals? And instead of universally, it would be a ''majority of the contemporary scientific community''. ] 18:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per arguments of Marskell and JzG. Providing a forum for special pleading for one POV is inappropriate; Claims of scientism aren't even worth listening to. And I'm ''so'' tired of hearing "this article is here because the main article is too long." Articles get that long because POV pushers won't cooperate. Learn to condense and summarize; an article isn't a list of everything that anyone has ever thought worth discussing about a subject. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;]&middot;</span></b> 15:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Man, what a terrible title. But don't move it, get rid of it. It's a disgraceful POV fork. ] | ] 15:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC).
*'''Strong keep.''' The current article is a POV mess. That should be dealt with by cutting out all the worthless stuff (which would perhaps substantially reduce the article's size), not killing the entire page history. Deleting the article isn't going to make POV-pushers go away, it will just make them create or edit other articles to be sympathetic to their views. The topic itself is certainly large enough to deserve an entire subarticle such as this. —] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Title is instrinsically POV pushing. Topic should be covered neutrally in another article such as ]. ] 16:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' -- are we just going to ''throw away'' all of this work built up over many-many months? Let us keep revising until we come upon an agreeable version for both sides. It would be absolute lunacy (and completely idiotic) to delete those references along with all of the discussion on the Talk Page(s) and in the archive(s). --] 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
*(Clarified vote) '''Delete''' all trace of the '''''NAME''''' of the article. The content might be merged somewhere if it could be done consistent with the GFDL, provided there's no trace of the name &mdash; I recommend against it, but I don't have as strong an objection to the content as to the name and content selection. &mdash; ] | ] 18:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Unencyclopedic POV pushing. --] 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

{{User|Lumos3}} has posted a summary on titles suggested for this article. Please let your opinion be known at ], so that we can take this article forward in the event the decision is to keep it. ] 16:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' POV fork. ] 08:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''': Misplaced Pages is not a venue for negotiating ultimate truth, exposing secret history, or righting an historical record. Whenever an article is written to accomplish one of those goals, it will inevitably fail one of the elements of the deletion policy. In this case, the article violates ''duplication,'' as it's a POV fork, violates ''verifiability,'' as the sources are unreliable, and violates ''NPOV,'' as the article has a fervent desire to see the world proven wrong and the practitioners validated. ] 12:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''': let's get rid of this disgrace. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', per Geogre. &mdash;] (]) 19:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' as per Aquirata. ] 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
**<span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • • ] • )</span> registered today seemingly for the sole purpose of disrupting this process. Blocked for 48 hours. Trolling removed. ] 22:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:::*Marskell, Your edit comment was ''"likely sockpuppet. Aquirata?"''. Is this how much intelligence you attribute to me? Think about it for a moment. ] 21:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
::::You're right. Thinking about it for a moment it was a hasty, unfair summary and I apologize. It's just this bloody topic... ] 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
::::*No problem. The topic makes your blood boil, doesn't it? :) ] 21:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
::::**The wasted time more than the topic itself. I had big wiki-plans to work on the Maya civilization article tonight but here I am dealing with the fellow above. ] 22:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as per ]. ] 20:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
**'''Check contrib's here too. Grr.''' ] 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Geogre. POV fork and pseudoscientific apologetics. ] 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Looks like it was an attempt to either subarticle portions of the ] article to reduce size or to POV fork due to arguments then. Regardless, it certainly appears to be a POV fork now. A brief scan of this article also indiactes that there may be issues with ] and ] as well.--] 02:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:Your analysis is wrong, take a look at the original version of this article , which I created and you will see that it had fairly balanced sized sections on the for and against sides. Both sides of the argument were taken here so they could be given the fair treatment to both sides that a controvertial subject deserves without dominating the ] article. ] 20:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::This article is so far from balanced it isn't even remotely funny. It violates just about every policy in the book. Undue weight, reliable sources, NPOV...you name it. An utter disgrace. ] 20:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:::This is an argument for cleanup and balancing not for deletion. Pages exist which describe both sides of an argument, see ], ]. ] 08:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
::::That was just a comment on the page now. As it stands the only notable part is the Mars effect, which has its own article. Coupled with it having become a POV fork is the main reason for it's deletion. ] 10:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Again this is not an argument for deletion. It once summarised argument for and against under those categories as the two pages above do. It should be returned to that state. ] 11:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::This is rather what I had attempted to do, but was prevented at all points by pro-astrology editors. In any case what are the notable points are now found at the main Astrology article, so I see no need to retain this article. ] 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 09:46, 1 March 2023

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. This was a hard one to close and required a LOT of reading. What it boils down to is that the arguments for deletion (most of which are valid policy-type of arguments) definitely outweigh the arguments for keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Objective validity of astrology

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Fundamental concern is that this is a POV-fork used as a platform to present questionable, obscure astrological research that would not pass WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV on a more frequented page. The one entry here that has received sufficient attention to warrant Wiki-coverage is the Mars effect, which has its own page. The main astrology article has a section which can be expanded somewhat to include any other critical points. We have an astrology and astronomy to boot, which we can use if we really need comparative analysis. The page is also a gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over. Delete. Marskell 16:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Only the Mars effect is of any notability in this page and it has its own article. The rest is built upon papers from unreliable journals. Jefffire 16:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete looks a lot like a POV fork. Cited sources appear unreliable, and in any case this is more than adequately covered at Astrology#The_objective_validity_of_astrology. I see no evidence that the complexity of the argumewnt warrants a separate article, and past history indicates that this is just a venu for special pleading. Just zis Guy you know? 16:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The history of the Astrology page and this one indicate that there was a need to create a separate article exactly because of the issues being argued. The Astrology page was getting too big, hence the creation in April 2005. The title is already implicitly questioning the objective validity of astrology, so if it's a POV-fork, it can only be a scientific POV-fork, which is not what the described issue is. The "fundamental concern" referred to in the opening is a concern only of those editors who oppose the presentation of arguments for the objective validity of astrology. The main Astrology article cannot be expanded to give sufficient coverage to this topic: the objective validity article is already too long in itself. In fact the possibility of creating an astrological research page has just surfaced due to the amount of material still not included and the size of the article. The Astrology and astronomy article doesn't deal with the objective validity of astrology. To think that the complexity of the argument doesn't warrant a separate page is to ignore numerous researchers spending lifetimes on attempting to determine astrology's objective validity, and then leagues of other researchers arguing about the results for decades. I agree that editing the page is a "gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over" -- mostly by Marskell and Jefffire, without discussion. Let me also point out that this AfD was also brought about without input from the other editors. Aquirata 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article only got big because there was a drive by proponents of astrology to make special pleading arguments to counter the scientific perspective. This is not what Misplaced Pages is for. The objective reality section in the main article appears to me to be both balanced and sufficient. Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your point; however, the implication is hard to accept without specific examples. This is an extremely complex subject as I'm sure you realize, and a few paragraphs cannot do justice to it in my opinion. What's the point of deleting over a year's worth of hard work? If the article doesn't conform to certain policies or guidelines, I invite you and all editors interested in and knowledgeable about this subject to come and join us in our work until it does meet all required standards. Aquirata 00:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is extremely complex: How deeply have you studied astrology to be able to make this statement? It took Geoffrey Dean (PhD DIC ARCS analytical chemist, science writer, astrologer, and also the foremost skeptic on astrology) and company (50 astrologers and scientists) 7 man-years of effort to compile just 77 years of research on natal astrology alone (which is just one branch of astrology). The result was a 600-page, highly condensed, encyclopedic book. They summarized over 300 astrology books, 400 journal articles and 300 scientific works. He writes: " today ... has a vast burgeoning literature", and "The subject is very a big one and the result is a very big book... about 250,000 words." Researchers have been arguing about the Mars effect for decades. Simple topic?
  • None of the evidence presented here stands up to that: To what, the scientific method or objective validity? What are you basing your opinion on? As it stands now, this is a blanket statement without presenting evidence.
  • POV title: Most astrologers don't question the objective validity of astrology - scientists, skeptics and debunkers do, so, if anything, the title is SPOV. Numerous suggestions have been made with respect to the title. What is yours? Aquirata 15:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That astrologers don't question the objective validity of astrology is completely irrelevant and a poor reason for the title change. A better reason for the title change is that leads the skimmer to assume that objective validity is a fact. The article is about research on the topic. Zeusnoos 16:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork--Kalsermar 18:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Misplaced Pages readers know that astrology is a controversial subject and expect to read details about both sides of the controversy. This article, on who has attempted to validate or invalidate astrology, provides this. In the article readers expect to see names like Gauquelin, Hill, Carlson, Dean, Kelly, Urban-Lurain, Tarnus, and Nanninga. That is what makes any encyclopedia worth reading. Don't take away the knowledge and the views that have been gathered for this article. This information needs to go somewhere. If this article didn't already exist, it would need to be created. Most of the objection here is over sources. Probably the most objected to source is the peer-reviewed British journal Correlation published by the University of Southampton. Although this source is used by both sides pro and con, it has been described (by Jefffire) as no better a source than a tabloid. Ask yourself before you vote if this is reasonable. The anti-validity side has used many questionably sources, such as web articles and blogs. Instead of creating a controversy over sources, the anti-validity side should participate in the examination of the methods and findings, as the validity side has done.Piper Almanac 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The main astrology article presents opinion but does not explain how those opinions came about. This is an interesting and complex issue that involves many people with strongly held views and half a century of research. The pro-keep editors are strongly in favor of bringing the two sides of this controversy (since they have much to say about each other) closer together, working through POV issues, and merging the information based on consensus. Piper Almanac 01:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Consensus is that, per WP:NPOV, the article should reflect orthodox opinion, which is that astrology has no objective scientific validity. That is a very simple conept to get across, and is stated in carefully neutral terms in astrology. I really don't see any need to have a long he-said-she-said ramble which amounts to much the same thing but with all kinds of red herrings trailed across it. Just zis Guy you know? 12:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, a lot of unverified or unsourced material. Interesting argument that, to be "fair" WP must present POV unverified unsourced material. To think of all the time I've wasted looking at encyclopedias for facts... Tychocat 18:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The title screams "POV" to me and while the content makes a wild stab at neutrality it only arrives at encyclopaedic content by accident. Take what little is useful and merge back into Astrology then delete. David | Talk 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or further fork.... The article, at present, discredits (or deletes) scientific disproofs of the pro-astrology papers, while allowing marginal (at best) astrologer-reviewed articles. (As there are no scientific peer-reviewed journals covering fringe science, allowing astrologer-peer-reviewed articles provides undue weight.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Already covered at Astrology#The_objective_validity_of_astrology. -Medtopic 21:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Aquirata. --JJay 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep except the article should probably be named Empirical validity of Astrology. ~ trialsanderrors 23:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete wanders dangerously close to POV territory. Thetruthbelow 23:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The page is in pretty poor condition and needs to be improved substantially, but there does need to be a centralized page for some of the information and arguments contained in it, regardless of how bogus they may be, and the main astrology article is not the place to do it. There is going to be another page like this one if it is deleted, so I'm not really sure what the point of deleting it would be except to start fresh perhaps. Still doesn't quite seem worth it --Chris Brennan 00:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep though the title should definitely change. Perhaps "Attempts to prove or disprove objectively valid in astrology" or "Research into the empirical validity of astrology." The title as it stands appears to set up an expectation that objective validity will be proven in the content. The comments by the editors when they remove or edit sections indicate this expectation - all these calls to 'prove it' and the responses of astrologers who think they are 'proving it'. It strikes me as very odd that people think an online encyclopedia, where contributors are largely anonymous and of any possible educational background, is the place to decide upon the 'objective validity' of a phenomenon. Give only the data that reflects the state of affairs of the astrology world and let people do as they will. The article much needs work to remove exactly what is strikingly POV, but it does reflect attempts to find some type of validity to astrology - some of which appear to be important enough to astrologers and skeptics alike, having a significant contribution to how people think about astrology. Zeusnoos 00:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A few days ago I suggested a rename to Astrological research or Research into astrology for similar reasons, so I'd support a title change along these lines. Aquirata 00:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Combining this with a suggestion made a few lines earlier, I'd add empirical to the title Empirical astrological research or Empirical research into astrology. Piper Almanac 01:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to me there are two approaches in this controversy, there are the validationists, who claim to have found no positive results, and there are the empiricists, who claim to have found positive results. The validationists want to compare astrology to some authoritative modern standard such as self-reporting questionnaires (personality tests) and the charts or interpretations of the charts are always matched 1:1. The belief here is that a chart at any point in time is a set of fixed values with only one necessary outcome and (when questionnaires are used) that people can accurately assess themselves. The empiricists carry on the astrological tradition of collecting exemplary cases and looking for strong chart patterns. The modern approach is to collect a lot of charts and use statistical analysis. The belief here is that a chart at any point in time is a set of variables (because this is what you see in astrology texts), each of which can have numerous related values, but the values approach each other when closer to the most exemplary cases, thus there are patterns. How about structuring the article in this manner, showing the validationists versus the empiricists? Piper Almanac 14:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That's fine to make this distinction. But I think the whole issue over keeping or deleting the contents of this article is the product of a categorical mistake. The title leads editors to believe that the purpose of the article is to give evidence that proves or disproves astrology. I think the content (merged or retitled) should be kept because it reflects the state of affairs on studies of astrology, and that it falls under WP:RS's Popular culture category. The same mistake is being made on articles dealing with topics pertaining to philosophy of science or sociology (such as pathological skepticism) rather than scientific research. Zeusnoos 15:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you may be right about this being WP:RS Popular culture, with regard to the sources anyway. One study was extremely lucky to get an article published in Nature by some fluke, when the whole controversy was very immature at the beginning. That's not likely to be repeated. Most of this controversy takes place in books, and articles in Skeptical Inquirer or astrological society journals. It rarely goes above this level. A few weeks ago Objective validity of astrology was very POV with 90% arguments against astrology. This has changed now. Piper Almanac 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, now instead of being very POV with 90% arguments against astrology, it's very POV with mainly apologia in favour of astrology. It's a POV see-saw, and at root there is a basic problem that there is not that much which can be said about the scientific view of astrology - science views it as bunk. Of course astrologers don't, but that's what the astrology article is about. What's been published is not "research" in the sense it would be understood by any scientist, but opinion; there is no shortage of that but to represent it as research is silly. The two comments below come from two of our longest-serving and most respected editors. Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Neutral point of view means we set out fairly all sides and arguments whether we agree with them or not. Possibly rename "Astrology, the case for and against". This article is not a fork it appeared when the section in the main Astrology article became to big and unwieldy. Look at its history. Its just a detailed view of the summary in the main article as happens in all major Misplaced Pages articles.Lumos3 15:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • "Astrology, the case for and against" is precisely what we do NOT need. Marskell 16:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • How about "Research into Astrology"? Misplaced Pages should not try to avoid a topic just because it is controversial or unexplained to everyone's satisfaction. The POV weight of this article has shifted back and forth as weaknesses and sources were examined. The research, like the article, is work in progress and continues to grow as more people get involved and more books and articles are published. This material has to go somewhere. Piper Almanac 19:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Research into astrology is probably the best option. There are tons of material that is still not covered. Dean et al published their Recent advances in natal astrology in 1977 covering research in natal astrology only, and only to 1976. This book is 600 pages referencing 1020 (yes, over one thousand) other works, and it is highly condensed. How could anyone think that this could be described in a couple of paragraphs within the main article? Aquirata 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article in fact contains studies with evidence both supporting and refuting astrology. There is no definition of what a non notable study is. Any published study could be considered notable, particularly if others have already used it ie noted its existance by citing it. Its clear that many voting delete here are reacting to the title ( which is poorly constructed) rather than what the article says. Lumos3 15:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The fundamentalists of scientism need to realize the objective consideration of any subject should not be restricted to the narrow dictates of their definition of science. Eclecticology 00:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • JzG: Why do you feel a need to push your POV? You have stated your opinion in your first post already. What is the value being added by repeating it over and over? Perhaps you wish to address these questions: How an article existing and supported by consensus opinion for over a year can suddenly be considered a POV-fork? How can an article treating a small subset of the main Astrology article can be considered a POV-fork? In order to help you prepare your brief and to-the-point answer, let me quote the first two sentences from WP:POVFORK: "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." Aquirata 13:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Aquirata, at this point, the article is being deliberately used to present a laundry list of any possible study you and Piper can find that astrologers have performed supporting your POV. Because the main Astology could not and should not accomodate the content, this constitutes a fork. It's an indiscriminate collection of info, a soapbox giving undue weight to one POV, reliant on dubious sources, and riddled with OR phrasing. That is, it violates all of NOT, NPOV, V and NOR. We need to it tie up in a sac weighted with rocks and throw it over-board. Perhaps something like it will need re-creating—but this page, with this content, is not going to get us there. Marskell 13:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. "Objective validity" is the language of science, but science pretty much universally rejects the validity of astrology. I see no reason why it can't be treated like other belief systems. We do not have an article on the "objective validity of Christianity" (thankfully), and the ones we have on things like creationism make it perfectly clear that, while proponents may use the language of science, science as a whole rejects the idea. Just zis Guy you know? 15:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Objective_validity_of_astrology#research_articles_for_future_work_on_this_topic Please view this list of studies from scientific journals and answer whether you are saying there is no possible dissent among scientific researchers. 'Universally' means each and every research scientist rejects all of it. Zeusnoos 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious, how many of those were in peer-reviewed scientific journals? And instead of universally, it would be a majority of the contemporary scientific community. siddharth 18:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per arguments of Marskell and JzG. Providing a forum for special pleading for one POV is inappropriate; Claims of scientism aren't even worth listening to. And I'm so tired of hearing "this article is here because the main article is too long." Articles get that long because POV pushers won't cooperate. Learn to condense and summarize; an article isn't a list of everything that anyone has ever thought worth discussing about a subject. · rodii · 15:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Man, what a terrible title. But don't move it, get rid of it. It's a disgraceful POV fork. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC).
  • Strong keep. The current article is a POV mess. That should be dealt with by cutting out all the worthless stuff (which would perhaps substantially reduce the article's size), not killing the entire page history. Deleting the article isn't going to make POV-pushers go away, it will just make them create or edit other articles to be sympathetic to their views. The topic itself is certainly large enough to deserve an entire subarticle such as this. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Title is instrinsically POV pushing. Topic should be covered neutrally in another article such as Astrology. Stephen B Streater 16:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- are we just going to throw away all of this work built up over many-many months? Let us keep revising until we come upon an agreeable version for both sides. It would be absolute lunacy (and completely idiotic) to delete those references along with all of the discussion on the Talk Page(s) and in the archive(s). --Berlin Stark 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • (Clarified vote) Delete all trace of the NAME of the article. The content might be merged somewhere if it could be done consistent with the GFDL, provided there's no trace of the name — I recommend against it, but I don't have as strong an objection to the content as to the name and content selection. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic POV pushing. --MediaMangler 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Lumos3 (talk · contribs) has posted a summary on titles suggested for this article. Please let your opinion be known at Talk:Objective_validity_of_astrology#Proposals_for_titles_renaming_this_article, so that we can take this article forward in the event the decision is to keep it. Aquirata 16:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: Misplaced Pages is not a venue for negotiating ultimate truth, exposing secret history, or righting an historical record. Whenever an article is written to accomplish one of those goals, it will inevitably fail one of the elements of the deletion policy. In this case, the article violates duplication, as it's a POV fork, violates verifiability, as the sources are unreliable, and violates NPOV, as the article has a fervent desire to see the world proven wrong and the practitioners validated. Geogre 12:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Marskell, Your edit comment was "likely sockpuppet. Aquirata?". Is this how much intelligence you attribute to me? Think about it for a moment. Aquirata 21:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right. Thinking about it for a moment it was a hasty, unfair summary and I apologize. It's just this bloody topic... Marskell 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Your analysis is wrong, take a look at the original version of this article , which I created and you will see that it had fairly balanced sized sections on the for and against sides. Both sides of the argument were taken here so they could be given the fair treatment to both sides that a controvertial subject deserves without dominating the Astrology article. Lumos3 20:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is so far from balanced it isn't even remotely funny. It violates just about every policy in the book. Undue weight, reliable sources, NPOV...you name it. An utter disgrace. Jefffire 20:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This is an argument for cleanup and balancing not for deletion. Pages exist which describe both sides of an argument, see Existence of God, Arguments for and against drug prohibition. Lumos3 08:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That was just a comment on the page now. As it stands the only notable part is the Mars effect, which has its own article. Coupled with it having become a POV fork is the main reason for it's deletion. Jefffire 10:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Again this is not an argument for deletion. It once summarised argument for and against under those categories as the two pages above do. It should be returned to that state. Lumos3 11:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This is rather what I had attempted to do, but was prevented at all points by pro-astrology editors. In any case what are the notable points are now found at the main Astrology article, so I see no need to retain this article. Jefffire 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.