Misplaced Pages

To add comments that appear to set one editor against another (above), or to perhaps to garner support by setting the quality of comment of a particular editor against another is discourteous and should be resisted – in fact we are here to discuss the article, not the personalities. And indeed I came to this article through the request of two editors and have commented on the veracity of the article in good faith and neutrality.

“The focus of Misplaced Pages is to report on what is reportable”? No, the focus of Misplaced Pages is to report on what is WP:Verifiable, even truth is secondary to this. We all know stuff that many people might see to be “true”, but for Misplaced Pages, if it is not verified by significant reliable neutral sources independent of the subject, it’s not viable. His own words can be linked to, but until neutral corroboration is found, they have to treated as a claim. No-one is suggesting that Elwell made-up spurious predictions – as I said above, the prediction about the Herald of Free Enterprise is “probably true”, and his family, friends and colleagues might have seen him write and post the letter and have read the reply from P&O, and I suspect that there was some press coverage, but this is not the same as neutral independent verification.

The Channel 4 transcription at birthsigns.co.uk notes what it says are Elwell’s own words, but not even a comment from a presenter saying that he sent the letter – when someone says something on a TV program, which in itself could have been partial, do we take at face value that what they say is truth? No. If we did we would have a surprising trust in politicians. Again, I have faith that what he said is true, but all we can verify is that he again made a claim on TV, reported second hand on a web page. There is no corroboration from newspaper reports or P&O themselves from the time.

The registrants of Skyscript and Astrobank Wiki are indeed irrelevant, but the viability of those two sites I believe is not. Both are in the business of promoting the general subject, and both promote Elwell – my view is that neither site is neutral, although as I said above, “I could be convinced otherwise” – I would be glad to see evidence that both sites are even-handed in their views of whether astrology or Elwell can be believed or not. We would not expect a Maoist website to describe failings of communism and Mao alongside the glories.

The burden of proof is much higher on BLPs than on other types of articles – rightly so – and we should therefore on BLPs be more stringent with verification, and in removing dubious citations and wording attached. Acabashi (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

wow! okay firstly, I stand absolutely by Acabashis fairness and judgement - he is one of three people instrumental in helping and pointing me in the right direction. I saw what was said about this article on his talkpage and came here to try and help because I do know (and Im sure Acabashi and most other editors here have experienced the same) it CAN be frustrating in the extreme. But Misplaced Pages stands by what is verifiable NOT by any truths someone might know but cannot verify. If you cant cite it - it doesnt belong here and thats the end of it. If you want to write your own website about it, then you can write what you like because its yours. Here you cant, because it isnt. That other articles arent up to scratch, or that this wasnt or isnt, isnt the point. Our attention has been drawn to it for whatever reason, and whatever reason is not the point - it has come to our attention, and anything that is unverifiable will have to go as per Misplaced Pages rules. That is not to say it cannot be added again once citations have been found. But I implore you to understand that this is how it is, however frustrating that might be, and unreferenced material (or any other material against wiki policy) can and will be challenged and most likely deleted if sources cant be found - especially in the case of a BLP. Panderoona (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Acabashi's comment makes me wonder. Then why are these distinctions being made for pseudoscience in the Notability(academic) guidelines? WP:ACADEMIC crit. 6, 7 and 8

Pseudoscience is being defined in this WP guideline WP:PSCI, and astrology is listed as belonging to this category.

So it looks like WP actually does make a judgement and has some specific guidelines for pseudoscience. Are we then not supposed to use it? I have found a lot of articles of astrologers that need improvement or deletion. Before I work on them I will first need a better idea what creates notability in the case of an astrologer or occultist.

Panderoona is right. Better delete the things that cannot be properly backed up. The paragraph about Elwell's prediction was not here when I found this article one week ago. So it will not be a disaster if this information is removed till proper sources are found, maybe after one or two weeks. MakeSense64 (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies MakeSense64, you are of course right - I did think you were being disparaging, which of course you weren't. I think the intensity of the discussion was getting to me :) Humbled. The point that we should treat Astrology as any other subject is a good one though. Acabashi (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I think it would be better if WP had more clear notability guidelines specific for astrology and other psci topics. Now it is kind of mixed in with the Academics, which is probably the last place where it should be put, because psci topics have often more in common with religion. Not an easy problem to solve. MakeSense64 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to take the question on notability/pseudoscience to somewhere where its liable to be answered from "way up" so you getting a truely definitive answer - being new Im not sure where that might be Im afraid although Acabashi might know, and you seem to be able to find your way fround from what Ive seen? Apologies for not being very useful. Im part Romany and I had no idea it would turn into such a lengthly debate - I guess I must have been at the shallow end of the gene pool when they were handing out the clairvoyance ;) Panderoona (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No Panderoona, I was wrong - all my talk of not shooting from the hip and I shot myself in the foot. Acabashi (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

hope it hurt my friend. Heck we are all HUMAN ;)Panderoona (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested changes (rough copy)

Please note: I have entirely removed refs to precognition of the Herald of Free Enterprise incident as Cloonymark feels that it may be considered unfair to Elwell to say that he "claimed" (indicating its not proven) - we await external sources and can always add it back into the article.

=========

Dennis Elwell (born 11:44 pm GMT, 16 February 1930 in Stourbridge, England, UK) is a British astrologer, journalist, author, and lecturer.

After teaching himself the basics of astrology as a teenager, in his early twenties he began writing regularly for American Astrology an association which continued for about twenty years. Though a local journalist by profession for most of his life, Elwell reported that he explored any byway that might throw light on astrology, leading to a study of science on the one hand, and occultists like Rudolf Steiner and Gurdjieff on the other. He began lecturing to astrologers in 1963 and gained a reputation for being an original thinker and stimulating speaker.

His book, Cosmic Loom, was published (Unwin Hyman, 1987) and later republished in a revised and enlarged edition by the Urania Trust.

Elwell is also known for running an correspondence course on astrology in the early 1990s entitled "The Chiron Project" which closed at the end of the 1990s when he entered retirement.

In 2007 Dennis Elwell was awarded the 'Charles Harvey Award for Exceptional Service to Astrology' by the Astrological Assocition of Great Britain, in recognition of his work.

Looks a lot better than the article I found here a week ago, and has a good neutral tone.

The one thing I am wondering about is: Elwell is also known for running an correspondence course on astrology in the early 1990s entitled "The Chiron Project" which closed at the end of the 1990s when he entered retirement.

To mention the publication of a book, OK. But running of a correspondence course, is this notable enough to mention? MakeSense64 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Acabashi I apologise for being hasty in forming doubts about your neutrality and have edited my last comment to take out the remark that was inappropriate. It was the comment made about the registrant of Skyscript being possibly the same registrant of Astrodatabank that concerned me, given the history of discussion on this page. It is easily established that Astrodata bank is associated with Astro.com and the owner of the astrodatabank site is well known within the astrological community. It seems tiresome that such things need to be pointed out, but only because I’ve spent more time than I felt was necessary already, to try to clear away unnecessarily allegations. And just as Panderoona admits to not realising this would turn into such a lengthy debate – neither did I. The notion of bringing up a whole pseudo-science debate fills me with despair. That is something I do not want to get into myself, nor have raised as a reason to question the otherwise reliable references I am trying to locate. Why should this particular entry be targetted with that issue, just because it is one I am trying to improve by a better level of reference? Also note, that in your edit above where you crossed out your former remark, you needed to cross out the comment "Misplaced Pages is neutral".

All I ask is that this entry gets the same treatment towards neutrality as any other. No more, no less. Even though it concerns a subject who, as an astrologer, is likely to attract the prejudicial hostility of those who have a dislike for his subject. But please note that it has not been established that what has been said cannot be backed up. I have more references to add tomorrow, and will work on this until it is fully supported, or as supported as I can make it. Hence my appeal to just give me a little time, and understand that I want to concentrate on the content, not on the discussion of thorny issues that will likely cause a lot of controversy and end up going nowhere. (And also, when I say ‘reportable’, I mean it is reportable because it is verifyable). Clooneymark (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

firstly, I stand by the edit I made rightly or wrongly, on account that we need to give a tiny bit of leeway to both sides. Clooneymark has offered to come up with the goods, and as a rough approximation of an article until such time, I think we can say it its pretty well within the limits of acceptability. - Not long term, but certainly short term. Im not pushing myself as an editor here by the way but I had the feeling that Acabashi was already involved, so were both Clooneymark and MakeSense64. In effect, that means the only truely neutral party in the current debate is me, so like yeah Ill take the blame. With regard to "Why should this particular entry be targetted with that issue, just because it is one I am trying to improve by a better level of reference?" it would be easy to think that were so if you were an editor (especially a new one) trying to better (in your eyes) an article. However, the fact is Wiki is and always will be, a site where no one owns an article-facts and citations can and will come up against challenges and it can always be edited by others. And will be - because as has been mentioned, new things appear on the web every day. Neutrality of position and verifiability are the keys to good examples of wiki articles, and that is what me must strive for. There is no point, as I already said, in believing its some kind of personal vendetta, because it isnt. Wiki is vast - pages dont get looked at as much as they should, but if we are to consider ourselves serious editors, then we must do our very best to strive to improve articles within Wiki rules. However this particular one came to attention is not important. Editing a page is a surefire way to be noticed after all - It may seem hard to believe but it is not personal. In fact its trying to be perfect ;) Best wishes. Panderoona (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-science is part of the WP guidelines, whether we like it or not. And since astrology is listed under psci, it applies here.

But it doesn't affect the reliability of sources you bring. Sources are judged on their own merits. Psci concerns can come into play when notability is questionable. That's why good sources about the prediction would make the article stronger, because it makes notability stronger.

You can take as much time as you want. As soon as you bring quality sources the paragraph about the ship disaster prediction can be added in. Without quality sources the piece about the prediction should not be in. That's all we have to think about as editors. MakeSense64 (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason not to improve the article based on what we have and can source right now. Later additions remain always possible, as long as they are up to WP standards. MakeSense64 (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

strange as it may seem, I took time out today to look at various religious articles and how they deal with the obvious kind of arguments - Astrology falls in my book within the realms of a belief system, so I think taking time out to check up on how other belief system pages works is valuable. Its an extremely tricky subject because you are pitting belief against verifiability and fact - its always gonna be a tough subject. In another world many years ago I was admin on a certain newsgroup which neccessitated a big step back and the only reason I bring it up here is because by its nature you "to develop skin as thick as a Rhinoceros" to be able to do it. I think you guys are both very valid - the one passionate about the subject and belief system regarding Astrology, and the other passionate about the skeptical side and if you want my 2p worth Ill tell you this - you are both as valid as the other, and you should recognise each other and work together to hold each other in check, and produce the best arguments for and against wiki has ever seen, one is ying to the others yang. You could together be a formidable partnership. Food for thought. Now wheres my choccy? Panderoona (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Why so quick to put a 'rough copy' onto the main page, which now makes my work of trying to substantiate comments that are no longer present, and integrate reference code into old material so much more difficult? I even stated that I have references to add tomorrow - could this not have waited even 24 hours? When I proposed a revision for the page I myself gave plenty of time for feedback, discussion and approval before changing the content on the main page. I asked for feedback and review after posting and received that only this morning. Since then I have been as clear as I can be that I am in the process of obtaining more substantiation. There is no doubt that the omitted section is relevant and already verified to an extent that shows it will merit some form of inclusion. Clooneymark (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I restored the content with the later minor amendments made by Panderoona, and have added the details that I wanted to add for now. Have reworded the shipping forecast section to show that the details come from his own report. I am still working on this so please allow a reasonable amount of time for discussion, enquiry and correction, before deleting substantial sections of text on the basis of the need for citation. It is difficult work to interpose into the code of the article - at least for me - and it took a lot of time to recapture what was deleted last night. Minor edits aside, it is much easier and more sensible if you allow time for references to be located, especially when someone has explained they are gathering them together and about to add some to the page. I am hoping to obtain more details on the shipping report, and need to make a detailed check to see what press reports are able to be located. I have other enquiries ongoing which will take a few days. Clooneymark (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Clooneymark. Maybe you don't realize it, but you act as if you own this page. And editors who disagree with you get negated, just like you are now also brushing aside Acabashi's recommendations for the page. I see you are only adding and adding. But WP is not about adding everything you can find about the person. Then all you get is a very bloated article. For example if you are going to list every article that people have published then you would get never ending pages on some biographies. Do you actually have any intention to remove the references that were deemed useless based on WP standards? I see you are adding more links to sources that are not independant.

My proposal is: revert the page back. That doesn't hinder your work at all, since you can always find any paragraph or sentence back in the history. But if anything is added to the page then it should come with the high quality independant sources that WP requires for BLP. You now increased quantity, but not quality. That's not the way to go.

As I have pointed out before. There seems to be a silver lining in everything you do on WP since you joined in 2007. And that is: adding more links to the skyscript.co.uk site. Now we can almost not count them anymore in this article.

What is going on here is very typical for "belief" based topics where some strong proponents are defending the page. Neutral editors who somehow end up reviewing the page are being tired out, till they quit. That gives the proponents what they want. I wonder how WP tries to address that problem.

MakeSense64 (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Im actually astonished to get up and find that its all back - and today I dont have time to help because I have a hospital appt and other things to attend to. So you have your day to find reasonable references. Im not sure why the issues that have been addressed over and over here are not sinking in. Point one: It is a BLP which means we have to be tighter about what is written on the page and unsourced or poorly sourced material MUST be removed. Point two: Verifiability from unbiased reputable sources. Point three: Neutral point of view. These are the ground rules for writing on wikipedia and should be adhered to at all times.Panderoona (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Panderoona. Actually I was not so surprised to find everything back (and more) this morning. In this type of articles around "belief" you have some editors with a very fixed idea of what the article should be, and they rarely move from their position no matter how many WP guidelines you point out. Usually a WP article gets balanced by giving due weight to the pro and the con side, and then consensus gets reached. But with astrology there is the problem that it has no such thing as a real peer review process, because most (if not all) of it is non-falsifiable. So astrology is more a field of peer-praise and peer-pressure. As a result you find 95% sources making favorable mention of a given astrologer, praising each other to get an article or book across to their group of students. This makes it difficult to create a balanced neutral tone WP article. Now with Elwell we are more lucky as we can find good criticism about him. Now setting up a new section for that.

On the one hand it is very hard to work on any BLP, not to mention BLP of musicians or astrologers. On the other hand it can also be most rewarding because of that challenge. My attitude is to try to enjoy the process (not always easy) , knowing fully well that the result can go any way. It's a kind of enjoy the journey rather than the destination thing.

All the best on your day. A day off can be good to come back with fresh ideas. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

criticism on Elwell

Just came into these pages : http://www.astrology-and-science.com/o-attk1.htm and http://www.astrology-and-science.com/o-attk2.htm , which publish some profound criticism on Elwell. This is very good news for this article, and can help us to give it a more neutral tone. I think we have to set up a "criticism" section for it, and use some of the materials we find in there to create equal weight. If Acabashi and Panderoona have not given up on trying to help with this article (which I would fully understand), then would appreciate their thoughts on how to do this properly. With a proper criticism section this could become one of the best WP articles about a living astrologer. Meanwhile I'll continue reading those new sources. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interesting passage found on one of these pages. Kind of strongly reminds of what we have going on here:

A further obstacle is Elwell's style, which is marked by unsupported assertions, ignorance of science, and abuse in lieu of scholarship. For example whenever he says X is crucial, he typically fails to explain it, or resorts to jibes, so readers have no clear idea of what X is about and no clear way of deciding whether X is a reasonable point. His strategy is to find fault but never suggest improvements, to brush aside or ignore what doesn't suit him, and to bury everything else in torrents of words. In other words to be as unhelpful as possible. There is no attempt (like ours below) to list issues concisely to facilitate discussion, or to summarise the arguments to facilitate progress. Our most common reaction to his unhelpfulness is "Elwell does not tell us", meaning "why should anyone believe this?".

MakeSense64 (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I see Clooneymark already added the new sources mentioned here, but it is not good WP practice to muffle the criticism away in the small print in the references, while putting them all together under one reference as to make them as small as possible. That shows bias on the side of the editor.

There is no point in adding sources without using anything from them in the article itself. Also the source http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/randel.htm has material that we can use directly in a proper criticism section to balance out this article. His refusal to participate in a $1 million controlled test should be mentioned against the succesful predictions he is claimed to have done. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is another piece to include (http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/ertel_elwell.htm). This is actually peer review by another astrologer, Professor Emeritus Dr Ertel, who is strongly critical of Elwell:

Dennis Elwell, despite being well informed, ignores all this research. He refers to a no-authority in statistical matters (Dawkins) who has published nothing in this field. Further, he ignores most favourable judgments on Gauquelin research by H.J. Eysenck, whose score of published statistical studies in mainstream psychology has hardly been excelled by anyone. For me, therefore, the way Elwell uses his intellectual capacity to downgrade scientific research on Gauquelin effects is utterly irresponsible. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

How interesting. Now we have a new editor Makepeace101, whose very first actions on WP consist of coming straight to Elwell's page to remove some tags. Care to introduce yourself and comment here on the talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Makepeace101 .

Changes reverted. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I applaud your time and good effort in discovering sources for alternative views. These are badly needed in this article to go some way to restore balance and neutrality, and most definitely are required in a "Criticism" section, very much accepted in articles of this sort. Acabashi (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have just got back from hospital - but will unfortunatly be busy most of the rest of the day. But I would like to add my thoughts here. As it is the article reads like a an advert and why the advert tag was removed I do not understand as it was there this morning. It is reading as heavily biased and absolutely NOT from a neutral point of view. There are two many Peacock words in it, and we are now wandering dangerously close to Original Research as well. Given the many problems the article has in its present state, I would say that the overnight and this mornings efforts to improve it are actually making it more liable to end up on the deleted pile. PLEASE before making further edits read up on Wikipedias Guidelines. Sorry that I simply cannot be around to offer further help, but a read back through this entire talkpage is needed as all the pointers for a good article, and what to avoid doing are up there. Panderoona (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry Panderoona. There is only that much we can do. If some editors insist on destroying the article and ready it for speedy deletion, then we cannot go on reverting the changes. Just enjoy your day. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

To briefly comment: I am not building on belief, but notable biographical information. As anyone can now see, this entry, which was marked for deletion, is valid and interesting. Although a living biography, it concerns someone who is now in his 80s and has led a full life with a notable career. All of the information given comes from reliable secondary sources. I will remove the ‘sources needed’ tag as that is transparently no longer needed, each comment being more than adequately referenced.

I was concerned that by adding links to online material, the old chestnut of spamming would come up again. But I checked WP policy, and this says that appropriate links are those which point to where published works are available online. The links are not a big issue to me. This about adding value to the page. Since the subject is notable, this page now offers a valuable reference source for anyone wishing to research his life and works, and also offers good ‘further reading’ information.

Sorry, but I do not wish to engage in discussions about what the problems with astrology or astrologers, or people who have beliefs, may or may not be. I’m not here to speculate – my concern is to add valuable information to an encyclopaedic resource. It should be no harder to work on the biography of an astrologer or musician than anyone else since, it is simply a matter of understanding WP principles and adhering to policies.

I have added all three of the critical links suggested, alongside those I gave earlier (which also lead to those links and are the means by which the criticisms and arguments of both sides can be explored in full). I have also included within the main body the critical quote from Ertel. I had already built in references to the fact that he had critics, and why he had critics, and had included the references and further reading suggestions for readers to follow that.

This is not a problem. The fact is that Elwell was notable and controversial in this regard, involved in challenging arguments, which is why I included the extra reference to this aspect of Elwell’s notability. I think it is significant that he had eminent critics and opponents. This doesn’t raise issues of neutrality for me. A neutrally written biography will feature the highs and the lows and the criticism as well as the praise. What we don’t want to do is steer away from coverage of the main points of notability by trying to replicate arguments or Elwell’s points of debate within the main page. We outline them, and provide a reference and link for further reading, which is what I have done.

BTW, I have no idea who Makesense101 is but will put on record now that this is nothing to do with me. Since the edits were explained with the comments “(Too many tags. Not relevant)” and “(Disagree. The article contains useful information and sources.)” I hope this new editor will express further views on this discussion page.Clooneymark (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Clooneymark. I have never seen this article marked for deletion. You may want to strike out your comment in that regard.

You say: All of the information given comes from reliable secondary sources. I have not seen anything near a concensus on that. You have not even bothered to address the concerns that Acabashi has formulated on that point. Since when are you the sole person to decide what are reliable secondary sources on WP?

It is better wikiquette to wait to remove "sources needed" tag till you get concensus on that point. Right now my answer is no.

It never hurts on WP to show that you also respect the other editors' input. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the WP advice on tagging WP:TAGGING. It says this:

It is best to provide the fewest number of the most specific possible tags. Placing too many tags on an article is "tag-bombing", disruptive, or may be a violation of Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. Placing vague tags on articles results in confusion and discouragement more often than it results in improving the encyclopedia.

Whether a tag should be placed on an article is sometimes the subject of disputes. Occasionally, editors place tags to make a point, to disrupt editing, or to be tendentious. Similarly, editors occasionally remove tags without solving real problems because they are embarrassed by the tag, do not want additional attention from other editors, or do not like tags.

Sometimes problems are solved by inexperienced editors, who incorrectly believe that they must wait for an authority figure to remove the official-looking template.

The latter applied to me when I incorrectly believed that since Acabashi placed the tag, he must be the one to remove it.

The advert tag was removed by another editor on 5th June. All comments are substantiated and I have included reference to criticisms so I am removing this and the ‘undue weight’ tag as having now been addressed.

Implications that I “insist on destroying the article and ready it for speedy deletion” are offensive and unnecessary. The material on the page has been well considered and thoughtfully attended to with the utmost attention to WP policy. I have, and still do, show myself to be listening to all opinon and taking advice on board. Ive addressed all the points of criticism that have been put forward. Insinuous comments, that by contributing content I am trying to 'take over the page' serve no constructive purpose. I stated an intention to try to imporve the page and have only asked that material is not hastily deleted whilst I am in the process of adding citations. The article will evolve by the input of others, but I have made a sincere attempt to contribute something worthwhile and non-controversial. To ensure that this article gets helpful input/feedback from other editors I will raise a request for comment. Clooneymark (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting 3 tags on an article is not outlandish. You will find many WP pages with 3 tags. One can use the "Multiple issues" tag, but then it is even more vague. The advert tag being removed on 5th June doesn't matter. I added the advert tag back on after your latest big edit. As soon as pages have a major change, all tags that were previously removed can be put back on by any editor. WP articles are always a work in progress. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Clooneymark wrote: The material on the page has been well considered and thoughtfully attended to with the utmost attention to WP policy. I have, and still do, show myself to be listening to all opinon and taking advice on board. Ive addressed all the points of criticism that have been put forward.

So, and you alone decide on that? Several other editors who have worked here are not even asked as far as I can see.

Where did you address all the points that have been brought forward? Where did Acabashi and Panderoona agree to your changes? Maybe I have missed something. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the new editor has been in and removed the tags already. I hope this editor will comment here. The notice he placed on the edit page was "This article is perfecty well sourced, contains interesting information and is not an advertisement.)"

Whoever this is, thank you. The only non-critical remark to come in response to the work I put into this.Clooneymark (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new editor. I looked a this page and it is well sourced and informative and I couldn't see the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makepeace101 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome. As a new editor it is rather odd to jump in and start reversing the work of editors who have been involved in it for a couple days already.

That doesn't exactly make peace on WP

And this article is not so easy to find, you know ;-) MakeSense64 (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is highly desirable for an "outsider" to WP:BOLDly jump in to situations like this to make whatever changes seem, from that outside perspective, to be sensible. The people who have been arguing fruitlessly and rather nastily for days are the ones who should avoid reversing the work of uninvolved editors. WP:UNINVOLVED is policy for admin actions, but it's a good idea for everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Those tags are not going to be removed until a consensus is reached. At present opinion is split. Panderoona (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources

An interesting piece of information just came in on the reliable sources noticeboard where I had put up the question of reliability for astrodatabank. An insider to the astro.com site confirms that the birthdata themselves are checked and sourced, but that the biographical information on that site is NOT reliable. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#is_astro_databank_reliable.3F So this means we have to remove astrodatabank sources as references to statements in the biography part. So much for the concensus that Clooneymark and Makepeace101 have been trying to force on this article. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Have edited the article accordingly and removed biographical statements that were based on astrodatabank. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please pay attention to what the official representative of astrodatabank had to say:

As one of the maintainers of Astrodatabank at www.astro.com, I can confirm that the birth data information (date, place, time) is researched and documented meticulously. Each entry has its 'Source Notes' where details about the origin of the information are given. We employ a rigid classification system, called the Rodden Rating and developed by the late founder of Astrodatabank, Lois Rodden. For the biographical information the same CANNOT be said. It often contains judgment by the writer, and does not name the source of the biographical information.

What you removed from the article was not a reference to bio information but the data source, which is the undisputedly reliable information. You removed the published additional refrence on this that added iinteresting additional information about the data for the time of birth.

I will restore this. The second reference to astrodatabank was not needed now that a better citation has been found and provided. Indeed, I was under the belief that I had already removed this.

No one is trying to force a consensus. The object here is to get good quality information on the page. I have raised request for comment from other, objective editors, so that a general consensus can be reached which would not require the direction of this page to rest on the views of one or two (possibly entrenched) editors. Clooneymark (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That additional information I removed had nothing to do with the information that is on astrodatabank. So it didn't belong with that source. Do not mess up different sources within one reference tag. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is the convention that when birth-data is given as a footnote, it is accompanied by supporting comment if that exists. This is the case here. The Phillipson reference adds further information to 'offical record' as given on the astro-databank site, to explain how the data given there was rectified. So it does belong with that source. However if you feel strongly and want to make it a separate footnote and link it to the same point feel free. That is less correct IMO, but it would not trouble me in the same way as deleteing the information - which is well sourced and highly relevant - would, because astrologers who read this page should also be aware of the rectification process applied to it. Clooneymark (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this bio up to standard now, and can the three warning tags be removed from the top of the page?

Template:Rfcid

I have been trying to bring the biography of an astrologer up to standard. There is dispute about whether the page continues to warrant the three tags that remain at the top of the page:

• In need of further citations
• Reads like an advert
• Lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole.

I think the 'further citations' tag is clearly unecessary, since all comments in the article are referenced. The issue here is probably more about whether this article is neutral in approach and proportionate towards the subject's area of expertise. I believe it is but others say not. We would very much welcome the objective input of other editors who are not attached to the subject of the page or strongly inclined towards or against his field of expertise. If you can find time to look at this and leave a quick comment with your feedback, please do. It would be very helpful to us Clooneymark (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you finished adding everything to this article you intend to? Acabashi (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A page is never finished here is it? But at this stage I have made requests for objective assesment from other editors who have not been involved in the discussion here - which I think is blighted by unfounded speculations, negative assumptions and entranched views. I would obviously like to consider constructive feedback if we can get any. I think I already mentioned I am planning to try to locate press reports by a visit to the British library, which I hope to tie in to another reason to visit very shortly. On the whole, I consider this article, as it is, to be well supported and offering a neutrally reported account of verifyable information. However, I am interested in all positive points of feedback, from yourselves and others, that might add value to the page and remove the need to regard any content as suspect to 'reading like an advert' or 'lending undue weight to certain ideas' (short of falsifying the reality of the situation or attempting to rewrite history in such a way that what has been widely reported by other trusted sources is not allowed to be reported on this page) Clooneymark (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

True, a page is probably never finished. However, have you added all the stuff that you feel is substantial for the moment? It is difficult for other editors to directly add to the article when major edits are being performed over many days by one editor, so the reason for asking is to see if we can allow the opportunity for other editors of this page to add their own edits (major or minor) to the page, after all, none of us owns the article do we? - I'm sure you understand. "Falsifying the reality" is subjective - an assumption appears made here that there is an accepted, or protected, view of what that reality is. We are in the business of adding reliable secondary source verification that directly supports assertions, whatever those assertions may be - "trusted sources" that you mention can be either pro or con to the subject, and no editor can decide what the "accepted" reality is, as no-one writes or re-writes, or is the guardian of, "reality" on Misplaced Pages. To say that something is "not allowed to be reported on this page" because it might "falsify the reality" clearly indicates a non-NPOV. As I have mentioned before, Misplaced Pages is about WP:verifiabilty not truth; it is not what any particular editor, or even "trusted source" believes is reality, or good or bad for a subject. If legitimate verifiable sources stack-up one way or the other, so be it. Acabashi (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A page is never finished, but when you put on a RFC template then it is assumed you are done adding what you intend to for the moment. You were still making changes yesterday after you put up the RFC notice. Editors don't like to comment on a "moving target", because their comments may already look stupid by the time they post them.

You say: "I am interested in all positive points of feedback"

That's the problem. You are only interested in positive feedback. That tells it all.

NPOV demands that we look at both sides of coin. I have not seen you very willing to do that. If you think there is no undue weight in this article then try this excercise: count how many words are in this article. Then count how many words you have spent on criticism (and even those were only added after I pointed them out).

Then try to imagine how you would perceive the article, if the situation was reversed: plenty coverage of the criticism and just a few sentences on the plus side. How would that look to you? Would you put an undue weight tag on it? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I made a response to this but lost the post in an edit conflict. Briefly, the page history shows that the only edits I made after making the request for comment; was 1) to re-instate the reference that you deleted by mistake, and 2) to correct the spelling of a word and add one comma to the page. I also added three in-wiki links to pages that already exist – so hardly a case of me continuing to make changes (although I see no reason why that would be a problem anyway).

My use of the term ‘positive feedback’ was in reference to constructive feedback that would benefit the page. This includes valid points of criticism, which I would view as ‘positive feedback’.

Elwell is notable for having a well respected influence in his astrologiocal work; for engaging in arguments with critics, and for the particular attention he gained in 1987. I cannot invent critical references that don't exist, to try to balance the word count of negative points of notability with the rest of the bio. Fact is, he had a good and well-established reputation. Even his critics would give him that. Clooneymark (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Advice: If you hit an edit conflict, click the back button on your browser and you should return to the edit window with your text intact. Select and copy that text, and if you are worried you might subsequently lose it, paste it into a word doc. Reboot the page again, open the edit window and paste your copied text. If the text is substantial, it's useful to copy your text anyway before you save, just in case this happens. Apologies if you knew this. Acabashi (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

All feedback that has been given here has been constructive feedback. But it looks like you don't see it that way. What may not look as a valid point to you, may be a valid point. Again you are putting yourself up as the benchmark to decide.

I found at least 5 different critical articles about Elwell on the astrozero site alone (a site by an author you have labeled as very neutral and well known). You have thrown them all into one reference and just make a passing mention. As for the more positive articles about Elwell, you list them one by one. Doesn't look very balanced to me.

It is not about making equal word count for both sides. It is about giving equal weight to everything we find about him (if it is properly sourced). Doesn't matter how good or bad a reputation of a person is, we are just to report on what we find. Actually WP has many long articles of people with very bad reputations, criminals and so on.. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not share your opinion of the previous conversations. I find, for example, your discouragement of a new editor to be distinctly non-constructive. I find nothing even remotely constructive in your statement about "If other people insist on destroying the article..." There has definitely been some non-constructive feedback provided on this page, and I therefore have quite a lot of sympathy for Clooney's disinterest in receiving more of that useless sniping. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a question, Clooneymark, in regard to your last edit on the Article, in which you changed wording to "Elwell's book Cosmic Loom, has remained a recommended text amongst astrologers as a valuable and thought-provoking introduction to the subject written in layman's terms" - do you see this as a neutral point of view? Panderoona (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do Panderoona, because if anything it understates the reputation of this book amongst the astrological community. There are certain books which crop up frequently in 'best of the best' discussions, and this is one of them. Widely recommended and so kept in print by demand. The references I have given to published sources demnstrate how widely it is valued. On the other hand it is hard to find any criticism for the book as a whole. It was a notable work because it had a defining influence on a whole generation of astrologers. I took out an adjective to try to keep the point neutral in tone, but I have certainly understated the case rather than exagerated it, in terms of the books reputation within the astrological community. Hope that answers your question Clooneymark (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It does, thank you for your reply. Panderoona (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

WP is not about reputation. If a book crops up in "best of the best" lists then that can be mentioned if a reliable source is found for it. Otherwise it is only the opinion of the editor.

I saw several critical remarks about Cosmic Loom in this article, and I haven't even read it completely. But Clooneymark doesn't mention anything from it.

And look at ref 16 that is used to back up the statement that Panderoona questions here, this is the link. A purely promotional page where you find a brief reference to Elwell's book, but nothing like the words used in the article here. So if this are not peacock words then what are? And if that is a reliable source than what is not? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay this is what I think. I am only going to address one point here. I think that one of the things that needs addressing with the article in its present state can be presented by the single case in point I put above - now it says: "Elwell's book Cosmic Loom, has remained a recommended text amongst astrologers as a valuable and thought-provoking introduction to the subject written in layman's terms" Previously it had said: "Elwell's book Cosmic Loom, has remained a recommended text amongst astrologers as one of the most thought-provoking introductions to the subject written in layman's terms" The addition of the word valuable has increased what is already a non-neutral point of view. In my humble opinion, a more neutral point of view would be something more like this: Elwell's book Cosmic Loom, is a recommended text amongst astrologers and is an introduction to the subject in layman's terms" Panderoona (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that Panderoona and yes, I agree with you. I had sought to remove the adjective so that the reference to the book was neutrally reported, whilst still able to demonstrate that it is a particularly notable book for astrologers, not just one of the very many books written about astrology. It really is a case that this work is extremely popular and highly respected - as astrology books goes it is likely to have a strong place in the history of astrology. I had not realised that my new suggestion made the refrence worse instead of better. Sometimes a new pair of eyes can see things that those who have worked on the words cannot. I trust you are OK to go ahead and make that edit yourself. Clooneymark (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Panderoona. This is the actual statement on the page that is given as the source for this sentence: "A beautiful and most readable book on the working of astrology, is authored by Dennis Elwell. ‘Cosmic Loom’ and published by the Urania Trust is one of my treasured passions."

And not unimportant: with an Amazon.com box right below it to sell that book.

I do not see how this supports the statement, even in the toned down version you propose. Words like recommended and layman's terms do not appear, so it will look like the editor has pumped this up.

It is pure advertising style. If it is to stay like that a different high quality source has to be found making that kind of assertions. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was this is just one example of how the article does not read as neutral in tone. Even if I changed it, there are still similar areas that would need to be amended in the same way. I have no intention of changing it - I am trying to help you learn where the pitfalls of writing about something you obviously care so much about are, and how to step back and see it with dispassionate eyes, so that you can change it. Its a hard trick, but it can be done because I too had to learn to do it. I also agree that the reference in question doesnt reflect what is said in the text, and Im sure a better reference could be found. This leads on to another problem I see in the article, which is extended references with all sorts of opinions of others written in which dont really (I feel) have a place here. I think they should be either in the main text of the article, or left out all together. An interested reader would soon follow up the links and read what was there themselves. A final point I would like to make, anyone could have reverted or changed the article at any point during the time you were busy on it, and we have sat back and waited for you to finish out of courtesy, we have been, and still are, trying to help you. Panderoona (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

More criticism on Elwell

I just digged up another interesting piece of information.

Here

Some relevant quotes: "in 1995, in an attempt to score a major publicity success for astrology, renowned British astrologer Dennis Elwell publicly predicted a shipping disaster for mid April in 1996. Instead we had the Tokyo subway nerve gas attacks and the Oklahoma bombings - which fit the astrological patterns just as neatly but he hadn't predicted."

This definitely puts his other predictions more in perspective. If a person takes enough long shots, then he is going to be right once in a while. Next they talk about the (few) hits, and keep quiet about the (many) misses. Of course it is not our job to provide original research here, but I think this 1996 failed prediction should be mentioned alongside the 1987 prediction.

And further: "there haven't been enough 'Titanics' in all of human history to justify a prediction like Elwells."...snip..."Elwell - and perhaps astrologers in general - doesn't appear to have taken those statistical requirements sufficiently seriously."

So, more I am discovering about this person, more it is becoming apparent to me that significant criticism from various sources has been glossed over by Clooneymark in this article. It's not sufficient to point out that there has been "some criticism", when the prediction itself gets described in such detail. NPOV demands that we try to give proper weight to both sides of the argument. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I was aware of that link and considered adding it along side the criticism I quoted from the Parkers book in reference 15. The reason I didn't is because it is extracted from a larger piece and it's not clear enough what the criticism amounts to; and also because I considered that this online reference does fall beneath the par of what can be called a 'reliable source', being a personal blog based on an exchange of emails that are not published. I wonder if MakeSense64 has actually read the full account to understand the point being made - not that Elwell was wrong, but that the astrological factors he used could also support other disastrous events, so that only by the enagagment of the mind can the prediction be made precisely. The full quote from the relevant passage reads:

(For the benefit of new readers - in 1995, in an attempt to score a major publicity success for astrology, renowned British astrologer Dennis Elwell publicly predicted a shipping disaster for mid April in 1996. Instead we had the Tokyo subway nerve gas attacks and the Oklahoma bombings - which fit the astrological patterns just as neatly but he hadn't predicted. In corresponding about the case with me, Michelle pointed out that such things as explosions were just as valid an astrological outcome and thus she 'accidentally' predicted the bombing about 3 days ahead of detonation. )

In fact what Elwell predicted was an upcoming period, demarked by the eclipse effect, in which shipping disasters would be highlighted; and the links already given on the page sufficient substantiate that, for those who care to read them. I'm Ok with the idea that this link is added though, since I'd considered it myself - the problem is the difficulty in efficiently capturing what the point of criticism is (it depends on the reader having read three other sections which build his point). When I found the Parker's criticism in a published book, I decided to use that, because it makes a similar point but in a much more succint and self-contained manner. Personally I think that point of cricism is sufficiently addressed, having been covered in the main article with a reliable source to quote from, so I don't believe it needs augmentation, unless we are able to find other references as suitable as the Parkers one is Clooneymark (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

That's what other editors on the same page are for, Clooneymark. If you are unsure whether (and how) to add information from a certain source, then just ask.

The latter 80% of what you write here is called original research, a big no-no on WP. It is not our job to explain our "understanding" of what is the point in a given source. We are only expected to report on what we find (and can verify), in as neutral a language as we can. If we find positive stuff about Elwell (and can verify the source) then we report on it. If we find negative stuff on him, criticism and so on, (and can verify the source), then we report on it just the same. That's all we are supposed to do here. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Now, I do think that some of these critical sources are questionable. But no more questionable then some other sources you have been insisting on. We can't use double standards in that regard. Now that we are finding some critical stuff about Elwell you suddenly start questioning the reliability of sources. I like that. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no 'original research' - everything is verified and substantiated by reliable secondary sources. I don't wish to enter into the subject of 'double-standards' with you - sorry. Clooneymark (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, you don't wish to enter into any subject if it doesn't suit you. We knew that already.

Let me state this clearly so that we don't have to waste more time. I truly have no interest in what you want to declare about what you 'believe' to be my motivation. I do not wish to engage in your sarcasm; your negativity; your underhanded insults; nor your inability to clearly define what it is that you 'believe' to be the problem here with the entry - or with myself as a wikipedia editor. At my discretion I have chosen to allow certain (in my opinion highly relevant) disclosures concerning your activity here to be struck from the record. I did that, and allowed you to delete some of my comments, despite the fact that you argued your case on the administrators noticeboard, and no one supported your call that those comments should be deleted. Please take this in: I am not arguing from a bias or in support of a bias. I am not only open to new suggestions but grateful for the ones that come from a sincere interest in the content of the page. If you want to make a suggestion then simply put forward your analysis of the problem and your proposed solution. It takes a very foolish person indeed to declare that they already know what it is that someone else does or does not want to do here. Clooneymark (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying the article is original research. Your answer, starting from "I wonder if MakeSense64 has actually read the full account to understand the point being made...", that is original research. We don't need to know what "Michelle pointed out.." because we are not writing an article about Michelle. A source can only be used where it pertains to Elwell or his work. Here we learn that he predicted another shipping disaster for April 1996 and no shipping disaster happened. So that may be useful. What Michelle thought is not relevant here. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)