Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zachariel (talk | contribs) at 02:06, 7 July 2012 (→Falsifiability: Reply to Arc de Ciel). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Astrology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 20 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Astrology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Occult This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

	Astrology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 11, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 13, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Mundane astrology was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 02 April 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Astrology. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Archives

Dec 2001 – Aug 2005 Sept–Dec 2005 Jan – mid-Feb 2006 mid-Feb – April 2006 May 2006 Early June 2006 Mid June 2006 Early July 2006 End of July 2006 July–Dec 2006 Dec 2006 – May 2007 June 2007 – March 2009 Feb 2009 – April 2010 May 2010 – March 2011 February–March 2011 March 2011 March–July 2011 June–July 2011 July 2011 July–August 2011 August–Oct 2011 October 2011 October 2011 Oct–Nov 2011 November 2011 – __

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

RFC on change to pseudoscience summary in lede

It appears that consensus is in favor of changing the wording currently employed in the article, and that something resembling the proposal would serve as a good replacement. There does not appear to be strong consensus for a specific proposal in full. The first two sentences of Saedon's suggestion appear to have wide support as reflective of the article body and the literature. The third sentence had some support, but was also the most discussed with respect to improvement. There were other areas of possible improvement, including Minori's tweak of the second sentence, which gained some support, and other minor adjustments proposed throughout the course of the discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The current wording is:

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

The wording I am proposing is:

Astrology is a pseudoscience and as such is not taken seriously by the academic or scientific communities. Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted and no evidence has been found to support either the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological tradition. Furthermore, the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics.

See Talk:Astrology#Pseudoscience_again_again for background to the dispute SÆdon 21:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support change My argument: The old wording is clunky and hard for someone who doesn't have a background in science to understand. For instance, the statement "is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations" would likely make little sense to someone who doesn't have a scientific background, or at least be vague enough to misunderstand (I do have a scientific background and I can attest that this phrasing is not something that we would use in scientific discourse).

Further, it delves into details about pseudoscience that are not appropriate for a summary per WP:LEDE and since this isn't an article about pseudoscience, but about astrology, it also doesn't make sense to summarize the entire science section of the article by only stating that astrology is a pseudoscience and what pseudoscience is, when the article goes into detail about the scientific research and whatnot.

The old wording ascribes a motive to astrology when it says "it makes little attempt..." Astrology is a body of belief and as such cannot logically make attempts to do anything. One could maybe say that astrologers make little attempt to develop solutions to the problems with astrology, but as written the passage doesn't make a lot of sense.

I believe the new wording is more concise and succinct and better summarizes the article. Kwami agreed with the new wording and Polisher of Cobwebs objected but I found his objections to be contrary to WP:LEDE and mostly just obstructionist with a tad of WP:OWN, hence this RFC.

Lastly, as Kwami points out above, the old wording is a product of a POV edit war that took place, IIRC, in mid 2011 during a rather chaotic era of this page. SÆdon 21:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support change. The new wording is a significant improvement as a summary of the relevant section in the article, per WP:LEAD. I also agree that it is much easier to understand in general. Yobol (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support change In addition to Saedon's summary, I'd add that statements such as "astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science" are self-evidently false. The proposed wording gives a more accurate impression of the mainstream view of astrology. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggest you check the verifiable source given in ref 67 "In 2001, 53% of Europeans surveyed thought astrology is 'rather scientific' and only a minority (39%) said it is not at all scientific." This is the reason astrology has been labelled a pseudo-science. To argue that there is no superficial resemblence to science is to argue against referring to it as a pseudo-science. -- Zac Δ 19:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose change The old wording is perfectly good, and should be easy for anyone of normal intelligence to understand. Saedon's complaint that "Astrology is a body of belief and as such cannot logically make attempts to do anything" is pedantic, and an irrelevant objection. "Astrology makes little attempt...", or words to that effect, is perfectly reasonable as a figure of speech. Finally, Saedon's version is POV and does not reflect the article accurately at all. Its statement that "the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics" is contradicted by Carl Sagan's comments. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand Sagan's statement. He only said that he would not sign a statement that indicated Astrology was a pseudoscience based solely on the fact that astrologers don't provide a mechanism. This is a wholly different statement than astrology being a pseudoscience based on contradicting known mechanisms. Both are compatible with logical positivism, which is the basis of scientific thought. You said yourself that you don't have a science background so perhaps you'd be better off not attempting to interpret scientific statements. The rest of what you wrote is your usual style of WP:IJDLI coupled with argument by assertion. SÆdon 23:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Sagan's statement obviously contradicts the idea that astrology contradicts known principles of biology and physics - it implies that we don't know that there couldn't possibly be any way in which it could work. Oh, PS: logical positivism isn't the basis of scientific thought, it's a philosophy that has been largely abandoned for more than fifty years. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You may think you're dealing with people who don't know what they're talking about but that's not the case. Your argumentation is transparent and I seriously doubt it's fooling anyone. SÆdon 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Polisher, could you kindly quote the Sagan statement you are referring to? I'm not moved by accusations of pedantry - we are trying to write an encyclopedia here: Correctness is of paramount importance. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the full quote, POC should take care to note the last sentence especially:

In the middle 1970s an astronomer I admire put together a modest manifesto called `Objections to Astrology’ and asked me to endorse it. I struggled with his wording, and in the end found myself unable to sign, not because I thought astrology has any validity whatever, but because I felt (and still feel) that the tone of the statement was authoritarian. It criticized astrology for having origins shrouded in superstition. But this is true as well for religion, chemistry, medicine and astronomy, to mention only four. The issue is not what faltering and rudimentary knowledge astrology came from,but what is its present validity. Then there was speculation on the psychological motivations of those who believe in astrology. These motivations – for example, the feeling of powerlessness in a complex,troublesome and unpredictable world – might explain why astrology is not generally given the sceptical scrutiny it deserves, but is quite peripheral to whether it works. The statement stressed that we can think of no mechanism by which astrology could work. This is certainly a relevant point but by itself it’s unconvincing. No mechanism was known for continental drift (now subsumed in plate tectonics) when it was proposed by Alfred Wegener in the first quarter of the twentieth century to explain a range of puzzling data in geology and palaeontology. (Ore-bearing veins of rocks and fossils seemed to run continuously from eastern South America to West Africa; were the two continents once touching and the Atlantic Ocean new to our planet?) The notion was roundly dismissed by all the great geophysicists, who were certain that continents were fixed, not floating on anything, and therefore unable to `drift’. Instead, the key twentieth-century idea in geophysics turns out to be plate tectonics; we now understand that continental plates do indeed float and `drift’ (or better, are carried by a kind of conveyor belt driven by the great heat engine of the Earth’s interior), and all those great geophysicists were simply wrong. Objections to pseudoscience on the grounds of unavailable mechanism can be mistaken – although if the contentions violate well-established laws of physics, such objections of course carry great weight.

— Carl Sagan

SÆdon 00:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere does the statement by Sagan say that astrology violates "well-established laws of physics." I suppose someone might try to read into it the suggestion that astrology does violate them, but there's no direct statement to that effect there, and we shouldn't try to do original research. So I stand by my case that Saedon's version of the lead is POV. Those concerned with correctness please take note. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering I'm not using the Sagan quote as a source that's not relevant. You were attempting to use the Sagan quote to contradict what I wrote, but it doesn't contradict it, so now you are changing your argument to insinuate that the wording depends on the quote. It doesn't. It paraphrases the science section which is supported by a quote by the world's foremost physicist, Stephen Hawking, saying that astrology contradicts known physical facts. SÆdon 00:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? The Sagan quote obviously contradicts what you added to the lead, which was, "the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics." That implies that the hypothesis cannot conceivably be true, while Sagan is pointing out the contrary, that we don't know that it couldn't possibly be true. You're welcome to believe that there's no contradiction, but just making the assertion isn't helpful. And if you think I've changed my argument, then I'm afraid you've utterly misunderstood what I said. I haven't changed my position at all, and I find your comments bizarre. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that you're using anything you can to keep this change out of the article because you just don't like it. Frankly, it's WP:TE and I'm done arguing with you, especially since you've admitted both a lack of a scientific background and on your talk page you admit you lack detailed knowledge of astrology. There is so far a consensus of 4 editors who think the new wording is better and you are the only editor to hold your position. SÆdon 01:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, I suggest that rather than make ad hominem arguments, you address what I said. You accused me of changing my position, but as far as I can tell (and I think I know what my position is better than you do), I've done no such thing. It would help discussion if each side understands what the other side is saying, so would you mind please explaining to me again why you believe I've changed my mind? Thanks. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No I'm sorry but I feel as though I've spent enough time debating this with you; it will be up to uninvolved editors to determine the consensus on the matter. SÆdon

Your conclusion from the Sagan quote was not only far from being obvious, it is patently false. Sagan's statement indicates that it is the current state of any pursuit that should be subjected to criticism, not its origins, and that speculation regarding the psychological motivations of the practitioners is also not a legitimate basis for criticism. He didn't like the tone of the statement he had been asked to sign, and he said that an absence of a known mechanism need not mean that a hypothesis is incorrect. All of these are generic comments about the nature of appropriate criticism. He isn't saying anything specifically about what astrology does or does not contradict, but instead is criticizing the manner in which astrology was being criticized for its origins, the mental state of those practicing it, and the lack of a mechanism. He does not address whether or not astrology contradicts known laws, only saying that the violation of such laws represent a weighty argument against a hypothesis. (It's probably also worth pointing out that we have learned a lot more about physics and biology in the past 42 years, so even were Sagan to have said in 1970 that astrology didn't violate the laws of biology or physics, which he didn't, it wouldn't necessarily apply today.) As to changing your position, he never said that you did, only that you had changed your argument, which you did (although perhaps you didn't intend to). Your original statement was of the nature of 'Sagan contradicts the new wording,' but after the full quote was given, you made a change to the claim saying, 'Sagan fails to support the new wording', which while superficially similar is actually quite different (and importantly places the burden of proof on the other party). That is when Saedon rightly indicated that you had changed your argument. You have since gone back to the original line of 'Sagan contradicts the new wording.' While you may not have changed your position, you have indeed changed your argument, twice. However, given that Sagan's quote neither contradicts nor is being used to support the new wording, its continued discussion is an all-together irrelevant distraction. Agricolae (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I stand by what I said about Sagan. It quite simply makes no sense to say that astrology contradicts known principles of whatever if there could be a mechanism by which it works for all we know. I suppose that Sagan could have meant to say that astrology could work by some mechanism for all we know but that this does not mean that it does not contradict known principles, but that would be stupid, and since Sagan was a bright guy, I see no reason to suppose that he meant such an absurdity. Try giving Sagan (and me) credit for a little more intelligence. Also, thanks for attempting to explain to me what my own argument/position is or isn't, but I'm not really in need of such explanation. That Sagan (directly, or by implication) contradicts Saedon's version of the lead is what I've always said. Your comments about what my argument was/is are mumbo-jumbo as far as I'm concerned. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with intelligence, Sagan's or yours. It does have to do with reading what Sagan said, and not reading into what Sagan said. Sagan was not addressing the basis for astrology, he was addressing the appropriate basis for scientific criticism and more specifically why he declined to sign a specific set of what he considered to be inappropriate criticisms written in an authoritarian tone. He wasn't going to engage in speculation about the mindset of the proponents or denigrate a field for having origins shared by much of science, and the lack of a mechanism need not mean a hypothesis is wrong - and so he wasn't going to sign a statement criticizing astrology on these grounds, because these are not valid grounds for criticism. One should not imply from this that, given a different statement that was based on appropriate scientific criticisms, he wouldn't have signed it willingly. His whole quote is just telling people that when you criticize something, you should use the right arguments (an example of which he provides at the very end of the quote). Whatever your position may always have been, your response to the complete quote was "Nowhere does the statement by Sagan say that astrology violates 'well-established laws of physics'". Saedon and I both read this as 'Sagan nowhere supports Saedon', which is different from 'Sagan contradicts Saedon'. If this is not what you meant, then at least we have that clear. Agricolae (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to address the question of the appropriate basis of scientific criticism of anything if you think it doesn't, or couldn't, have any possible basis. So the distinction you're making is false. Blathering posts in which you repeat what you've already said at tedious length are a waste of talk page space my friend. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the space was wasted because you still don't get it, my uncivil friend - Sagan wasn't really even talking about astrology in this paragraph. It just served as a pretext for him to discuss of the nature of correct scientific discourse. And the reason? Because he thought it was a point worth making. What more reason does one need? Agricolae (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sagan wasn't really taking about astrology? Could have fooled me, because it looks as though he was talking about astrology. But in any case, your side is obviously winning the RFC, which I will respect. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support change. I think User:Yobol summed it up nicely. The change would improve the article even further if its second sentence was amended to read "Scientific testing of astrology has not found evidence to support either the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological tradition.", but no matter, the proposed change will be a major improvement. Moriori (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support change. I would much prefer Moriori's version, though with just a minor change: "Scientific testing of astrology has found no evidence to support either the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological tradition." Agricolae (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be very problematic because science has tested and verified many elements of astrological tradion. The astrological tradition is huge and multi-faceted and science has taken a lot from it historically. It really depends what premises or purported effects you are talking about. We could go into more boring details of course, but it is only WP editors who get so obsessive about exploring this subject through its characterisation as a pseudo-science. The visitor wants to know what the subject is supposed to be about according to its own definition too. -- Zac Δ 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. There is a bit of a problem with the last sentence of the proposed wording: "Furthermore, the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics.".

1)Not all forms of astrology are about effects on "individual lives", there is also "mundane astrology" and "financial astrology" where it is believed that the planetary cycles affect regions, countries or even the whole world. Just like the gravitational pull of the Moon on an individual bottle of water in your fridge is negligible, but taken over a much larger area, the same gravitational pull of the Moon adds up to tidal forces that are clearly not negligible. Actually, "mundane astrology" is the more older and common form, while the belief in "individual horoscopes" is a rather new development within "astrology".

2)The phrasing also suggests that physics and biology are understood so well already, that we can rule out the possibility of astrology. I am not sure that every scientist will be ready to make that contention.

Astrology is not considered a pseudoscience because the possibility of it has been disproven by science. Astrology is considered a pseudoscience because it has not produced sufficient independently verified evidence for any of its claims or theories, and is in fact making little or no efforts to do so. So, the first two sentences of the proposal are OK. But, I would suggest to change or remove the last phrase of the proposed edit, if this is to be accepted. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with some of your criticisms also but am ridiculously tired atm so give me till tomorrow and I'll comment and we can find a way to tweak it to address your points. In the meantime, if you have any particular changes in mind (aside from just deleting the sentence, because I think we can reword it rather than delete) please don't hesitate to present them. SÆdon 08:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, there is time. Basically, the lede is supposed to give a brief summary of what is found in the rest of the article. So we also have to consider proper proportion and due weight. We definitely need this paragraph mentioning the pseudoscientific status of astrology. A third sentence can be used here, but I think it should be more broadly phrased. The biology-physics objection to "individual astrology" is a bit too specific for that purpose. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am unsure if the current 2 sources even actually verify the current text. No mention is made in the second source of astrology superficially resembling science. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support change to first two sentences, with 3rd sentence conditionally on the extra sourcing check mentioned above. I note that the sources to verify much of the content is already in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning is that we shouldn't be trying to pretend that astrology is actually taken seriously as a predictive tool. The new wording is far clearer. I think a better wording for the first sentence might actually be that: Astrology is a pseudoscience and as such is not taken seriously as a predictive tool by the scientific community. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Astrology is indeed taken seriously as a predictive tool. See the first comments in the 'Effect on European Culture' section and the references that verify them (from credible scientific souurces). And this is just Western European culture, Eastern Europeans and other geographical regions have a stronger commitment to astrological belief. So it would be a pretence to suggest that astrology is not taken seriously as a predictive tool, or that it is not respected by a significance number of people. WP editors are here to report world views not change them. On the other hand I see that your proposal is trying to clarify an otherwise hopelessly problematic suggestion. But it really is not making things clearer. Giving a clear statement (such as we have already) that astrology is a pseudoscience is all that is needed to demonstrate that astrology does not (in general terms) hold a position in modern science. What we have already is qualified by the reasons for this, as verified by credible references. There are divisions of astrology that this article does not explain. Natural astrology (as opposed to 'judicial astrology') concerns weather prediction, seasonal changes and meteorolgical events and these sorts of planetary cycles are taken seriously as predictive tools, because there really is a correlation between celestial phenomena and earth phenomena. There are lots of elements of astrology that cross the borders of other sciences. The main point is that the lede should summarise the most pertinent points of the article's content, not be rewritten at whim to make a point that suits a WP editor's personal view of the subject. I hope we can all agree to that -- Zac Δ 19:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

By seriously, I meant by scientists, not by the general public. The consensus of scientists is that it's all bullshit. Misplaced Pages should reflect that scientific consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. There are also many people who take the 2012 doomsday predictions serious, but that doesn't mean that science takes it serious. An encyclopedia tries to be complete, so the general standpoint of science also gets its part of the coverage. That's what the pseudoscience part in the lede is doing. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I support the change to the first two sentences, with the 3rd sentence removed. It doesn't belong in the lede, even IF it is adequately sourced. DigitalC (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support change I think it makes more sense and makes people that may trust astrology less likely to do so because of the wording. Thepoodlechef (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for a change should be based on policy and guidelines. Your vote appears to not be based on policy or guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: "basic aspects of biology and physics". Would you care to define which aspects are intended here? The introduction does not offer a definition. The "Modern scientific appraisal" section does not even mention biology. The lack of a defined physical mechanism (for astrology) is mentioned, but not any specific scientific principle which contradicts its existence. As for the distinction between meteorological astrology, mundane astrology, natal astrology, etc, it is currently not reflected in the text. Dimadick (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose change: The word "science" has changed meanings since the 1600's when astrology was labelled with the word "science". Back then the word meant something like "general knowledge" - and not "ideas tested using the scientific method", which is what that word means today. Since we don't write Misplaced Pages in archaic language - we have to use a modern word that means "makes predictions like a science does, but without following the scientific method" - and the correct word for that is "pseudoscience" (check any dictionary!). Hence the proposed change is extremely misleading to a modern reader. The change implies that at some time in the past, astrologers were carefully testing and documenting their ideas, subjecting them to peer review and following the "hypothesis/experiment/publication/reproduction-of-experiment/publication/theory" approach that "science" (by the modern definition of the word) dictates. This rewording of the lede implies that astrology has changed over the years - when in fact it has not (or at least not in any material way) - when in fact the meaning of the word "science" has changed. Hence this change to the lede must be soundly rejected. SteveBaker (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steve, since you're the first voice to oppose, could you explain why? I'm not following your argument. I don't see how it is implied that astrology has changed over the years. — kwami (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think he's saying that a comparison to science, as implication of astrology's faults, isn't fair since science's definition has shown to be historically tenuous. I think it's a dubious argument. If science changed, practices that purport to use its methods should've changed with it, or accept their fate. Science is just another word for currently-accepted logic. If you don't use that as a basis for the evolution of ideas, choosing instead to stick to science's one-time definitions, that's a choice to become archaic. That's basically all a comparison to science is saying, and it's accurate. Equazcion 06:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support change - Hehe... This is the first time I've seen this article and the current wording made me laugh. It looks like a chip on the shoulder. "shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories..." You can tell some scientist was deeply hurt by astrology in his youth. "superficial resemblance to science", "little attempt to develop solutions to its problems", carry similar problems. I might use subjective words like these myself in arguments, but it's not for an encyclopedia. Kind of an angry forum post instead. Replacement is definitely more neutral, and standard with the way we address these kinds of topics. Equazcion 01:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Change per WP:NPOV.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I support replacing the existing text. However, the proposed replacement is not satisfactory. The phrasing "is not taken seriously" is clumsy and lacks the authoritative tone expected in a reputable reference such as an encyclopedia. And surely there are some academicians, perhaps with expertise in cultural anthropology, history of science, cognitive psychology, or behavioral economics, who have serious professional interests in astrology. MakeSense64's comments on the third sentence of the proposed text are also worth considering. While I am not yet sure of the best alternative, I think something along the lines of the following would be preferable to what has been proposed thus far:

  While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience. The claims of astrology have not been confirmed by controlled studies, and experiments have found that astrologers perform no better than chance at making predictions.

There is no need to explain in the passage what is meant by referring to astrology as a pseudoscience; the reader who does not know what pseudoscience means can follow the wikilink to a detailed discussion of the term. The phrasing I am proposing ("the claims of astrology have not been confirmed by controlled studies," rather than "some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted and no evidence has been found to support either the premises or purported effects") also reflects the generally accepted notion in science that the burden of proof for acceptance of a hypothesis falls on those who argue in support of it, not on those who challenge its validity. The previously-proposed phrasing ("no evidence has been found") may offer some readers the wiggle room of concluding that the reason no evidence has been found is that not enough tests of the right sort have been conducted. Dezastru (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support replacing (in a different way) - I think it would be even better to merge the two proposals, e.g.

  Astrology is a pseudoscience. The claims of astrology have not been confirmed by controlled studies, and experiments have found that astrologers perform no better than chance at making predictions. Astrologers make little attempt to develop solutions to their problems, do not evaluate astrology against competing theories, and are selective in considering evidence. Furthermore, the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics.

I agree that the current sentence isn't presented well though - note that I changed it in this proposal, and I'm sure it could be improved further. I think this is also more authoritative, since "Astrology is a pseudoscience" is a sentence by itself in this version. If I had to choose either version though, I would take the second, so I also support change. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

*I support that changes are needed but oppose the replacement prose in its current form. In presenting my thoughts, red text is bad, black text is mine, and green text is good. Looking at the current prose: While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science I have a problem with this because it is a negative weasel sentiment, casts doubt for no gain, and appears bias affecting credibility it is a pseudoscience because it makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems This is unsourced wp:or and can't be known, let alone taught; a thing we should not be doing. I suggest that it is as reasonable, as far as wp:or goes, that 'it makes great attempts to develop solutions; but to no demonstrable scientific conclusion. shows no concern purely negative conjecture for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations

The alternate text begins well with the simple factual statement: Astrology is a pseudoscience and as such is not taken seriously by the academic or scientific communities. this seems like wp:or and it draws a false conclusion. It is not that as such they are not taken seriously, but that they are seriously taken as such. Their designation as a pseudoscience is the scientific result of serious consideration. Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted and no evidence has been found to support either the premises or purported purported is negative weasel wording, straight off the list effects outlined in astrological tradition. Furthermore, the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood you're probably blowing your own scientific horn by stating how well understood the applicable discipline is (not), basic aspects of biology and physics.

Pardon my candor, but those are my impressions. Now, I understand that we should not endeavor to teach a conclusion, but rather present the verifiable facts, allowing the reader to decide. Given that, here is an example of prose which state the uncolored facts as I perceived them to be

Astrology is classified as a pseudoscience within academia and the scientific community. Primarily it has failed to provide grounds for its own accreditation; seemingly content functioning at the fringe of believability. When scientific models are applied, Astrology consistently emerges immeasurable and unverifiable. While Astrologists conjecture an hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives, they fail to offer any mechanism for consideration instead being satisfied that an inability to refute assertions is sufficient proof of their truth.

I hope something of value may be gleaned from this, for it is the culmination of my ability in this RfC and it lies before you; bare. Good luck - My76Strat (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. This is definitely useful feedback. I would phrase the last sentence a bit different however:

"While astrologers conjecture hypotheses that planetary bodies correlate with human and terrestrial affairs, they fail to offer any mechanism for consideration instead being satisfied that an inability to refute assertions is sufficient proof of their truth."

(my changes in bold text). Not all astrologers believe that there is (or must be) a mechanism by which the planets "affect" us, some believe there is only a "correlation" (without further explanation on how that is supposed to work). And since not all astrology pertains to "individual human lives", we better include "terrestrial affairs". MakeSense64 (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I think this version has a couple of potential things to recommend it, but I don't think it's an overall improvement even over the current text. You have some similar problems in your proposal, e.g. the phrases "seemingly content," "fringe of believability," "being satisfied," and "emerges immeasurable and unverifiable." The phrase "within the academia and the scientific community" is redundant, since there is no other way for something to be classed as pseudoscience. Finally, you left out the point that it contradicts basic biology and physics, which is verifiable, and seem to have "watered down" the point that there is no evidence to support it. Arc de Ciel (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You're correct of course. Which source verifies that Astrology contradicts basic biology and physics? My76Strat (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It is unlikely we will find a source to describe how astrology contradicts biology as astrology is not exactly a normally discussed topic in the biological sciences, and the reasons deal with some high level biochemical concepts that, frankly, would be a waste of time on the part of a researcher to discuss in regards to astrology. When I wrote my proposed change above I did it based on what I know as a biologist and so it can probably be considered WP:OR. Physics, however, is not a problem; we have the Hawking and deGrasse Tyson quotes in the article that describe astrology as both inconsistent with known physical facts and as having been discredited 600 years ago, respectively. SÆdon 20:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, sources for biology are here page 59, and here page 265. The first one actually raises (on the same page) some other useful points that might be incorporated, e.g. that " legitimate scientific body" considers astrology a science, and that astrologers do not use the scientific method. Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I started this discussion but have not been around to discuss due to being busy irl. I just want to say that I'm glad the discussion is progressing in this fashion, i.e. that other editors have taken my text and worked with it to make a better version (it's very annoying when people criticize without offering constructive edits of their own). I like a lot of what has been proposed. SÆdon 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support change Responding to the RFC. The proposed phrasing seems more neutral and factually correct to me, rather than accusing "astrology" of actively failing to do something as if it were some personal entity capable of taking action or being held personally liable. I don't think that's a pedantic point, as stated in one of the comments above; why shouldn't the words used reflect the sourced evidence? The new wording doesn't substantially change the overall thrust of the statement, but it seems clearer (I'd argue it isn't more concise, because it's longer, but I don't see an issue with that) and, actually, more neutrally phrased. I would add, though, that User:My76Strat makes some good points, and I'd support his suggestions. Anaxial (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Support ANY change Responding to the RFC. While I don't object to the words "pseudoscience" and "astrology" existing in the same sentence, the proposed wording (and the current wording) is a caveat of mainstream smugness and scientific elitism, something that WP should avoid as bias. The current lead identifies astrology as a belief system: right there that tells the reader it is not mainstream science. A better approach than the proposed change would be to treat the issue like any belief system is treated, and avoid such smug protestations of rightness or wrongness. For instance, something like -- "Astrology had a long history as a science, but today is treated as a pseudoscience by most of the contemporary mainstream scientific community." -- would be a less offensive description of the same sentiment. — Sctechlaw (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  Edited to strike oppose and insert support any, also to support changing the current wording to anything better than it is now. — Sctechlaw (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Sourcing I have a copy of The Cosmic Perspective (an astronomy text book), a source we currently use in the article. I forgot about this chapter, but there is a section dedicated to astrology that we can use to support the claim that there's no evidence for astrological predictions.

  In hundreds of scientific tests, astrological predictions have never proved to be accurate by a substantially greater margin than expected from pure chance. Similarly, in tests in which astrologers are asked to cast horoscopes for people they have never met, the horoscopes fail to match actual personality profiles more often than expected by chance. The verdict is clear: The methods of astrology are useless for predicting the past, the present, or the future.

  — A cosmic perspective, 5th edition, pp86

Using an astronomy text book to help define the generalities of the topic is probably our best bet and we can then not have to deal with the cherry picking that comes along with minor results in this or that study. SÆdon 00:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm in agreement with the points that Sctechlaw made above. His suggestion "Astrology had a long history as a science, but today is treated as a pseudoscience by most of the contemporary mainstream scientific community" is all we need to say in the lede. It's a credible and reliable comment, and offers a clear and succinct summary of the points explored in more detail in the article. -- Zac Δ 02:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support change as outlined in the initial proposal; the text flows better in that version, in my opinion. It Is Me Here 15:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

a more serious approach to editing this article

I think it's disturbing how much freely-expressed ignorant contempt about astrology there is on this talk page. This type of poisonous bias spills over into the editing procedure, and leads to edit wars and headaches for administators. Perhaps the policy that wikipedia talk pages are not forums for general discussion of the subject should be strictly enforced here, because the editing process has clearly broken down. Perhaps wikipedia administrators will agree that editors who feel extreme disdain for a particular subject should make a point of not editing articles related to that subject.

Perhaps it would be useful to mention the view expressed by a reliable source, noted scholar Richard Tarnas, who took the trouble to work his way through the premises of astrology from the inside:

"I decided to examine the history and principles of astrology in earnest by reading carefully through the canon of major astrological works, from Ptolemy's summation of classical astrology, the Tetrabilios, and Kepler's On the More Certain Fundamentals of Astrology, to modern texts by Leo, Rudhyar, Carter, Ebertin, Addey, Harvey, Hand, Greene, and Arroyo....I found the symbolic principles associated with the planets at the core of the astrological tradition unexpectedly easy to assimilate, since they proved to be surprisingly similar--indeed, essentially identical--to the archetypes of modern depth psychology familiar from the works of Freud and Jung and their successors in archetypal and transpersonal psychology." (Tarnas, Cosmos and Psyche, p. 65)
--Other Choices (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the editing with respect to the article appears to be civil and productive. I don't think anyone has said they have contempt or disdain for Astrology, but that is irrelevant though. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to think Astrology is nonsense as long as they edit and discuss in accordance with wikipedia policies and guidelines; you appear to be of the opinion that only Astrology supporters can edit this article. I don't think it's acceptable to refer to the views of other editors as ignorant though as you have done. As has already been indicated earlier, the cultural impact of astrology (which is a different matter and unrelated to the scientific section) shouldn't stop us clearly stating in the wikipedia tone, the scientific consensus about astrology as a predictive tool etc, as we would do for any topic per WP:VALID,WP:BALANCE and WP:FRINGE. Edit: Also I'm not sure why you have moved this to a separate section when you are repeating the same points of the original. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, IRWolfie, for your civil response. It is clear that we have some differences of opinion, and also that you have misunderstood my opinion about who can edit this article. Being opposed to something is different from making personal rants on talk pages. I suppose you're correct that I shouldn't have used the word "ignorant." That tends to be unhelpful, even if many opinionated editors have absolutely no idea about what professional astrologers really do and talk about. I have no problem with clearly and forthrightly reporting the scientific consensus about astrology as a predictive tool. But my point was that focusing on the predictive element of astrology mischaracterizes the subject -- hence my citation of the "canon" of astrological works, which few of the editors on this page are familiar with. The major trend in astrology in recent decades has been toward its use as a tool for psychological counseling and personal reflection, NOT as a method of fortune-telling. The international astrological community has its own journals, publishing houses, and professional associations, and a lot of this material meets the wikipedia requirements for reliable sources. There seems to be a question of balance in the article, and that is why I decided to move my post to a new section. And please understand that I have no interest in arguing that astrology is "scientific."--Other Choices (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're hung up on the word "predictive" here. Predictive does not necessarily refer to the future. One can predict present or past events or conditions as well, as is, in fact, most often the case in science and academics.

And modern astrology is nothing but a form of divination; it has no other aspects independent of divination, except perhaps entertainment and fraud. When used in "psychological counseling" or "personal reflection", it is used solely as a form of divination, i.e., as a means to make predictions. Furthermore, it has no demonstrated value or validity in any of those fields, or any other, except entertainment.

The characterization of astrology as a form of psychology and self-improvement is nothing but the same sort of special pleading as calling it a form of religion. It is merely a ploy to deceive the gullible and uniformed public by deflecting criticism from the scientific and scholarly community.

As for "the international astrological community" and its journals, publishing houses, and professional associations, they are recognized by no one besides themselves, and are merely a fraudulent attempt to give astrology some form of academic/scientific legitimacy. Sadly, you've been taken in. Their journals and publications are completely worthless as sources, even about themselves because of their self-serving and in-universe nature.

The term "astrologer", when applied to modern practitioners, is also indefinable. Anybody can call themself an astrologer, and their claim is exactly as valid as anyone else's. Membership in a "professional" astrological association or completion of a course in astrology adds exactly zero to one's qualifications. A "professional astrolger" who has completed a university course in astrology at, for example, Trinity St David has no more legitimacy than a washed up circus fortune-teller.

I myself can make up a completely bullshit form of astrology based on the position of Uranus, for example, and validly claim to be the best astrologer in the world in total seriousness, as no one has ever been demonstrated in any sense to be a better astrologer than me.

Your claim that there is, or that there must be, anything whatsoever of value to modern astrology (besides entertainment) is not born out by the reliable sources. Like any other form of divinition, astrology remains complete nonsense until proven otherwise, and as yet, there is absolutely zero evidence.

As for calling skeptical editors like me "ignorant", that is certainly not called for. I have spent the last year sifting through the astrological literature and learning about the "astrological community", and I have a pretty sound idea of the topic, far better than most "astrologers". I have yet to see anything published by modern "astrologists" that is not complete and arrant nonsense, except perhaps some historical or lieterary analyses of classical and medieval astrology. And I have yet to see anything in independent reliable sources that characterize astrology as anything but complete and arrant nonsense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Try reading what Kuhn says on astrology in The Essential Tension. He's very good on the subject. He thinks it's wrong, sure, but he doesn't think it's "complete and arrant nonsense." Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he does call it nonsense from a scientific point of view, in that he considers totally non-scientific. His comment about astrology "particular failures did not give rise to research puzzles, for no man, however skilled, could make use of them in a constructive attempt to revise the astrological tradition" basically jives with what I have stated above, that anyone is as qualified an astrologer as anyone else. In a field where anything is permitted and it is impossible to distinguish arrant nonsense from anything else, everything is arrant nonsense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu, perhaps now is an opportune time to review WP:TPG, which says: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." This wikipedia guideline is being blatantly ignored around here by people like you. You are, of course, entitled to your personal opinions about astrology. One of the tricks to making wikipedia work is for people with strongly-opposed opinions to learn to at least grudgingly cooperate. The referenced wikipedia guideline has the effect of hindering chest-beating pompousity, which helps to preserve a spirit of cooperation.

Regarding your blanket disapproval of reliable sources (according to wikipedia standards) from within the astrological community about the topic of astrology, I don't think that your point of view will stand up to impartial review. It'll be an intersting discussion when somebody introduces a reference to such a source.--Other Choices (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering that Polisher of Cobwebs made the first statement not directly about the article it's hardly fair to call another editor up on WP:NOTFORUM etc for replying. As far as I can see people are in fact cooperating, I have found things to be remarkably peaceful on this article page, I think the discussions while sometimes heated are civil. Also considering you haven't made any suggestions for article content I'm not sure what you expect references to show. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

uh, Polisher of Cobwebs made a brief reply to an extended off-topic rant by Dominus Vobisdu. If we can get DV to behave himself, I'm sure we won't have any problems with PofC.

It seems that you failed to notice my suggestion for article content: Richard Tarnas's correlation of the symbolic meaning of the planets with psychological archetypes. Beyond that, Tarnas is a reliable outsider looking into the astrological tradition and providing us with a list of "top-quality" works within the corpus of astrological literature, many (if not all) of which meet the wikipedia criteria for reliable sources. I think that the wikipedia article on astrology should be open to inclusion of content from these sources listed by Tarnas. Finally, I provided a link to a scholarly treatment of Kepler's take on astrology. That is my first step in entering the current dispute over Kepler; I haven't said anything more at the moment because I want to think it through carefully -- haven't made up my mind who's right yet, probably won't get to it until this weekend.

--Other Choices (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Starting the discussion by an attack only served to divert the discussion, I don't think anyone has denied that content should be there describing Astrology or any cultural impact. Cosmos and Psyche, by Tarnas an american astrologer though, appears to make claims on astrology that are at odds with the mainstream assessment though and should be used with extreme caution: per the other wiki article which states: The core argument of Cosmos and Psyche rests on the claim that the major events of Western cultural history are consistently and meaningfully correlated with the observed angular positions of the planets. He is not the reliable outsider you have described. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I intervened on this talk page by pointing out the routine flagrant violation of wikipedia policy around here, which doesn't seem to bother you. Your characterization of the editing around here as "civil and productive" flies in the face of the fact that this article is under temporary protection (yet again) because of persistent edit warring. As an outsider on this page, it seems reasonable to suppose that this persistent edit warring is related to the routine violation of wikipedia policy on the talk page. I don't expect to be able to do much to improve this article until the ingrained dysfunction over here is addressed.

You refer to Richard Tarnas as an astrologer, but that's clearly a mistake. His wikipedia page identifies him as a professor of philosophy and psychology and a cultural historian. He is clearly "reliable," for wikipedia purposes, in areas related to his expertise. He has never been a practicing astrologer, and his book Cosmos and Psyche has nothing to do with traditional astrological techniques of horoscope interpretation. His expertise and training and career are all outside the astrological profession, which is why I used "outsider" to describe him in relation to astrology. His earlier book on the entire span of western philosophy, The Passion of the Western Mind, was a best-seller, so he is eminently qualified to look into the astrological tradition and identify the core writings of the field.

--Other Choices (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If you "don't expect to do much to improve the article", as you say, then this discussion is a waste. This is not the place to discuss editor conduct, or to change or clarify policy. RFCU, WQA and ANI are for the former, and the Village Pump or Reference desk for the latter. I have to agree with others that you're being unnecessarily confrontational. A lot of high-profile pages are semi-protected due to vandalism or persistent edit warring; PP is not directly correlated with the editing environment, as you assume. I think it's time to either make some concrete proposals for the article (and let others comment on them), or to let this go. There's no reason we need yet more drama, particularly when directed at specific editors.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I propose that the article mention Richard Tarnas's correlation of the symbolic meanings of the planets with psychological archetypes.--Other Choices (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Is there any specific wording you had in mind?   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my personal inclination would be to draw from the quote from Tarnas that I posted at the beginning of this section. I suggest inserting a sentence after either of the two locations in the current article where the phrase "psychological astrology" appears, with a sentence something like: Psychologist and philosopher Richard Tarnas has found that "the symbolic principles associated with the planets at the core of the astrological tradition" are "surprisingly similar--indeed, essentially identical--to the archetypes of modern depth psychology." (Tarnas, Cosmos and Psyche, p. 65)

--Other Choices (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's helpful. Thanks. If we included any content like that, we'd probably have to word it differently. For one thing, I'm not sure what that means. "The symbolic principles planets are identical to the archetypes of psychology"? What "principles of the planets"? What "archetypes of psychology"? How can planets be identical to psychology? This seems to be comparing apples to oranges, and at best we'd need more context to make this valuable to the reader. Second of all, we'd probably want to do a better job of attributing the claim. Saying "Tarnas has found that these things are true" is to say that they are, as a matter of fact, true. Instead, we'd probably want to say that Tarnas believes that they are true. We need to make sure we're assigning proper weight to the passage. Within Astrology, is Tarnas' view a majority view, a minority view, or a fringe view? What does consensus within Psychology have to say about Tarnas' ideas? I'm not incredibly familiar with Tarnas, so anything you can point me to regarding those questions could be helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Tarnas is extreme fringe both within astrology and within academia. He is one of Campion's clique, and, like Campion, champions an astrology that does not yet exist yet, but needs to be invented. He has a high level of disregard and disdain for astrology as it is curently practiced, which he believes is deeply flawed and causes harm to people.

In academia, his views on astrology are beyond the deep end- new agey to the extreme, and his views in "Cosmos and Psyche" have been widely rejected when they have not been completely ignored, as he himself states. He is a professor at the extremely wonky and woo-woo California Institute of Integral Studies, which had it's accreditation by the APA yanked.

I've listened to lectures by him, and it's like listening to that guy who gets stoned at the party and starts "philosphizing". Incoherent and embarrasing blither, worse than Campion when not constrained by peer review. Here's a good example, where he discusses "Cosmos and Psyche" and modern asrtology: ].

I would remind Other Choices that psychology is a science, and that any discussion of the psychological aspects or uses of astrology would require real academic and scientific sources. Cosmos and Psyche does not fit the bill by a long shot. Here's the Wall Street Journal review on the book ]. As far as this article goes, it is only reliable as a source about Tarnas' own views, which are so idiosycratic that they are basically useless. Any quote by Tarnas on the scientific aspects of astrology, including psychology, would have to come from a serious academic scientific source, preferably peer-reviewed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

An introduction to the psychological archetypes is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Archetype#Jungian_archetypes. The "symbolic principles" of the planets is simply their astrological meanings; see http://en.wikipedia.org/Planets_in_astrology

Tarnas is given a very serious ear within the astrological community. He has appeared at many astrological conferences, per the list here: http://www.cosmosandpsyche.com/pages/calendar/

As DV points out, Tarnas is definitely "fringe" within psychology. However, because of his definite notability, I think Tarnas's view is worth mentioning, together with a mention of reliable sources that disagree with him.--Other Choices (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that he should be used as being representative of the views of astrologers? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

He is definitely not representative of present-day astrological practitioners, for whom he has very low regard (a fact that is blithely overlooked or perhaps itnentionally ignored by his fans in the astrological community). And sorry, but the fact that he is given a very serious ear within the astrological community is irrelevant, as none in that community have the expertise or competence to evaluate scientific (psychological) statements.

We write wikipedia articles based on reliable sources written by independent experts that are recognized by the mainstream community. Especially with topics related to science and history, including psychology, we rely on REAL academic sources published in REAL academic outlets. If Tarnas has something to say about the psychological aspects of astrology, he is obligated to publish them in genuine academic outlets subject to genuine academic review. What he says elsewhere carries no weight outside of the astrological community, and most importantly withing the relevant scholarly (not-pseudoscholarly) community. As such, it should carry no weight here in WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

er, I'd hesitate to point to anybody as being representative of the views of astrologers, that's sort of like herding cats. But I think it is fair to say that Tarnas's association of planetary symbolism with archetypal energies corresponds closely to the views of psychological astrologers, who are as "mainstream" as it gets in the world of astrology. More generally, Tarnas's correlation of planetary aspects with historical events and shifts is completely mainstream among astrologers; he is sort of a "leader of the pack" in this area because most astrologers don't do historical research -- this whole area of astrology is outside their bread-and-butter of interpreting horoscopes for clients.--Other Choices (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: I wrote the latest post before DV's latest. In reply to DV: I think that the question of Tarnas's weight within the astrological community is immediately relevant to the wikipedia article on astrology.--Other Choices (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

But not regarding material related to science, where the opinion of the astrological community carries no weight itself, and their expertise is not recognized by anyone other than themselves. WP is not a platform for astrologers to present their version of astrology as they would like to see it presented. We present it as it is presented in reliable, INDEPENDENT sources, just like we present Intelligent Design or other forms of creationism.

Two big problems are that there is an absolute dearth of reliable sources on modern astrology, as few in the real world have bothered writing about it except to debunk it, and the lack of any figure within the "astrological community" who can be regarded as representative, as it's a free-for-all, every-man-for-himself type of field.

Tarnas is extremely unrepresentative, and belongs to a tiny clique of wannabe "serious" astrologers. Despite his academic background and the fact that he wraps his product attractively in pseudo-scholarly and pseudo-scientific language, his astrological "theories" enjoy no more support in the real-world academic community than those of a totally incompetent circus fortuneteller. They just look more mainstream. Don't be taken in by appearences. He's a garden variety crank and crack-pot. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I seem to be getting two things from this discussion. 1) Tarnas is accepted and respected within the Astrology community, and 2) Tarnas is fringe within the Astrology community. I don't know how both could be true; perhaps I've misread something. @OC, if Tarnas is a majority view within the Astrology community, then it should be easy to list common reference texts (such as discussions of the history of Astrology) which prominently feature Tarnas. If Tarnas is a minority view within Astrology, then he should be listed prominently by sources independent of him. Do we have either of those types of sources?   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Weirdly, both are true. Tarnas himself expresses deep disgust with modern astrology as it is currently practiced. Watch just about any video interview with him on YouTube, and you'll see that the disgust is quite viceral, accompanied by undisguised dsipesia. (See this video, for example: ]) He violently LOATHES the masses of astrological practitoners. He's trying to get astrology taken seriously as a legitimate science, and here are these ignorant charlatans pissing in his swimming pool. He wants nothing, but nothing, to do with them. Except for the attention and, let's face it, the cash it brings him.

The weird thing is that those ignorant charlatans bend over backwards to kiss his ass and sing his praises. They blithely brush aside the fact that Tarnas thinks they are charlatans that are hurting people, and are more than satisfied with the patina of "legitimacy" that Tarnas brings to astrology. They definitely have a vested self-interested reason for branding him as one of their own, whether they actually agree with him or not.

We've been over this before with Nick Campion, a close associate of Tarnas who likewise is disatisfied by modern astrology and believes that a new astrology needs to be invented on a "scientific" basis. Both Tarnas and Campion, however, have no qualms about wading neck deep in shit with the charlatans they despise if it butters their bread.

In fact, a swarm of Campion's minions held this article hostage for a year before a whole bunch of them were mass banned. The clique Tarnas and Campion belong to is quite small, at most twenty core individuals, if that. Most of them have genuine academic qualifications, and publish (legitimate, non-controversial) work on astrology (mostly historical or literary anaysis) in real peer-reviewed academic journals. Turn off the peer-review, though, and they turn into frothing lunatics, like Jeckyl and Hyde. It's embarassing to watch. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If we look at the comment that Zac made about the treatment of Pluto and Uranus by astrologers: Where are the astrologer claiming that all planets are equally important? Most argue that Neptune, Uranus and Pluto are 'trans-personal' planets and not of the same standing as the seven classical planets. , contrast this with the importance Tarnas places on Uranus and Pluto: . Then it appears the position of most astrologers is at odds with Tarnas. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

--@DV: the astrological community's attitude toward science, and their rebuttals of "scientific" debunking of astrology, are certainly relevant to the wikipedia article on astrology. Furthermore, WP:BALANCE requires that mention of such rebuttals be included in the article. There is an abundance of sources within the astrological community that meet the wikipedia guidelines for reliability and notability. As time permits, I'll start introducing them into the discussion.

--I'm going to share a thought on the "pseudoscience" tag here: Most astrologers don't even try to claim that astrology is "scientific" in the strict sense of repeatable experiments, etc. The mainstream view within the astrological community is that astrology is a symbolic language, and horoscope interpretation is more of an art than a science. Astrologers, individually and collectively, often do use an empirical approach when studying the endlessly shifting kaleidoscope of symbols, but this is balanced by the assumption that horoscope interpretation must take into consideration factors outside the realm of astrological phenomena, such as an individual's cultural background and his/her degree of spiritual development. It seems to me that "the "pseudoscience" tag is inappropriate unless somebody can demonstrate that the mainstream view among astrologers is that astrology is "scientific," which is definitely NOT the case.

--@DV and Jess: I agree that Tarnas is both respected and fringe within the astrological community, but I definitely disagree with some of DV's sweeping statements. The astrological mainstream embodies a strong urge to professionalize the discipline, combined with a thirst for respectability and an acute discomfort at the all-to-common opportunistic fortune-tellers and "pop" Sun-sign prognosticators who tend to give astrology a bad name. Once again, I strongly object to DV's over-use of pejorative opinions and generalizations. This habitual insertion of contempt for the subject serves to poison the discussion.

--@IRWolfie: You might be misinterpreting Zac's statement, which may have been poorly phrased. "Not of the same standing" is different from "less important," although astrologers typically consider people who are spiritually unevolved to be less likely to have consciously integrated the energies symbolized by the trans-personal planets. With that said, in recent decades there has been a clear sense within the astrological community of a difference in astrological function between the visible and the "transpersonal" planets. However, the recent discovery of Eris and the demotion of Pluto by astronomers of Pluto to the status of "dwarf planet" has caused a lot of (ongoing) re-evaluation by (western) astrologers, who are used to this sort of periodic upheaval in their system. A more recent trend is to lump the four gas giants into one grouping, subdivided into visible (from Earth) and invisible pairs. This, by the way, is something that might bear mentioning in the article, or perhaps in the article on western astrology.

--Other Choices (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification guys. It seems to me that this boils down to sourcing. I asked about sourcing in my last message for a reason; our first job is to assign weight to Tarnas, and the best way to do that is to examine how he is treated within the literature. @OC, you mentioned that you'll be introducing some sources. That will be helpful. Until then it's hard to tell. When you're looking through the literature, keep in mind that sources independent of Tarnas are important for us. Reference texts or academic literature would be ideal, but aren't entirely necessary.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I find Dominus Vobisdu's tendency to make sweeping and in some cases highly inaccurate statements offensive and out of place in this environment. I notice when IRWolfie said, 'Most of the editing with respect to the article appears to be civil and productive', it was prior to Vobisdu's posts. For example, 'none in that community have the expertise or competence to evaluate scientific (psychological) statements'. Really? So DV is aware of the qualifications, or lack of, of the entire astrological community? I think few of even the most sceptical of people would try to claim something so blatently untrue. Another factual error on the part of DV is in the statement that the practice of astrology is taught at the University of Wales Trinity Saint David. DV - can I refer you to the TSD website?

DV also refers to Richard Tarnas as 'one of Campion's clique'. What is your source for this uncivil remark? And in what way does Campion champion an astrology that does not yet exist but needs to be invented? You don't explain your rationale for this statement.

Like Other Choices I find your rant on 13 June offensive and unacceptable and in breach of the WP guidelines. I have heard of editors being banned from WP for less than this. Minerva20 (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Minerva, we don't need to personalize this dispute, and doing so will not make the conversation more productive. Editors are allowed to have opinions about the topic, and they're also allowed to express them. WP:TPG warns us against discussing the topic of the article here, but short of that, there's no serious problem with explaining the topic (particularly with links to sources included). Attacking other editors, on the other hand, serves little purpose but to inflame the discussion, and is dramatically off-topic from article improvement. It would be good of you to strike the comments. Short of that, let's please keep this civil and on-topic going forward. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Jess, I'm happy to take your advice. Bearing that in mind, what would be my best course of action when someone posts blatantly false information? How would you deal with that?Minerva20 (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking, you have a couple options. One is to bring the issue to the editor's attention at their talk page. That's usually a good thing to do first, before escalating a problem. Assuming good faith is always ideal when addressing these matters, and often you'll find that contention can be resolved just by discussing the issue civilly one-on-one. If that fails, you may wish to ask the advice of another seasoned editor you trust on their talk page; a neutral editor dropping in to provide advice can often help, especially if it's someone the "problematic" editor trusts too. If the problem is long-term, recurring and disruptive, it may be best to go to WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI. If the issue is a dispute about article content, see WP:DR (including WP:DRN). If it's a breach of civility, then WP:WQA. We have a lot of noticeboards for dealing with editor conduct, as you can see, which are intended to pull these issues out of articles and address them properly. In this particular case, I wouldn't personally recommend escalating the problem elsewhere, as I don't think there's been a serious breach of any policy. You're welcome to disagree with me, in which case you could start by following the steps I outlined above, beginning with a discussion on DV's talk about the matter. I would recommend, however, to consider whether this is a recurring problem likely to create further issues in the future; if it is not, then escalating it now, and creating more drama after the issue has already subsided, probably isn't the best way forward. Then again, that last part is just my opinion. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No jess - I've read through the above text and for my part I want to state here that I'm shocked by it, and do not want to be seen as someone willing to turn blind eyes to legitimate concerns. DV was completely out of order and most clearly acting against WP policiy in making unfounded allegations against living persons on this talk page - read that WP:TPG link again. You are out of order too, by implying that the editor bringing this problem to our attention is the one with the troublesome attitude, and the one who should strike through his/her remarks. Don't you understand that by implying that Minerva is personalising a dispute, when it is clearly Dominus Vobisdu who has done that, and Minerva is quite rightly bringing our attention to it, you are endorsing the out of policy remarks that DV has made and serving to perpetuate an attitude of selective bias in the application of WP policies? If you are concerned about editors going "dramatically off-topic from article improvement", well, why didn't you say something earlier when DV was making his long rants - noting that you were a part of the discussion and could have pulled DV back into line just as quickly as you replied to Minerva here. -- Zac Δ 16:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't editing WP at the time this discussion took place, but I agree that they are are out of order, apparently without subtance or foundation, and abuse the Misplaced Pages system by using this talk-page to make personal attacks. This comment was especially disgraceful:

We've been over this before with Nick Campion, a close associate of Tarnas who likewise is disatisfied by modern astrology and believes that a new astrology needs to be invented on a "scientific" basis. Both Tarnas and Campion, however, have no qualms about wading neck deep in shit with the charlatans they despise if it butters their bread. In fact, a swarm of Campion's minions held this article hostage for a year before a whole bunch of them were mass banned. The clique Tarnas and Campion belong to is quite small, at most twenty core individuals, if that. Most of them have genuine academic qualifications, and publish (legitimate, non-controversial) work on astrology (mostly historical or literary anaysis) in real peer-reviewed academic journals. Turn off the peer-review, though, and they turn into frothing lunatics, like Jeckyl and Hyde. It's embarassing to watch.

I am not within any of the "cliques" of astrological academia, but I am unaware that Tarnas and Campion move in similar circles - where is the support for the view that they are close associates?

DV, has done this several times now. See this link for when he repeatedly made similarly fanciful allegations - completely unfounded; and added others that falsely represented the activities of other astrologers and astrological associations. See my comments of 6 Dec 2011 on that page for how his reports are easily shown to be grossly misrepresentative when page diffs are checked.

DV - you report that you have spent the last year "learning about the "astrological community"". What do you mean by that? Has that learning come from study or personal involvement? If the former, it should be easy for you to show the verifiable sources that support your claims. If they have come from personal involvement, then can you clarify what relationships you have with these persons, to clear up any concerns about negative WP:COI. For example, are you a disgruntled student? Your willingness to infiltrate the inside details of a subject that you have only ever expressed deep hostility towards is troubling. Why invest your personal time and effort in such a deep-level connection with a topic you abhor, when WP doesn't require report of anything more than the reliable sources report? If you have reliable sources for these comments please provide them to show that you are representing known public opinion, or redact/remove in line with the instructions here.

If, on the other hand, your "insight" is based on nothing but your own unreliable subjective analysis based on personal experience, then WP is not interested. This only causes concern that your efforts to maximise the sceptical views on astrology and redue anything that is non-sceptical are not rational, but emotively driven, and pursued against the WP's interests to build objective and reliable details into its pages based on a neutral reports of what the sources say.

This is not the first time you have done this; but it has to be the last and it has to be put right quickly. WP has strict policies against repeatedly inserting unfounded allegations about living persons and they apply to talk pages just as much as front end pages. To spare the agonies of long controversial disputes, I will not be commenting again on this matter here. It is for DV to put the matter right and I hope he acts quickly to remove potentially defammatory material from this page. If not then we need to take this to the judgement of adminstrators to ensure the proper procedures are followed -- Zac Δ 16:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank You Jess, for the list of options available to deal with false statements. I note the post by Zac saying that this has to be the last of them by DV. If it is, I am happy to follow your advice and not escalte the issue this time. If more false and misleading statement are posted however, I shall the course of action you advise above. I understand that editors are entitled to voice opinions, but it's not DV's opinions I took issue with. Minerva20 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have left a notice on DV's talk page, alerting him to this and asking him to readup on WP:TALKNO -- Zac Δ 16:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"Astrology and Science" website

I'd be interested to know if others think the following is a reliable source: self-published by an acknowledged expert in the field: http://www.astrology-and-science.com/hpage.htm --Other Choices (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliability is also dependent on what you want to do with it. That is why at WP:RSN they always ask what the suggested text is (Some sources though are so unreliable as to be unusable for anything). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Astrology and Science" is not a source. It's a website that hosts various documents, some of which are potentially reliable sources for information by WP standards, and some of which are more or less useless. Like IRWolfie said, the real question is "reliable to support what?".

The website's main value is as a tool for finding sources, and also as a source of biographical data. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV in the "modern scientific appraisal" section and the lede

It seems that parts of the "modern scientific appraisal" section are written from the perspective of the sources cited, and not from a neutral point of view.

For example, the section now reads that Georges Charpak and Henri Broch "dismantled claims from parapsychology and astrology" (implying wikipedia endorsement of their project, and directly violating WP:NPOV's directive not to quote from participants in a heated dispute). Perhaps it would be sufficient to change "dismantled" to "criticized" or "attacked," removing the quotation marks from the phrase.

The section further states that these authors "noted" that astrologers don't take into account the precession of the equinoxes. Once again (aside from the embarrassing incompetence of this particular criticism), the word "noted" implies wikipedia endorsement of the views of Charpak and Broch. I think "stated" or "asserted" is more neutral here.

A similar issue pops up in the lede, with the bald statement that astrology "is" a pseudoscience. The way the lede is currently written implies wikipedia endorsement of the explanation of why astrology is a pseudoscience given in the two footnotes to the sentence. I think that neutrality requires us to say something like "scientists routinely dismiss astrology as a pseudoscience..." --Other Choices (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The entire point of NPOV is that WP takes the perspective of the sources cited - that's literally what "neutral" means in a WP context. Further, there is no heated dispute as to the merits of astrology anymore than there is to the merits of flat earth theory or intelligent design. There is a minority WP:FRINGE who hold ideas that contradict the mainstream of scientific discourse by pushing a pseudoscientific view of the universe - that's all. SÆdon 01:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have a serious disagreement about the meaning of NPOV. Could you please explain your contention that WP should "take the perspective of the sources cited"? Could you please provide a quotation from WP:NPOV to support your view? My impression is that you are dead wrong, but I don't mind learning if I am the one who is mistaken.

Regarding the "heated dispute," I am simply amazed that anybody could deny that there is a heated dispute between scientists and astrologers concerning the merits of astrology. It seems that the only way you can make such an assertion is by denying the existence or relevance of the views of the astrological community about their discipline.

--Other Choices (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Take your pick. The entire policy as written states that we represent the content of reliable sourcing without editorializing our own views; so if a source says X then we report X. Re point 2: a dispute between one group who represents a scholarly body (scientists) does not have validity with the views of a non-scientific, WP:FRINGE minority. I'll point again to the flat earth example: there are vocal critics of the spheroid earth theory, but because they are a fringe minority we don't treat them the same that we do geologists. SÆdon 01:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A few things to remember. WP is written to represent the consensus of experts in reliable sources. Not all experts are equal, nor or all sources.

We give a lot of weight to statements by real qualified academic experts in the relevant field with real academic qualifications presented in real academic publications, especially when the statement is representative of the consensus in the field and have been subjected to real peer review. Impact is another factor to consider, with authors and publications that are widely cited carrying more weight than more obscure authors and publications.

We give little, if any, weight to self-proclaimed or sham experts that have little or no standing in the real academic community that are self-published or published in non-academic publications or sham journals, especially if their views represents a minority or fringe views in the relevent real academic field, if they have not been subjected to real peer review, or if they have had little impact on real scholarly discourse.

With that in mind, there is essentially no controversy about the merits of astrology among real experts in the real scholarly community, especially in the relevant scientific fields. The overwhelming opinion is that astrology is pseudoscience and does not have any merit to speak of. There may be some controversy over exactly why astrology is pseudoscience, but the fact that it is pseudoscience is essentially non-contested, and can be presented in WP's voice.

The opinions of astrologers about the validity of astrology do not carry much weight in the actual debate within the scholarly community, and therefore are assigned little weight here on WP.

Astrologers do form associations that appear to be "professional", "academic" or "scientific", but we do not recognize the legitimacy of these associations and publications if they are not recognized by real scholars and they do not play a significant role in real scholarly consensus.

Last of all, astrologers are not considered experts in astrology just because they are astrologers, or because they say they are experts. There expertise has to be recognized within the relevent real scholarly fields.

Whether they are considered experts by themselves, by their "in universe" colleagues, by sham "in-universe" pseudoacademic or pseudoscientific associations, or by the general public is largely irrelvant. In matters related to science, whether they are considered experts by journalists in the popular or pop-science presses also carries little weight.

The opinions of those astrologers who, like Tarnas and Campion, have real academic qualifications carry a lot of weight when published in real academic publications, expecially if they have been subject to real peer review. When they self-publish or publish in sham journals, non-academic publications or sham publications, their opinion carries much less weight, especially if it represents a fringe view that lacks appreciable support within the real scholarly community, or if they are opining outside of their genuinely recognized fields of study.

As for philosophy and religion, these are genuine scholarly fields of study with real academically recognized experts who publish in real academic publications. The opinions of real experts in those fields published in real scholarly outlets counts for much more than the opinions of self-proclaimed experts publishing in non-scholarly outlets.

Finding reliable sources on modern astrology is greatly hampered by the fact that it is basically ignored by the real scholarly community, and few authors have published high quality reviews in peer-reviewed sources. To deal with that problem, we have a policy called WP:PARITY, so that we can use non-peer-reviewed sources to present the mainstream opinion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@Saedon, I think the key phrase in your reply is "without editorializing our own views." It seems to me that, in the three examples that I identified, wikipedia is taking an editorial stance instead of simply reporting what reliable sources say. Do you disagree?

@Dominus Vobisdu, I think the key phrase in your reply is "real qualified academic experts in the relevant field." Where are the academically qualified experts in the field of astrology? Scientists decree that astrology is a "pseudoscience."

However, a fundamental part of the definition of "pseudoscience" (as prominently mentioned in the lede to the wikipedia article on pseudoscience) is the claim that a discipline or theory is "scientific" in the modern sense. Part of the problem here is that there is an older definition of science (as prominently mentioned in the lede to the wikipedia article on science), which applies to astrology's traditional self-description, simply because astrology is so old that astrologers have been defining their discipline as a "science" since before the modern distinction between the two meanings existed. Astrology's self-identification with the older definition of "science" is prominently featured at the American Federation of Astrologers website.

In other words, astrology makes no claim to be "scientific" in the modern sense. For this reason, it seems obvious that when academically-trained scientists pass judgment on astrology, they are venturing outside their area of expertise into a subject where they know little or nothing.

I'm sure that the "pseudoscience" label for astrology has been debated here at wikipedia in months and years past, but I have no idea if discussion of the issue has dealt with the points I mention above. If not, then perhaps this whole issue needs to be revisited.

I recognize the point you bring up about the proper handling of fringe topics here at wikipedia. However, that is a headache for another day, not immediately related to the three NPOV issues that I brought up at the beginning of this section. You are welcome to share your opinion on my three objections to the current wording of the article.

--Other Choices (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There are indeed real academic experts in astrology, and they do publish real peer-reviewed papers on astrology. A good example is Nick Campion, who has published on the history of classical and medieval astrology. Others have published textual or literary analyses, again generally of classical and medieval primary documents, or on the role of classical and medieval astrological symbolism in art and literature.

Sadly missing are peer-reviewed comprehensive overviews of modern astrology. In fact, there is a surprising dearth of information in real academic publications, and those that exist are mainly concerned with debunking scientific claims. Suprising, I say, because there are abundant academic sources for creationism and Intelligent Design, which are just as nonsensical as astrology. It is therefore very dificult to judge what modern astrologers believe, how they operate, what are the significant movements, and to assign weight to them. We are left with very low-quality sources published by astrologers themselves in non-academic venues, most of which is so hopelessly biased, self-serving, promotional or apologetic that it is essentially useless for our purposes. It's also very difficult to assign weight to them, as they are rarely, if ever, mentioned in serious scholarly discourse, being discussed solely within the "astrological community".

However, a caveat: when these genuine experts publish without the benefit of peer review, they sometimes transform into blithering idiots. Campion and Tarnas are good examples (watch their lectures and interviews on You Tube). Without peer-review, their expertise counts for very little, and there is no test that can be used to distinguish their ramblings from run-of-the-mill blither by non-experts, or even schizophrenics, expect perhaps the choice of vocabulary. It's still blither, just dressed up in impressive sounding pseudoscientific and pseudoacademic language. The part about their being no test is particularly important, as the usual test we use here on WP is whether opinions are significant in scholarly discourse in a serious and substantial manner based on reliable independent sources per WP:FRINGE.

As for your contention that astrologers often claim that astrology does not makes scientific claims in the modern sense, that much is true. However, the claim itself is false. They routinely do make claims that are fall within the purview of science, and scientists are most definitly not "venturing outside their area of expertise into a subject where they know little or nothing" when they evaluate such claims. Your argument to that effect is invalid.

Furthermore, astrologist routinely present astrology as having scientific validity to the gullible and uninformed general public (the author of the "Astrology and Science" website you mentioned above being a very rare exception). When their claims are shown to have no scientific merit, as has always been the case, they backpedal by claiming that astrology is "philosphical", "psychological" or "religious" in an attempt to evade scientific scrutiny.

That defense, however, is merely an self-serving, intellectually dishonest sham, and cannot be taken at face value. Most astrologers do indeed think that convincing the public that astrology is academically or scientifically valid is a high priority because the general public does indeed put great store in academic and scentific validity.

That is why astrolgers dance around figures like Tarnas and Campion who have standing in the academic community and who lend a patina of scientific and academic legitimacy to astrology. Or why just about any site promoting astrology blatantly appeals to scientific figures like Kepler, Newton, or even Sagan, who they (falsely) depict as supporting astrology. Or Freud and Jung, like Tarnas does. This is particularly true for the group of "serious" astrologers by whom you seem so enamored, like Tarnas, Campion and Hand.

As for the wording of the article, the sentence that "Astrology IS pseudoscience" is totally justified by WP:FRINGE. You don't have a case there.

With the "dismantled" quote, I agree that it should not be presented as a quote. However, the words you suggest, "criticize" or "attack", do not square with the source, and the latter is POV. "Debunked" would be a better term. And yes, we can say that they debunked the claims in WP's voice per WP:FRINGE. As I said above, there is no real controversy about the validity of the claims of astrolgers among real experts within the real scholarly community.

As for "noted", I don't see a problem with it, and both of your suggestions are inadequate, with "asserted" being both false and POV. I wouldn't have anything against replacing it with "concluded", though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu, you once again push strongly-worded opinions (like "self-serving, dishonest sham") that I think are unsupportable, and your tone is often objectionable.

I would be interested in seeing some backup for your contention that astrologers "routinely make claims that fall within the purview of science." It seems like the most basic scientific test would be for a skeptical scientist to study his own horoscope in relation to what he knows about himself. Of course that would require some knowledge of the basic workings of astrology. Is there any body of peer-reviewed literature regarding scientists discussing the validity (or lack thereof) of their own horoscopes? Have YOU performed such a test on your own horoscope?

Regarding the article's summary of Charpak and Broch, it currently reads: "They noted that astrologers have only a small knowledge of astronomy and that they do not take into account basic features such as the precession of the equinoxes which would change the position of the star signs with time."

What is the relevance of astrologers' "small knowledge of astronomy" to the debunking of astrology? Astrologers are concerned almost exclusively with the movements of the Moon and planets, and have no need to know a lot about astronomy, which deals with the entire universe. Furthermore, you should know that the bit about the precession of the equinoxes is pure bunk, because western astrologers use the tropical zodiac, which fixes the beginning point of the zodiac in relation to the Sun on the vernal equinox, completely divorced from the constellations from which the signs of the zodiac derive their names.

--Other Choices (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The claim that Georges Charpak dismantled claims from parapsychology and astrology was written by Nature, one of the most reliable sources in science that exists, if you wish to remove it though I am ok with that but I think it's a nice quote in the obituary. On the issue of balance, I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience in particular, but also WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI and WP:VALID, we don't pretend views have equal validity on Misplaced Pages by what we say or by omission, we don't act as if something isn't pseudoscience and omit the scientific details: Pseudoscience may be significant as a social phenomenon, but it should not obfuscate the description of mainstream scientific views. It sounds like you are using original research to counter a reliable source. I also notice you say western astrologers, not all astrologers. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, a scientist judging the quality of their own horoscope, would be a poor non-blind sample size of 1. Rather tests have been performed: Astrology#Carlson.27s_experiment. This leads to an interesting point which is not developed in the article, the ambiguity of horoscopes and the use by some of cold reading. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you IRWolfie, I have been coming up to speed on those wikipedia policies for the past couple days. I am particularly impressed by the reminder that wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, not a scientific point of view, but I also realize that wikipedia should avoid giving undue weight to fringe views. With that said, the astrological community's collective view toward certain issues that have generated heat from scientists bears mentioning, and such mention is allowed by wikipedia policy (within the usual constraints about sources, of course), and balance seems to require some sort of mention.

In the case of Charpak's embarrassing blooper about the relevance of the precession of the equinoxes, my observation is not OR but rather a basic fact universally known by anybody with a basic knowledge of astrology. Yes, I mentioned western astrology, because Hindu astrology still uses the old sidereal zodiac, as opposed to the innovative tropical zodiac popularized by Ptolemy. This information is such a basic, obvious feature of astrology that there is already a wikipedia article on the subject here. Charpak made a raving ass of himself, and then the blithering idiots at Nature demonstrated the abysmal depths of their ignorance, too. Maybe we should leave that stuff in the article as a monument to the ingrained arrogance and stupidity of scientists.

Regarding the Carlson experiment, that seems ambiguous at best. In my opinion, this is a perfect example of where a brief mention of the astrological community's response is in order. If and when I come up with a source, I'll share it here.

--Other Choices (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No sorry, that is not how wikipedia works. We don't use poor sources to counter reliable and peer reviewed scientific sources. By writing from a neutral point of view we don't omit or marginalize the scientific details and should not obfuscate the description of mainstream scientific views. You specifically talked about poisonous bias and the freely-expressed ignorant contempt about astrology but now appear to be talking about blithering idiots and the ingrained arrogance and stupidity of scientists. This appears highly hypocritical. I note you also suggested that individuals who have only contempt for something should, in your opinion, refrain from editing on that topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Also note in the article: Hindu astrology uses an adjustment, called ayanamsa, to take into account the gradual precession of the vernal equinox (the gradual shift in the orientation of the Earth's axis of rotation). Western astrology does not make this adjustment. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, it seems that you are resorting to mischaracterizations to avoid answering the content of my earlier post: the blatant error of Charpak (reinforced by the unfortunate quote from Nature) that is currently enshrined in the article, despite the relevant wikipedia article elucidating the subject. I understand that here at wikipedia we summarize reliable sources; we don't pass judgment on their truth content. So I support retention of the Charpak reference, but I think a rebuttal from the astrological community of this ignorant smear (or at least a clarification of the issue at hand) is definitely in order.

You observe from the Sidereal and tropical astrology article that western (tropical) astrology doesn't make an adjustment for the precession of the equinoxes. That is the essential difference between sidereal and tropical astrology (hence the title of the article). You seem to have misunderstood this point. Tropical astrology, following Ptolemy, fixes the starting point of the zodiac with reference to the Sun (not the constellations), eliminating the need for an annual adjustment. Some might argue that the western system is therefore "artificial" in that it divorces the astrological signs from the astronomical constellations. Be that as it may, Charpak's handling of this building block of western astrology is just plain incompetent.

Your opinion about how wikipedia works is open to question; you might be partially or totally correct. I've been slapped down by other editors on other pages, but upon review it has generally turned out that I was at least partially right. Communication between the two of us has been rather testy, but it has remained civil. May it continue that way.

--Other Choices (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Scanned source

Okie, I have scanned the two pages out of The Cosmic Perspective, 5th edition, an astronomy text book, into PDF format. They're the only two pages that deal with astrology in the book. Going over our available sourcing options this seems to be our best bet for the science section as it's a respected undergraduate tertiary source and thus will help us alleviate the problems caused by "contradictory" secondary sourcing per WP:TERTIARY. For the sake of making it easier for all of us, I'm willing to email you the PDF if you send me an email though the WP system (you can't send attachments through email using WP so you need to email me first and I will respond directly). The science section needs an overhaul, and the lede pseudoscience section is still a problem, though since no one closed the RFC I don't know what consensus has determined and since I'm involved I won't attempt to read it. SÆdon 22:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the following two sentences:

"Scientific tests of astrology have never found any evidence that its predictive methods work."

"Some astrologers do not make testable predictions at all; rather, they give vague guidance about how to live one's life."

However, this book repeats the error of Dr. Charpek (see the end of the previous section above), and then goes on to make unsupported suppositions about the significance of the discovery of Neptune and Pluto, ignoring the overwhelming consensus explanation among western astrologers about this topic. A relevant astrological source for this is Liz Greene's book, The Outer Planets and their Cycles.

I suppose this textbook is a good reality check for the content of the "modern scientific appraisal" section -- the article gets it pretty close to the textbook.

--Other Choices (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The consensus of Western astrologers (what ever that means) is simply a case of special pleading and compensation for the fact that their "theories" inconsistent and illogical. When we have a respected academic work broadly condemning an entire topic and then giving specific examples as to illogicalities, we don't defer to the astrological "consensus" because no such consensus exists and even if it did it would be contradicting a much more reliable source. There is no central governing body of astrology, and there are no objective methods by which astrologers come to their conclusions, so it's impossible to say what the astrological "consensus" is; astrologers believe in different things individually and there is no way to gauge consensus in a system that doesn't have the aforementioned qualities.

I think something that some people here may not be grasping is that people who practice astrology are an incredibly small and fringe minority. Yes, the uneducated layman may believe in his horoscope and may even call a psychic/astrology hotline every once in a while. But the people that actually deal with astrology as a large part of their lives is likely less than even adherents of the anti-vaccine movement or proponents of the idea that aspartame is government mind control. I recommend watching this episode of South Park to get an idea of what "astrologers" look like to the outside world. SÆdon 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have the book as well so I can work from it. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I will probably boldly attempt a rewrite later today and see what people think. Currently there is a noticeable absence of studies on Astrology in the section. I think the Cosmic Perspective can be used for as a tertiary source introduction, with comments etc by famous scientists in a subsection (it's easier to see what works when the text is there). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've found some interesting studies etc (by looking through those who cite Carlson) which raise interesting points, but it will take me a lot longer to work through them and get something for the article than I thought. Looking through them there seems to be sufficient grounds to expand the section. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Potential sources

Some possible sources: This article discusses some more about Astrology and Astronomy and gives more details of the Carlson experiment: . It seems insightful and a good source to work with. Possible sources: . The majority of sources appear aimed at dealing with the Psychology of why people believe in something false. There was research into whether people emulate the characteristics of what they believe the star sign should be like, such as this one and references therein , also . Possible sources but I don't have access: , comment by Maddox , . Rates Astrology as a Personnel selection technique ("obvious quackery") .

Study by JH McGrew et al, A scientific inquiry into the validity of astrology Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1990. Not a reliable journal but the individuals are psychologists, they engaged with Astrologers who helped design the experiment, which they then failed. Not that well cited. Probably not suitable but might pass WP:PARITY. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

While my first edit is done on this. Note that I am not near completion and I will keep working on this with the different sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a cartoon image from NASA that was already uploaded to wikipedia, it's probably the closest thing to another free image that makes sense for the section. I don't really mind if it's removed (I was just being WP:BOLD). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Popper. IRWolfie- (talk)

astrology "the oldest of the sciences"

I added a brief quote from the American Federation of Astrologers, citing their opinion that astrology is "the oldest of the sciences." This was reverted by Dominus Vobisdu, restored by Polisher of Cobwebs, and reverted again by Dominus Vobisdu.
Here is edit summary for DV's first revert: "Fuck no. No consensus for this, and extremely POV." Here is the edit summary for DV's second revert: "Get consensus on the talk page first per WP:BRD. The opinions of astrologers on the scientific merits of astrology are completely irrelevant. Material is HIGHLY POV."
To answer DV's concerns: first of all, this quote has nothing to do with the "scientific merits of astrology." If you bother to read the Science article, you will notice that the word "science" has two definitions, and the cited website is clearly using the older definition, which has nothing to do with modern "scientific merits." Learn some basics, please -- and clean up your potty mouth.
Secondly, regarding DV's complaint that this is POV: the language I added was a neutral representation of astrologers' professional association's point of view ABOUT THEMSELVES, at the wikipedia article on astrology, which I believe is acceptable per WP:SELFSOURCE.--Other Choices (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that there can be a broad definition of "science", but this statement is at best an extreme-minority view, whichever definition is taken. By the way, why not sociology or biology, if you want to speculate about what people discussed round their camp fires in the later Palaeolithic? Or theology, or materials science with particular reference to pigments? If you want to argue that it should go in clearly attributed to the American Federation of Astrologers, to show the kind of things that astrologers say, then maybe. If it really is notable and typical of what astrologers say. It cannot possibly go in in Misplaced Pages's voice. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with amending the sentence to read, "The American Federation of Astrologers states that..."

My rationale for adding this quote is as follows: The word "pseudoscience" very clearly implies a claim to be "scientific," so it makes sense to include an example of what astrologers actually say about themselves to go together with the "pseudoscience" sentence.

It seems to me that balance demands some sort of explanation of why astrology is considered a pseudoscience. The wikipedia AFA page states that astrologers had pretensions to "scientific" status back in the 1940s. But things have changed, so the "pseudoscience" tag might be a bit out of date, not that we can do anything about it here at wikipedia.

--Other Choices (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Using the quote to contrast with the characterization of pseudoscience would be synthesis, see WP:SYN. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would, but contrast isn't the purpose of the quote. It simply provides an example of astrologers using the word "science."

--Other Choices (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many creationists who like to imagine that intelligent design is a form of science, but that view is so WP:FRINGE that it does not warrant a mention in an article on Misplaced Pages (except in an article on what creationists think). In the same way, a statement to the effect that a group regards astrology as a science can only occur in an article on the views of that group. Johnuniq (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless that group is representative of the views of astrologers in general. And as by far the oldest professional astrological association in the United States, the AFA would seem to have such a claim.

However, I don't think your "intelligent design" comparison works, because those people want to believe that their theory is scientific (as the word was used by Dominus Vobisdu above), while the AFA is making a very different statement with its use of the word "science." There is an issue of semantics here that is very easy to get tangled.

--Other Choices (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You have five seasoned editors with a lot of experience editing controversial articles, namely IRWolfie, Saedon, Itmejudith, Johnuniq, and I, disagreeing with you. The appropriate response is to spend a lot more time listening than talking, and to hit the books and bone up on WP policies and guidelines. Like this one: WP:IDHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Answered in detail on Other Choice's userpage, but, just for the record, the edit was in gross violation of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and, whether intentionally or not, was disruptive. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I cited the relevant wikipedia policy in my answer to Dominus Vobisdu's post on my talk page. Other than that, Dominus Vobisdu is entitled to his personal opinion, which I will carefully consider together with the opinions of everybody else who has shared their view. Regarding DV's statement that "five seasoned editors disagree with me," I have answered each editor's particular concern. They may or may not agree with my answer, but it is not DV's place to assume that they disagree before they have shared their own replies to my responses to their concerns. DV's behavior seems to be incredibly presumptuous.

--Other Choices (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is fine to give astrologers' view on astrology, as Other Choices has attempted to do. Cla68 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Then your opinion is not consistent with how WP treats pseudoscientific topics per WP:FRINGE and WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision. SÆdon 20:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you go further than your opinion though and give a policy based reason? In my opinion it isn't fine, but if I don't elaborate why, then my opinion is worthless and should be discounted (see the essay WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT). Adding the text here is a very clear synthesis: . It is stating what is said in one source, then it says the word but and uses what is verified in another sentence to contrast that. That is clearly a synthesis, look at the examples at WP:SYN. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I could go on record stating that I'm the majority shareholder of Microsoft, but I expect if someone wrote a biography about me they would omit such a lie unless they were trying to ridicule me. Having this in our article makes it seem like the position is valid; since it's obviously not true we would be irresponsible in publishing it SÆdon 20:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If this does go in, it will not shed particularly good light on the astrological community but it is an official statement by a major body in the field, and that is their problem. It must not be juxtaposed to the scientific position, that would be a synthesis leading to an argument that is not to be found in any mainstream literature, i.e. that both positions are equally valid. Linking with "but" is completely wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Putting the sentences beside each other is also a synthesis because the only reason the two sentences would be placed like that would be for the contrast of the two sentences (you can say we would be changing the implication of the sources if we did that). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also a perfect example of WP:VALID. SÆdon 21:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Protected

Just off protection and the edit war continues. I've protected it again. Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the RfC. As there had been no editing for a few hours before the RfC was closed, and none after it was closed, I've unprotected the page. Please play nicely now or it will be protected again and of course more edit warring could lead to blocks. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

celestial vs planetary

On this diff , we should be using the astronomy terminology (possibly with a note on astrology terminology) to avoid confusion (probably using the term solar system objects or similar). We don't need to use fringe terminology in the encyclopedic tone when there is mainstream terminology for it already. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. We write WP using normal scholarly English, not fringe in-universe jargon or code that has no meaning out of the fringe universe. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Explain the specialist terminology of astrology, but explain it in ordinary modern English. "Heavenly body" might do. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say "based on the positions of the sun, moon, planets and other celestial objects at the time of their birth" Terry Macro (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps for the sake of simplicity, it would be best to just say "the sun, moon, and planets," because that is the dominant feature of astrology. Otherwise, for the sake of strict accuracy, it might best to modify by saying "...other celestial objects and mathematical points," because astrologers (both western and Hindu) use the nodes of the moon when casting horoscopes. Western astrologers also have historically also used derivitive points, the Arabian Parts.

--Other Choices (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It is more accurate, as you say, to state "based on the positions of the sun, moon, planets, other celestial objects and mathematical points," - for the sake of a few words, a better encompassing statement is made. ," Terry Macro (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What does "mathematical points" mean? I suspect this term will be opaque to the uninitiated. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If editors at this article want a different wording than "planetary", I'm fine with that - as there seems to be consensus for a different wording. I was just a bit miffed to see the established wording changed without discussion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, discussion is not required before making such changes. Indeed, editors are encouraged not to discuss before making wording changes such as this.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

mathematical points are common in astrology. Astrological influences are not limited to actual physical bodies. There are many instances of using mathematical points in astrology, and Arabaic parts is one such area. In Arabaic Parts, a point may be defined as the addition of the longitudinal diffence between the sun and moon added to the longitudinal position of the ascendant. There are numerous points based on this type of system. Probably the most famous mathematical points are the moons north and south nodes, which when conjunct a full moon or new moon results in an eclipse. However these nodal points always exist somewhere regardless of eclipses and have astrological connotations. Each planet also has nodes. The moon rotates around the earth in an elipse which has two focal point, with the earth located at one focal point. Some astrologers use the other focal point as an astrological influence. What all this means is that astrology is not limited to physical bodies, defined points in space also have astrological influences in astrology. Terry Macro (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

As these points are defined by the positions of the sun, moon and planets, it is superfluous mentioning them here, expecially in the lede. I'm not sure whether it's worth elaborating on them at all in a top-level article. "Sun, moon and planets" suffices for the purpose at hand. OR "sun, moon and other celestial/heavenly bodies. OR, for that matter, simply "celestial/heavenly bodies". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Celestial/heavenly bodies" is poor style. Please let's not use that wording. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to one or the other, not both seperated by a slash, which is redundant, and, as you pointed out, poor style. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"most astrologers make claims that the position of all the planets must be taken into account"

Saedon, you state that it is impossible to say what the astrological consensus is, but right now the article states, in the voice of wikipedia, that "most astrologers make claims that the position of all the planets must be taken into account." How can any scientist know what "most astrologers" claim if it is impossible to know what the astrological consensus is? Your statement appears to be inconsistent with the wording of the article. Do you see a problem here? Furthermore, the article's statement, as currently written, is western-centric, because Hindu astrologers ignore the outer planets. (Are there more Hindu astrologers, or more western astrologers? That affects the balance when summarizing the views of "most" astrologers.) Perhaps you and other editors will agree that this sentence needs to be re-worded.

Finally, western astrology has been grappling with the problem of integrating the periodic discovery of new planets and other bodies (like Chiron) for over 200 years, and the community of astrologers, over this period of time, has developed a unified explanation that you apparently can't believe exists. I haven't seen the book yet, but Peter Whitfield's A History of Astrology most likely covers this subject. It was written by somebody who is "agnostic" toward astrology (per amazon.com here, so should meet wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.--Other Choices (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If he is agnostic about Astrology as you put it that probably makes him a non-neutral source considering the large body of evidence against Astrology. It is similar to claiming that someone who is agnostic about natural selection, despite the evidence, is neutral to write about it. I am also a bit skeptical of claims of outsiders who are reliable, especially considering Tarnas above who it turns out is an astrologer himself. Also it is not a good idea to accept to much off the opinions of customers on Amazon, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Bias isn't the issue. Book is for a popular audience and fails WP:HISTRS. A scholarly review . It might be OK for the present-day practice of astrology, not for early modern period or before. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the line, please suggest a way to change it. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't write the article so I'm not surprised that an analysis of mine would be inconsistent with it. I would suggest the article be changed to reflect that astrology was historically a belief system that focused on the positions of the planets. I'm generally of the opinion that the article shouldn't have more than a paragraph describing modern astrology in the west and another for astrology in the east. As I've explained before: though many people may read newspaper horoscopes and some others may call astrologer 900 numbers, those who call themselves "astrologers" are an incredibly fringe minority, usually involved with other various new age hippie garbagings and not worthy of mention, no matter how many "journals" they publish. SÆdon 02:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

But there is a multiplier effect, with the views of astrologers passing through their students and former students (many of whom purchase astrology books -- one "bestseller" sold 80,000 copies) spreading into society at large.

Here are specific thoughts for improving the sentence in question:

How about, "...most western astrologers make claims that the position of all the planets must be taken into account." The problem, of course, is that the source doesn't say "western." Is it permissible to add "western" in this context? Should wikipedia reflect the western-centric bias of the source? This is why I think this sentence shouldn't be in wikipedia's voice.

To take the sentence out of wikipedia's voice, how about, "Scientists conclude/state/point out that most (western) astrologers make claims..."

--Other Choices (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, anytime someone in the West is talking about astrology they are doing so wrt the standard Greek manifestations and the like (consider e.g. The Stars Down to Earth by Theodore Adorno or the textbook pages I sent you), and it's never referred to as anything but "astrology." This is problematic for us because ideally a source should distinguish "western" astrology from say Vedic or Chinese, but if no sources do that then we're in the odd position of having to refer to the Western version as an unqualified generality and having to distinguish other forms by their country of origin. This of course smacks of Western bias. I'm not sure what the solution is. Perhaps something like "Astrology as practiced in the Americas and Europe." But is that true? Does Greek based astrology have a popular following anywhere else (and is it popular in Europe? I don't know. I lived in Germany and France and can't remember anyone ever asking me my sign like they do in the States). SÆdon 03:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There should be a way to qualify the agency along the lines of among those astrologers that believe <statement>, they failed to predict Neptune...etc. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a well-established astrological community in Great Britain. Don't know about the rest of Europe, but the largest online astrology service, Astrodienst, was founded in Zurich by the German physicist (!?!) Dr. Alois Treindl. (There's the fun fact for the day.)

Regarding Greek and Hindu astrology, we need to keep in mind that in recent decades, Hindu astrology has gained a following in the United States, where some astrologers employ both systems. The leading American astrology magazine, The Mountain Astrologer, generally has one article on Hindu astrology in each issue, with an editor who specializes in Hindu astrology.

@IRWolfie, you refer to the "large body of evidence against astrology." I know of no such body of evidence; in my opinion the "modern scientific appraisal" section of this article is a bad joke from start to finish. I would be pleased to discuss the reasons for this assessment of the "evidence against astrology" on my talk page if you or anyone else is interested.--Other Choices (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the "evidence against astrology", visit something like . Otherwise, please suggest how to improve the article. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There are is a massive amount of studies etc out there, it's just a matter of intergrating them into the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@TippyGoomba: my previous post was written in answer to Saedon's question about the relative weight of Greek vs. Hindu astrology, which came up because of the issue of the western-centric bias of the relevant sentence in the article. Perhaps you have a suggestion about how to deal with this specific issue. (I will give a thoughtful answer to the comment you made on my talk page as time permits.)

To further discuss the question of whether "most" astrologers follow the modern variant of the Greek system, India has a huge population, and if every village has its local astrologer (which I understand to be the case; it's an ingrained part of the culture), then the number of Hindu astrologers vastly outweighs the number of western astrologers.

@IRWolfie: I'll respond to your point about the scientific studies on my talk page together with my response to TippyGoomba.

--Other Choices (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

When I said please suggest how to improve the article, I didn't mean please explain why you're not suggesting how to improve the article. My request still stands. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, since you insist, I think the simplest solution would be to simply delete the sentence in question. However, I didn't want to appear too pushy with that suggestion, preferring to give the others the opportunity to weigh in.

As an alternative, we could mention a reliable source (published by Penguin Books) that mentions a case where astrologers DID predict the discovery of a celestial body Chiron, as well as explaining the general astrological principle relating to the discovery of new planets. However, the author in question is a practicing astrologer without any advanced academic degree, and my impression is that such a source would be considered unacceptable by the majority of editors here.

--Other Choices (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, sources aren't declared to be inherently reliable, it depends what you do with them. You just said this book (I don't know which one) was a reliable source, but then followed by saying it is not a reliable source. It also directly contradicts other more reliable sources if what you say is true. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought your initial argument was that Astrology doesn't make testable predictions: don't you remember saying I would be interested in seeing some backup for your contention that astrologers "routinely make claims that fall within the purview of science", and now, directly contradicting that you are saying that it does in fact make falsifiable predictions and that you have an example. Which is it? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You suggest deleting the sentence. Do you not think it's important to mention? You alternatively suggest adding additional, tangentially-related information. The information does nothing to address your initial issue. It appears as though you're attempting to counterbalance this failure of astrology with a success. Can we get back to addressing the initial issue you mentioned?

You are correct that the author you suggest isn't a reliable source. In fact, were he to have every relevant degree he would still not be a reliable source. This is because scholarship is not based on decrees by authorities. Degrees or not, the author is free to publish his findings in a peer-reviewed journal. TippyGoomba (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie, the key word here is "routinely." The two predictions in the source I mentioned weren't routine, but rather extraordinary.

@TippyGoomba, my proposed addition clearly isn't viable, so I withdraw it. That leaves us with my suggestion that the sentence simply be deleted, unless somebody wants to propose specific language to improve it.

I do not think the point is important to mention, because it is inaccurate and highlights the ignorance of whoever made it. I will be pleased to explain my view in more detail on my talk page if anyone is interested.

The sentence as written is pregnant with unstated assumptions about astrology, relying on the presumption of scientific authority to convince the reader of a point that is not clearly made. It's simply a bad sentence.

And finally, the source for this sentence is over 30 years old; there is no reason to believe that it reflects contemporary astrological opinion or practice.

--Other Choices (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This is looking more and more like a shell game. You now propose to delete it on the basis that it is factually incorrect. You think that astrologers did predict Neptune? Or that we should not have expected them to? Please provide a source. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No, this isn't a shell game, but more issues are coming up, some of them off topic. I do NOT propose to delete it on the basis that it is factually incorrect; but rather I answered your question about my opinion about the point's importance by pointing out that it is inaccurate (and therefore unimportant). Please don't confuse my answer to your question with my reasons for proposing the sentence's deletion, which are the sentence's western-centricity and the fact that the source is over 30 years old. I could add my opinion that the point is not clearly expressed, either in the source or in the article. I brought up my suggestion to delete the sentence after it became clear that nobody was inclined to propose a specifically-worded improvement. --Other Choices (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We have sources in the article that are 2000 years old, why is the age relevant? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Influential/Non-influential Dichotomy

A while back I made a newbie edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Astrology&oldid=485730185) to address what I consider to be a significant division in astrological belief systems. While I understand the rationale for its removal, it disturbs me the existence of the dichotomy is still hidden. I accept the fault may be mine for not creating this talk section sooner, but I'm not interested in spending a large amount of time learning to dot every policy i and cross every academic t to get the existence of the dichotomy published. Perhaps someone already facile in such nuances who reads this could trivially augment my work such that the dichotomy could take its rightful place in Misplaced Pages. Or maybe someday I can attempt to please the authority structure with my humble scribles. David L. Craig (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It's wikipedia policy that things be verifiable to references, see WP:RS for more information. Misplaced Pages can't be the publisher of original thought. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv.usa: I have to agree with IRWolfie that your contribution seems to be original research and therefore does not have a "rightful place" on Misplaced Pages according to WP policies. Try your luck at an astrology site such as Astrowiki: ]. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had the opportunity to contribute lately, but just accessed Misplaced Pages and found a note addressed to me on my talk page, dated 14 June, which asked me to check some comments here. There's a lot to catch up with and I'll have to wait until I have more time to contribute fully. For now I'll just say this - the above remark by Dominus Vobisdu is unhelpful. David L. Craig explained he made "a newbie edit" and if the only suggestion DV can offer is to go off elsewhere he is doing no more than telling people that their attempts to contribute are not wanted and not to be tolerated. This contributes nothing towards facilitating the editing process on this page. If there was any point in DV’s contribution it was made in the first 13 words - the rest is indulgence in incivility. Until that sort of arrogant 'ownership' ceases more than "good luck" will be needed to sort out the editorial problems connected to this article. Implying that someone's contribution "does not have a "rightful place" on Misplaced Pages according to WP policies" is doubly ironic when the suggestion fails to adhere to one of the five policy "pillars" of WP or the principles highlighted at the very top of the page:

• Be polite, and welcoming to new users
• Assume good faith

-- Zac Δ 14:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Zac, have you considered contributing to Citizendium? Their astrology article is woefully inadequate. Skinwalker (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As short is that article is I actually think it's much better than our article. I wouldn't adverse to importing it and building on that instead of what we already have. It doesn't appear as though they have been marred by the type of POV pushing and bickering that has lead to our article's problems (e.g. using simple English words in their astrological context). I urge other editors to take a look and consider this. SÆdon 23:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm not talking about scrapping our entire article and replacing it with that, just importing their version to replace parts of the lede or other areas where we're lacking. SÆdon 00:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Assume good faith, David L. Craig appears to also acknowledge that it was original research. We can't accept original research on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Gee, I'd love to take credit for original research here, but in fact I was taught this in public elementary school in Montgomery County, Maryland, USA in the late '50s. If I could remember the exact grade, I could cite the teacher. So nobody considers the signs in the heavens reference as significant, hmmm? Clearly, I am only an egg in these parts.David L. Craig (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll check out my Mother-in-law's circa 1960 Encyclopædia Britannica—maybe it still had acceptable references to a concept that doesn't appear to have any staying power in this learned publication (one could start to wonder why...). David L. Craig (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"Fascinating, Captain. Google lists pages of 'signs in the heavens' hits in Misplaced Pages that no longer exist in the text." David L. Craig (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what—I'll just call this a CWOT, as you can't fight City Hall, eh? David L. Craig (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It gets worse. I just noticed all my explanatory notes are GONE from the edit. Just how widespread is this type of alteration of the record? I am deeply grieved by such shenanigans and my good opinion of Misplaced Pages has been severely burned. David L. Craig (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) There might be a technical explanation for the disappearance of your notes. Depending on how long ago, they might have been archived where they would still be available. My impression is that this astrology article was weighted too heavily in a pro-astrology direction last year, and more recently the "science crowd" has been throwing their weight around a lot. If you decide to stick around and edit on other articles as well, then perhaps you might be able to eventually help promote a neutral point of view on this page.

For whatever it's worth, although I don't agree with the current editorial bias on this article, there is a reason for it in the bigger picture of what wikipedia is trying to achieve. However, the end result is that the science crowd has made a parody of itself here at the astrology article. In the long run, with patience and willingness to communicate, hopefully a better balance can be attained in the article.--Other Choices (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you decide to stick around and edit on other articles as well, then perhaps you might be able to eventually help promote a neutral point of view on this page.

That's the problem, isn't it—deciding to stick around. Thus far, as I said, this bids pretty fair to be a CWOT because agendas incongruous with the primary goal of the publication—present the pertinent facts to fairly educate the reader implicitly trusting in the publication's integrity who seeks to become well-informed about topics—are not dealt with swiftly. It is inconvient truth, rather, that is swiftly eradicated, with search and destroy missions mounted as needed. It is clear, in this subject area at least, biased agendas to deceive readers control what those readers read and the highest editorial level is either complicit, ignorant, or impotent. If a topic has a history of agendas hijacking what the readers see, it should be monitored and edited at the highest level to ensure objectivity. Why is this subject not so handled? When I get a solid explanation, I'll consider investing further time here as well as perhaps updating my fair promotion of Misplaced Pages on my website. Am I displaying good faith? Is Misplaced Pages? David L. Craig (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand (and share) your indecision Daniel, and don't have any answers to your questions. As I've posted on this page, I think this is the kind of subject where the usual WP approach to open-editing becomes most problematic. To give up on it? Very tempting ... The ultimate solution, I hope, is to ensure that we fairly and properly report the notable facts and commentaries that that have been made about this subject elsewhere. Whatever the readers own inclination - they will have their own biases for and against the subject too - the objective should be good quality summary accounts, substantiated by credible refrences that the reader can explore further if they wish. I hope you can help by contributing to the process. -- Zac Δ 16:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class astrology articles
• Top-importance astrology articles
• WikiProject Astrology articles
• B-Class Occult articles
• Unknown-importance Occult articles
• WikiProject Occult articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• High-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics