Talk:Astrology

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

The four groupings found at WP:PSCI Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more consideration. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Please read before starting First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Astrology article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: NPOV: Pseudoscience NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines. These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE). Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

This article is undergoing revision. A proposed draft is located at Talk:Astrology/Workpage.

Definition of astrology The statement that astrology 'is' divination is misleading because it ignores the Aristotelian tradition of western astrology as natural influence. (See John North, 'Celestial Influence – the Major Premiss of Astrology’, in , Stars, Minds and Fate: Essays in Ancient and Medieval Cosmology, London, The Hambledon Press 1989, pp. 243-98; David Pingree, ‘Astrology’ in Philip P. Wiener (ed.), Dictionary of the History of Ideas (New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973), Vol. 1, p 118-126.). It also fails to account for radically different views of what divination is. I would suggest replacing this statement with a definition of astrology, such as Patrick Curry's, which might then in turn lead to a discussion of astrology as different phenomena - as magic, spirituality, science, pseudo-science, art, religion, psychology, or any of the other descriptions of it. Curry wrote: ‘Astrology is the practice of relating the heavenly bodies to lives and events on earth, and the tradition that has thus been generated’ (Curry, Patrick, ‘Astrology’, in Boyd, Kelly (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Historians and Historical Writing, 2 Vols. London: Fitzroy Dearborn 1999, Vol. 1, pp 55-7 (p. 55)). By the way, I see no reason why this page can't be improved without controversy by balanced attention to both scholarly and primary sources.Paul Quigley (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.2.93.209, 24 April 2011

Please remove qualification (condemnation) from old resources cited opinion, attitude and view of astrology (which is not information, but declaration of view), as not neutral and not true.(false., one statement):

Astrology is a system of divination founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies are signs of or—more controversially among astrologers—causes of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events.

and please replace with:

"Astrology is a system of founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies are symbols in correlation to personality, human affairs, and natural events. Founded by astrological notion : As above so below."

and please replace :

"In its modern form, it is a classic example of pseudoscience."

with this true information:

"Some of skeptic and religious description of astrology believe that astrology is pseudoscience"

Reason for replacement is: point of view is part of public view, not represent true information, and come from people without objective information in field or knowledge in field, false information, wrong subject, partial view of subject, misinformation. Reason for deletion original "pseudoscience" term is: astrological symbols are part of human culture, and methodology can not be copy of scientific, false scientific 2000 older than term pseudo-scientific. Also, astrology can not be in whole picture of some uninformed person, nor one part of this big and large human activity.

I suggest changing the introduction to more fully encapsulate the essence of what astrology is. I propose

Astrology is the practice of relating the heavenly bodies to lives and events on earth, and the tradition that has thus been generated.

I would cite Dr Nick Campion and Patrick Curry as references, both of whom are also historians. It is false to say that astrology is founded by the notion 'as above so below', as this statement only emerged from the Corpus Hermeticum and clearly astrology by far predates that. Xpaulk (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

78.2.93.209 (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV. It is not the purpose of articles to be balanced between two points of view. It cannot give undue weight to fringe theories. Until you have some scientific evidence that one can predict anything based on the stars, then it is absolutely a pseudoscience. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You say "It is not the purpose of articles to be balanced between two points of view. It [e.g. this article about astrology--/BN] cannot give undue weight to fringe theories."

WP:UNDUE would apply to a discussion of astrology in an article that is about some other subject. But this article is about astrology. One of the complaints about astrology is that so many people give it credence. But even if only a tiny minority believed that astrology had validity, it would merit an article in Wikipedia if it met the test of notability. WP:UNDUE says that "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." This is an article that is devoted to astrology. To claim that the very subject matter of an article has undue weight amounts to a challenge to the existence of the article. The appropriate tool for a challenge to the existence of an article is WP:NOTE. But the notability of astrology is not questioned. Bn (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't deny the mainstream viewpoint about a Fringe subject just because it's a Fringe article. But Bn is right that we don't give it that much attention either. This article currently has a decent amount of the critical response to astrology, but the better solution to that is to increase the amount of content about astrology, not to remove the noteworthy criticism. Notability was being used as a shorthand for Weight--reliably sourced content deserving mention. Ocaasi ^c 02:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Makesense: your point of view seems to be that, if astrology is no longer categorised primarily as divination then it will represent a victory for those who think it is a science and consequently a defeat for those who think it is a pseudoscience. But surely there are other alternatives. Astrology doesn't have to be divination in odrer to be wrong. Neither does saying it is not divination mean that it is a science, anymore than saying that poetry is not divination makes it a science. We can't refer to the WP page on Divination for help, because the opening sentences of that are a complete muddle and, anyway, it has been noted that 'the attempt to gain insight into a question or situation by way of a standardized process' is a barnum statement which incldues pretty well everything. I really think that we should work from the primary and scholarly sources. There are plenty of both which say that astrology is divination and plenty which say that it isn't and I think that the WP article should reflect the whole picture rather than part of it. What about astrology as magic? That's not divination. Neither, as David Pingree pointed out, was classical and medieval Aristotelian astrology. I suggest we have consensus to make a change which would begin with a general definition and then consider sub-definitions. Thi sis primarily a historical execise and not one which should be seen as part of a war aganst pseudo-science. After all the page isnot concerned with scientific truth claims. And if it should move in that direction then we can deal with it.Paul Quigley (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

definiton of astrology

I am proposing to change the first sentence which makes the misleading claim that astrology 'is' divination, in line with my post of 20 june on this page. Does anyone wish to comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Quigley (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with an assertion that astrology 'is' divination. A claim that divination works would be another matter. I think that the rest of the sentence makes clear that it is 'presumption' rather than fact - so I don't see the need for change. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely, though, the issue is not whether you have a problem with the statement that astrology 'is' divination. Plenty of commentators, bith critics and supporters of astrology, dscribe it as divination. The issue for an encyclopaedia article is whether this decsribes the whole picture. If an astrology of natural influence practiced within an Aristotelian context has no need of the divine in any sense, how is that divination? We need to look at the bigger picture in which astrology can be divination, but is not necessarily so. I'm pasting in four other definitions below, all sourced, which illustrate the problem

Concise Oxford Dictionary, Clarendon Press 1952. (Formerly) practical astronomy (also called natural ~); art of judging of reputed occult influence of stars upon human affairs (judicial ~)

David Pingree, ‘Astrology’ in Philip P. Wiener (ed.), Dictionary of the History of Ideas (New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons), Vol. 1, p 118. ‘the study of the impact of the celestial bodies - Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the fixed stars and sometimes the lunar nodes - upon the sublunar world... The influence of the celestial bodies is variously considered to be absolutelydeterminative of all motions of the four sublunar elements (Aristotelian physics is accepted as the basis for describing this influence...’ http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaBook/tei/DicHist1.xml;chunk.id=dv1-20;toc.depth=1;toc.id=dv1-20;brand=default

‘Astrology’ in Chambers Encyclopaedia, Intellectual Learning Systems, London 1970, p 724. ‘Astrology (Greek astrologos, ‘science of the stars’) in early times was a comprehensive term for the study both of the motions of the heavenly bodies and of their supposed influence on human and terrestrial affairs’. Paul Quigley (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Astrology is divination in the sense that the reading of mere physical traits of relative planet location are taken to indicate personalities, life-choices, and human events. For those who don't think astrology follows physics, divination is exactly what that entails. For those who think there is a 'deep connection' that is ultimately physical, astrologers are still divining what the physical evidence means. For those who think astrology has a hidden mechanism of 'aristotelian' physics, well, they have yet to prove it with modern physics, and the gap between the belief and the proof is exactly where divination resides. So, my comment is that only if we were to assume the conclusion that astrology is real and science-based would it be appropriate to exclude divination from the definition. I don't think it is. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ocaasi that divination should not be excluded, though if it is to remain somewhere in the Lede it should be related to the various alternative models of astrology. As Paul Quigley correctly states divination is only part of astrology and does not adequately describe the entire field of astrology. So divination is inappropriate and misleading as the sole initial definition of astrology.

As stated on the Astrology page (see Mechanisms section), divination is one of at least three possible mechanisms for astrology. Though apart from within natural astrology (tides, weather, seismic activity and planet-sunspot activity) these mechanisms are not yet known. However, merely obtaining data via an unknown mechanism does not define a practice as divination.

Divination entails obtaining supernatural insight into the future through access to a higher force or divine power. This can be through a raised state of consciousness or even a trance such as clairvoyance or clairaudience or clairsentience. Or the insight comes via what some would label a random activity and others a manifestation of a higher or divine source which includes the Tarot, I-Ching, Runes or even Tea-Leaves. Though some consider ESP to be a natural sixth sense, all these practices are commonly considered divinatory.

Divination is not just a possible mechanism. Astrology can be used in a divinatory way or can be viewed as originating from the operation of a divine force. However, most astrologers work as you know with a predictable scientific model of the solar system measured in 2D space and time. To most astrologers, including software programmers like myself, this operates according to the workings of Newtonian and subsequent celestial mechanics rather than by divine intervention. Whether you consider that astrologers reach conclusions that can be supported by objective evidence or whether it is purely subjective or simply imaginary, their technique is mostly through interpreting objective data consciously. This process is usually both logical and intuitive. However, intuition is not the same as divination. Robert Currey talk 09:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"Divination entails obtaining supernatural insight into the future through access to a higher force or divine power". Not unless you have a reliable source for that, it doesn't. It may sometimes be based on an assumption that this is what is happening, but that isn't the same thing at all. Unless evidence can be provided that demonstrates how (if?) astrology works, it is divination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Divination, "the art or practice that seeks to foresee or foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge usually by the interpretation of omens or by the aid of supernatural powers" (Websters).[1] It is an accurate description. TFD (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting excluding divination as an explanation for astrology, for some forms of it, such as Babylonian astrology are based on communication with divinity, and both some modern practitioners and commentators say that it is divination. However, I think the article needs to begin with a broad definition that allows for different approaches, practices and truth claims. I don't think that any definition of astrology caries any implication for its truth or not, only for the nature of its claims and philosophies - I don't think that to exclude divination from the the initial definition means that it is real and science-based, only that it includes different truth claims and forms of practice some of which claim natural influence or do not require divinity.Paul Quigley (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You are misreading the definition. It does not matter if the mechanism that allows astrologists to access hidden information is supernatural or could be explained by yet unknown physical causation not yet explained. The point is that no physical laws have been advanced. It could be similar to folk medicine, which in many cases is beneficial but the witch doctor does not know for example that the remedies include active ingredients rather than mystical properties. TFD (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So the argument goes that the entire field of astrology is best described as divination because the mechanism which is not, as yet, known can only be termed supernatural, regardless of what the proponents theorize, claim or believe.

This is not consistent with situations where evidence precedes a known mechanism. Before Louis Pasteur was able to confirm germ theory, there was no claim that the evidence from Ignaz Semmelweis that hygiene reduced mortality was as a result of supernatural forces. Or that Wegener’s theory of continental drift was caused by supernatural forces, even though the mechanism was not known and is still debated among geophysicists and geologists. When a scientist forecast that the Pacific tectonic plate was likely to continue to move in a westerly direction, was that divination? Nowadays, though a few believe that supernatural or divine forces fill the gaps in the Big Bang theory, most scientists researching the field believe that the unknown forces within the Universe like quantum gravity or dark energy will be accounted for by natural laws.

So when labelling a field, it is misleading to put one theory above the competing claims, theories and the beliefs of the proponents whether we agree with them or not.

For the record, I consider that most but not all astrological correlations have no known mechanisms. Robert Currey talk 18:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Your entire argument is based on the premise that there are mechanisms. As such, it is of little relevance until the mechanisms have been demonstrated to exist. You cannot assert that 'astrology isn't divination' by making predictions about it being proven to work by some as-yet-unknown mechanism at some undetermined point in the future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Scientists may observe connections between seemingly unconnected phenomena and seek to explain them, always being aware that the apparent connection may be coincidental. But astrologists do not operate that way. And no there does not have to be a conjecture of supernatural or divine forces in order for it to be divination. Notice the use of the word usually. U S U A L L Y. It means not always, but most of the time. TFD (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I believe that most social scientists would class astrology as a form of divination, and this is a proper use of the word. But really, this argument should be resolved through sources. If recent studies of astrology categorize it using other terms, we should consider those too. Note 90 is not a historian/anthropologist/sociologist of religion or the occult, and does not seem to use the word divinationSlrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

AndytheGrump – I am not claiming “astrology isn’t divination” just that not all astrology is divination and not all astrologers practice divination. It’s not about whether mechanisms exist or will be shown to exist or not. For our purposes here, this is unknown. The point is that some astrologers attribute repeating correlations to a supernatural or divine force that can never be truly known or defined by science, while others consider there are unknown causal mechanisms and others consider it accausal. To claim that it is all divination is a value judgement favouring one of at least three competing beliefs. It is not our place to side with one view point especially when we are defining a field.

TFD – I hope I have not misunderstood your points.

Your first point appears to be that rules for scientists don’t apply to astrologers because they lack critical thinking. This is not correct - a number of astrologers work on an empirical basis. However, everyone including scientists and astrologers can confuse coincidence with correlation and correlation with causation. (This deserves a fuller answer, but it is getting off-topic and I would be happy to elaborate on your Talk Page).

“there does not have to be a conjecture of supernatural or divine forces in order for it to be divination” My understanding from this is that you are implying that someone like a stock market analyst may believe they are being logical and intuitive when they are really tapping into supernatural powers and therefore practicing divination? Unless you can provide objective evidence for supernatural powers, we cannot ignore the belief or claim or techniques of the forecaster.

“I believe that most social scientists would class astrology as a form of divination” Excuse my scepticism, but doesn’t this distinction advance their claim to being scientists?

My point is that as the sole definition of astrology, divination is at worst inadequate and at best contentious. Divination was only arbitrarily (IMO) inserted in March this year just after six editors with astrological expertise were banned from this page for the crime of presenting an inconvenient truth with a little too much enthusiasm IMO. So there has never been a full and fair discussion. Following the proposals by Paul Quigley and Slrubenstein, we should now consider alternative, broader and more modern neutral definitions of astrology. Robert Currey talk 11:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Technical analysis of stock markets has been accused of being similar to astrology. It is of course possible to provide scientific analysis to the claims of astrology, but astrologists do not do that because no test could consistently show any connection between heavenly events and terrestial activity that could not be explained by existing science. TFD (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

TFD - You raise a lot of points that I have discussed extensively and intend to do so on this page or elsewhere. I agree with some and on others I believe you are perpetrating popular but unsupported myths. However, I now think we are splitting hairs in relation to the original point. This conversation would be more relevant at some stage in relation to a much-needed review of the astrology and science section. It's now time to look at verification with references. Robert Currey talk 12:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Hi Slrubenstein, rather than saying 'I believe that most social scientists would class astrology as a form of divination', can you give sources and then we can discuss them. My point is that we need to be working from the best sources. Now, regardless of whether there is any truth or validity in astrology or not, it needs to be represented properly, and if it is defined simply as divination and if divination requirs some supernatural agency, then the entire Aristotelian tradition in western astrology is ignored. In Aristotelian celestial mechanics the cosmos operated on the basis of causes and influences, with no necessity for any divine agency. In medieval Islam, and in Europe from the 12th to 17th centuries the naturalistic rationale for astrology was crucial as it protected astrology from religious disapproval. The Aristotelian definition for astrology is given by David Pingree as follows: ‘the study of the impact of the celestial bodies - Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the fixed stars and sometimes the lunar nodes - upon the sublunar world... The influence of the celestial bodies is variously considered to be absolutely determinative of all motions of the four sublunar elements (Aristotelian physics is accepted as the basis for describing this influence...’ David Pingree, ‘Astrology’ in Philip P. Wiener (ed.), Dictionary of the History of Ideas (New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons), Vol. 1, p 118. http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaBook/tei/DicHist1.xml;chunk.id=dv1-20;toc.depth=1;toc.id=dv1-20;brand=default There is a wikipedia page on Pingree. Also, I recommend LeMay, Richard, Abu Ma'shar and Latin Aristotelianism, Beirut: American University of Beirut, Oriental Series no. 38, 1962. North, John, 'Celestial Influence – the Major Premiss of Astrology’, in , Stars, Minds and Fate: Essays in Ancient and Medieval Cosmology, London, The Hambledon Press 1989, pp. 243-98. Can we move the discussion on from unsourced claims and work from sources. Hi this post was from me Paul Quigley, I don't know why it didn't sign my namePaul Quigley (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you may want to look up the word "but" in the dictionary. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I apologise, I was too hasty in reading your post. I appreciate your pointPaul Quigley (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is interesting (and my fault, since I added divination during the definition discussion a few months back). Our article on divination defines it as "The attempt to gain insight by way of a standardized process or ritual". I can't see how that definition doesn't fit even the more rigorous and technical astrological approaches. I think giving credence to the possibility of a mechanism while the conclusions are nonetheless taken for granted is the essence of divination. Nobody who practices reiki knows how the energy is transmitted but they operate on the assumption that it is. This element of practice preceding understanding is common to the paranormal arts. It's also, fairly, part of frontier scientific fields to a degree--but the difference is that those fields have a way to explore the connection and people who are working seriously at doing so (and those people are published, peer-reviewed authors). Astrology, a few isolated individuals aside, is not an art in search of a mechanism; it's a systematic process of divination in which the root correlations between planetary position and human behavior are assumed. (Hi Robert! Sorry we meet again at cross purposes... hope things are going well for you). Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Divination being "The attempt to gain insight by way of a standardized process or ritual" seems to cover astrology, but is this definition too broad to satisfy the distinctions this article tries to make? Aren't standardized processes used throughout science to gain insight? One has to wonder how for example Watson and Crick (using Franklin's data) could have gained insight into the structure of DNA without standardized processes. Are our insights into DNA, hence all the implications for genetics and personality, then the product of divination? Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi, all well thanks and you?

Further to the point made by Ken McRitchie, my problem with divination as The attempt to gain insight by way of a standardized process or ritual is that it is a Barnum Statement – in this case meaning all things to all professions from scientific research to accountancy. Also the source from a relatively unknown anthropologist in a specialist book on African Divination is not very solid.

Our problem in seeking a definition for astrology is that astrology can be loosely placed into many arguable categories, but the entire field does not naturally fit into any one.

Even if we go against the historical tradition of astrology and most practitioners and even if we ignore the evidence from natural astrology (tides, weather, seismic activity, sunspots) and assert that astrology operates by supernatural forces, astrology still does not naturally fit into divination. For example, astrology is distinctly different from other forms of divination in that the source of the data (planetary movements) is objective, permanent, universal and not random and the interpretation is subject to rules that require years of study rather than being a 'gift'. Most astrologers stick to astrology, while most psychics use a variety of divinatory techniques like tarot or clairvoyance and their use of astrology is usually limited to sun signs and using the chart as a medium for divination rather than interpretation and analysis.

We can look at classifying astrology, (here I am loosely interpreting your proposals) as a practice based mainly on subjective interpretation of objective data without known mechanisms and without an organised quest for a mechanism. This definition places astrology closer to ‘alternative’ medicine or even psychology rather than divination.

The point is whichever way we try to define astrology, divination is insufficient and as such misleading.

Can we do better with a broader definition from a reliable source? Paul Quigley has put forward some well sourced definitions which we should consider. I don’t have access to any modern encyclopaedias. Ocaasi, which references did you use for divination and are they the ones cited on the page? Please can you also provide us with other references to which you referred when you selected divination as the best option so that we can also consider them here? The present definition cites:

• Pingree, David (1973). "Astrology". In Philip P. Wiener. The Dictionary of the History of Ideas.
• Price, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Classical Myth and Religion. Oxford University Press, 2003

Does anyone have the original wording from Pingree and Price? Does it include divination? Robert Currey talk 11:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused - why is it so important to pin down a definition of divination here? The discussion topic heading says 'definition of astrology'. The subject of divination has its own WP page: [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 03:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right - looking for a definition of divination is either a tangent or an excuse for original research. All we need is a reliable source on astrology that classifies it as a form of divination. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So now I am more confused about what this discussion aims to achieve. Why not follow the reliable source suggested, or find one that meets everyone’s approval, rather than search for an alternative that defines astrology in a controversial or confusing manner?

The point made is that divination is an element within astrology, it is not the definition of astrology or the sum of everything astrology is. I have a leg but that does not mean I am a leg.

Astrologers who, say, look for patterns in sun-spot activity or correlate planetary cycles with weather extremes or financial trends would not admit to taking a divinatory approach. Gauquelin’s observation of the angularity of Mars within certain personality types is of astrological interest, but it wouldn’t find inclusion in the Wikipedia article on Divination.Zac Δ talk 19:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, so you know where I'm coming from - I have an interest in astrology. That interest is mainly in the history and divinatory branches of astrology. The suggestion of astrology being divinatory does not offend my interest in the slightest. But it is incorrect.

With respect Ocaasi it is also misleading for readers of the main page, who will not have followed your rather complex and subjective argument in detail. Your defence of the statement "Astrology is a system of divination" makes sense according to what you think, but only based on your particular understanding of a certain sense of the word 'divinition' in a certain way. (22nd June) If the comment in the lede is unsatisfactory to several contributors here, it would be better to find another that evades that issue whilst adhering to WP policy of being referenced to a reputable, reliable source. (I realise this is exactly what Slrubenstein has been saying) Zac Δ talk 20:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Zachariel. Thre word "divinatory" is not the best description of astrology as it pushes astrology too much into the esoteric direction. For example the internationally recognized researcher of premodern science, Dr. Otto Neugebauer in "The Exact Sciences in Antiquity" states "Compared with the background of religion, magic and mysticism, the fundamental doctrines of astrology are pure science." p 171 Terry Macro (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but we're no longer in antiquity. In the modern era, astrology *is* esoteric. The non-esoteric part split off as astronomy centuries ago. — kwami (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, your comment is sounding like WP:OR. Astronomy has always been integral in astrology and astrologers have never ethno-cleansed astronomy from astrology. Otto was not talking in the past tense - he stated "... the fundamental doctrines of astrology *are* pure science". We don't have to interpret scholarly insights. Terry Macro (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Then he's an idiot. Modern astrology has nothing to do with science, except as pretense. And since modern astronomy is a science, astronomy is no longer integral to astrology. We'd have to limit "astronomy" to what it was before the scientific revolution. — kwami (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not for us to qualify scholarly opinion on astrology by a mainstream, famous and highly respected academic. If

"Modern astrology has nothing to do with science" then this needs a citation to be included on the topic - but it also needs contrary input from such respected sources as Otto. We don't have to limit or expand anything - but we must draw upon academic texts. This is not meant to be a forum on astrology - our ideas are irrelevant unles they are published in a suitable form. Another relevant input is Professor Richard Tarnas in his book "Cosmos and Psyche" where folowing 30 years of academic research demonstrates the "direct connection between planetary movements and the archetypal patterns of human expereince" - in other words astrology. There is no doubt that mainstream academics reject astrology as a quaint ancient practice based on superstition and divination, and followed by deluded modern practitioners but this is not universal and there needs to be some acknowledgement of some acedemic input from people like Professor Richard Tarnas. However Otto was not an astrologer so his input on astrology from a mainstream perspective is highly relevant. Its easy to call him an idiot but do people source your books for knowledge? Terry Macro (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because there are so-called 'divinatory branches' within astrology, does not mean that the rest of astrology is not divination according to the definition that WP gives for it.

Just because astrology uses some objective information about positions of the planets and stars, doesn't imply that its next (and defining) step, linking these planet positions to human affairs, is not divination.

Aristotle's celestial harmony sounds very nice, but as long as no evidence is found or produced for its effects on human affairs, it remains divination.

The lede gives a general description/definition of the topic of the article. If some people think that 'divination' is not the right word to use, then they can start by telling what would be a better word to use. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what astrology is if not divination. The whole point is it attempts to make predictions about various aspects of people and events based on the positions of the planets. If you take away the divination from astrology all you'd be left with is obsolete astronomy. Mystylplx (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The 'essence' of astrology is not in the planet positions, which are determined in a scientific way. The essence of astrology is in the conclusions (about human and other affairs) that are made on the basis of these planet positions, and that is a kind of divination. It makes no difference whether tea leaves or planet positions are used for divination. Things would change if sufficient evidence is produced that there is some connection between planet positions and human affairs. Then 'divination' can be scrapped in the definition here. Nobody is stopping astrologers from producing such evidence and having it peer reviewed. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Terrymacro, I propose that you add Neugebauer’s quote to the Astrology and Science section. Does anyone object?

Hello again Mystylplx and MakeSense64 . It is now time we all moved on from personal opinions/beliefs here. These points have been raised and are not supported by independent definitions. Unless you can verify that divination is no more than prediction and that astrology is limited to prediction or that divination is defined as drawing conclusions that are not supported by scientific evidence, these assumptions (rightly or wrongly) have to be ignored as WP:OR. MakeSense64, the question of objective evidence to support astrology has recently become highly debatable, but it is not relevant to this topic.

MakeSense64, you asked what word is better than divination. I have suggested that editors here provide a range of modern definitions from Encyclopedias or by well known named experts. They should be neutral and not so narrow that they exclude certain aspects, characteristics or applications of the term.

Since we have only had the original proposals by Paul Quigley, I will add my own inferior dictionary sources. Mindful that Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDIC, they at least illustrate that besides divination (included) there is a range of other defining terms.

• Astrology: “Divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects” Meriam-Webster on the web.

However, my hard copy bound English English equivalents define astrology as follows:

• Astrology: “Art of judging reputed occult influence of stars, planets etc on human affairs.” – Concise Oxford Dictionary based on the OED, OUP (1987)
• Astrology: “Study of the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies interpreted as having an influence on human affairs.” Oxford Compact English Dictionary, OUP (1996) “a compact edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary.”
• Astrology: “Study of the supposed influence of the movement and the positions of the stars and planets on human and terrestrial affairs.” Chambers Dictionary, 11th Edition, Chambers Harrap Publishers (2009).

Robert Currey talk 14:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A few points. Divination is not unsystematic. It can be a rigorous and rationalized method, but it's still at its heart interpretation of the meaning of physical phenomenon, hence divination. Robert, your definitions include 'divination', 'art of judging occult influence', 'study of positions...interpreted as having influence', and 'study of supposed influence'. I genuinely think that the word divination is the common thread between all of those. Studying astronomical influences and extrapolating human interpretations is divination. I don't know a better word for it. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. Not every dictionary in the world is using the word 'divination' in its description of astrology, but that doesn't mean we should drop the word from the definition here. Divination is the best word to give a broad definition for astrology, and I don't see any better one being proposed here. If we can't improve the definition then keep it as it is. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The only one-word definition for astrology is 'astrology'. In case it has been forgotten, let's remember that a better, more appropriately sourced, and more up-to-date broad definition was suggested by Paul Quigley when he opened this discussion:

"Astrology is the practice of relating the heavenly bodies to lives and events on earth, and the tradition that has thus been generated" - The Encyclopaedia of Historians and Historical Writing, 2 Vols. London: Fitzroy Dearborn 1999, Vol. 1, pp 55-7 (p. 55)).

Does anyone have a valid reason why this comment, which is more appropriate to what the reader understands and wants to know, should not be adopted in the lede? This does not mean that the reference to divination must go, but this corrects the false notion that astrology in entirely divinatory Zac Δ talk 21:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"A valid reason"? I can give you several. Firstly, we'd have to cite it as a quotation, which looks messy in a lede. Secondly, an encyclopaedia is a tertiary source, and we prefer to use secondary sources, and thirdly, I see no reason to see why "The Encyclopaedia of Historians and Historical Writing" should be seen as in any way an authority on whether astrology is divination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If you google "define astrology," you will get, among others, the following definition, attributed to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology (this article): "Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs which hold that the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details can provide information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters. A practitioner of astrology is called an astrologer." This presumably earlier Wikipedia definition avoids the ambiguity of "divination" and is quite informative. Can we bring it back?

Ocaasi, you have a sophisticated understanding of divination and perhaps there is a source that explains it as clearly as you do. If astrology is divination, it is a type of divination that is quite apart from others because it is systematic, rigorous, and rationalized. Obviously it is based on the observation of natural cycles and relies heavily on an extensive literature of case studies and theory. These are not the ordinary associations with divination, especially in view of the arguments of Kwami and MakeSense64, which have drawn the discussion toward the ambiguity problem and not away from it.

AndyTheGump, Historian Patrick Curry is a respected academic authority on astrology and his definition authored in the Encyclopeaia of Historians and Historical Writing should qualify as a legitimate Wikipedia source. His definition should not be judged solely because of its authority (which it has) but because it is also clear, concise, informative, and unambiguous. Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"it is systematic, rigorous, and rationalized. Obviously it is based on the observation of natural cycles and relies heavily on an extensive literature of case studies and theory. These are not the ordinary associations with divination". I don't think that's true. Where divination was serious business—and with the fate of the empire at stake, it very often was serious business—I suspect that these qualities were characteristic of most professional forms of divination. Are you suggesting that I Ching divination did not rely on an extensive literature? Or that palmistry did not use case studies? (to the extent that astrology does, anyway!) Take a look at lithomancy. Granted, astrology is particularly well developed, but that's a matter of degree, not a difference in kind. — kwami (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

All types of divination are quite apart from the others, and many of them are systematic and rationalized. For example 'numerology' and 'technical analysis' , all of which are also listed in the Methods of divination. Technical analysis uses even more advanced mathematical techniques than astrology, so?

It is true that sometimes a distinction is being made between divination and fortune-telling, as you can see in their respective articles. One could make the case the astrology has elements of both, so the opening of the lede could be changed to "Astrology is a system of divination and fortune-telling founded on the notion that..." MakeSense64 (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

@ Ken. Here are a few sources adding to the astrology as divination position:

• Yahoo's directory categorizes Astrology under Divination: [3]
• Geoffrey Cornelius wrote a book called: The moment of astrology, Origins in divination [4]
• Here's a 1995 book called, Mesopotamian astrology: an introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian celestial divination: [5]
• This book on the history of astrology references divination frequently: [6]

In fairness, some sources mention astrology separately from divination. I personally think that's more because astrology as divination succeeded in gaining widespread popularity--it spread and stabilized--not that it formally distinguishes itself from the category. We seem to be torn between astrology is divination, and astrology is part divination. If we take divination to include systematic interpretation of physical phenomena rather than merely prophecy based on omens, I still think divination is the best word. That said, astrology is still a practice, a study, and a craft... but it's a practice, a study, and a craft of rationalized celestial divination, the practice of relating and interpreting planetary positions to human personality, behavior, and life-events. Noting, that rationalized/widespread/established and logical/scientific/proven are different. Astrology from what I can divine from our non-astrologer sources is the first. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 06:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because a certain practice is systematic and rationalized, that doesn't take it out of the category of 'divination'. Different forms of divination basically differ in what they use as 'omens' in their work. The omen can be numbers, coins that have fallen, positions of stars in the sky, lines in the hand, and so on.. The key element is that a certain phenomenon is 'believed' to foretell human and terrestial affairs. That element is clearly present in astrology. So it is divination. It doesn't make any difference how well developed, systematic or rationalized the practice might be.

A given belief based practice can only stop being divination if sufficient evidence or proof is found for the working of the system. Then its use will be no longer a matter of 'belief' or subjective interpretation. Then it becomes a field of scientific 'study', and then we can change the lede accordingly. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again the discussion has slipped into a concern with the definition of divination, which is not the subject of this page.

I asked for valid objections to the introduction of the proposed edit and AndyTheGrump suggested:

"Firstly, we'd have to cite it as a quotation, which looks messy in a lede".

- Messy or not (I see no reason why it will be), WP policy expressely states that "anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". Since this is a disputed point, which is being challenged, we must adhere to that policy.

"Secondly, an encyclopaedia is a tertiary source, and we prefer to use secondary sources"

- in cases such as this, where secondary sources run the danger of contradicting each other, tertiary sources are preferred. WP policy states: "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other". (There are many valid ways to introduce a subject, but some introductions need justification by additional argument. At a point where that cannot be given, it is best to avoid those sorts of introductions and select one that is broader and avoids contentious arguments.)

"and thirdly, I see no reason to see why "The Encyclopaedia of Historians and Historical Writing" should be seen as in any way an authority on whether astrology is divination".

It is not necessary for the lede to pursue this point at all - the lede should briefly introduce, based on the summary position of what follows in the article. We are not going to produce *the authoritative* statement, but should aim for a reliable and credible remark verified by reference to a respectable published source. We have that here - we are introducing astrology not developing our own talk-page thesis on what the true extent and nature of divination is.

To avoid this discussion turning into a timesink, can we stick to policy and avoid all talk-page discussions of what astrology is, based on what any editor here may 'personally' think? It has been sufficiently accepted that some sources mention astrology separately from divination, therefore the lede comment, which suggests otherwise, is in need of modification. The question here is - is there anything in the new proposal that could be considered unreliable? If so, what? and why? Zac Δ talk 07:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Your proposed edit is not 'unreliable' because it repeats the information that is already there. The big difference is in what your proposed edit leaves out, specifically the term 'divination'. There is no good reason to leave that term out. WP already lists astrology as a 'method of divination', and astrology fits in with the definition for 'divination' that WP gives for it. The idea that astrology is a science is a small minority view, mentioned later in the article, so that is no reason to remove 'divination' in the lede. There is clearly no concensus that the lede needs to be changed, so yes, let's stick to policy and move on. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's worth clarifying the proposal. Paul Quigley has proposed a replacement for the first sentence because

"The statement that astrology 'is' divination is misleading [snip - see his comment of 18 June above] .... It also fails to account for radically different views of what divination is. I would suggest replacing this statement with a definition of astrology, such as Patrick Curry's, which might then in turn lead to a discussion of astrology as different phenomena - as magic, spirituality, science, pseudo-science, art, religion, psychology, or any of the other descriptions of it. Curry wrote: ‘Astrology is the practice of relating the heavenly bodies to lives and events on earth, and the tradition that has thus been generated’ (Curry, Patrick, ‘Astrology’, in Boyd, Kelly (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Historians and Historical Writing, 2 Vols. London: Fitzroy Dearborn 1999, Vol. 1, pp 55-7 (p. 55)). By the way, I see no reason why this page can't be improved without controversy by balanced attention to both scholarly and primary sources.Paul Quigley (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a very sensible suggestion so the editor should be encouraged down this path. As I understand it the opening sentence would then read:

Astrology is the practice of relating the heavenly bodies to lives and events on earth, and the tradition that has thus been generated.(ref) It is founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies are signs of or—more controversially among astrologers—causes of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events.[1][2] The primary astrological bodies are the sun, moon, and planets; although astrology is commonly characterized as "reading the stars", the stars (other than the sun) actually play a minor role. The main focus is on the placement of the seven planets relative to each other and to the signs of the zodiac, though the system does allow reference to fixed stars, asteroids, comets, and various mathematical points of interest as well. As a craft, astrology is a combination of basic astronomy, numerology, and mysticism. In its modern form, it is a classic example of pseudoscience.

This is not unreliable nor is it contentious nor does it present the notion that astrology is a science. This does however do what a lede is supposed to do - open the subject in broad terms so that it can be explored in greater depth without incorrect assumptions being made at the start. We cannot worry about everything that is left out of the first sentance - a great deal of relevant description has to be left out at this stage. It's more essential that the sparse introductory detail is not false or controversial, as the current first sentence clearly is. My recommendation is that the proposed edit, being reliably sourced and entirely appropriate, is made; no good reason to deny the obvious advantage of not having controversy in the first sentence Zac Δ talk 09:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of good reasons have been brought against your proposed change. It is very common , and good encyclopedia style, to start the lede by stating to what category of things the topic of the article belongs. For astrology the most fitting category is 'divination'. It is not misleading at all. I recommend no change. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This definition is superior, more concise (as a sentence) and less contentious than the current definition imposed in March. It is not my ideal as I see astrology as a study which includes the practice of astrology. However, I support this proposed edit provided that divination is included within the lede paragraph as it remains an important part of astrology. Robert Currey talk 09:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Divination and psychology can be added to the "As a craft" statement but the numerology and mysticism are not accurate. They must have come from a faulty source. Ideally, I'd suggest that "craft" be replaced with "practice" and "practice in the first sentence with "study." After all it is an "-ology." Ken McRitchie (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There are other examples of "-ology" that are no longer considered a serious 'study', for example phrenology. They once where a 'study' and just kept their name. The phrenology article opens by stating that it is a pseudoscience.

People who think astrology is a science will want to see it described as '.. is the study of...' in the opening statements, because that's how real sciences are typically defined. People who think it is not a science will want to see it categorized as '.. is a system of divination..' or '..is a pseudoscience..' in the opening statement. We will not be able to solve that question here, and it is also not our job to do so. The astrology article itself mentions that about 31% of people believe in astrology and some 39% think it is a science. So that's the minority view. WP guidelines also state that astrology is a pseudoscience. So, using NPOV we have to go with the majority view and reflect that in the opening statement. MakeSense64 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64, several times you have framed your argument as science versus divination with no middle way. IMO this perception is polarizing this discussion in a way that hinders resolution. No one here is proposing a lede that claims that astrology is a science. We are looking for a neutral, verifiable, correct and widely acceptable defining first sentence. For example, are you seriously claiming that all forms of understanding that cannot be verified by science are divination? Also, most sciences are characterized as sciences, but if a science is also described as a ‘study’, it does not make the term ‘study’ synonymous with science. For example, philosophy and theology are studies but not sciences. Robert Currey talk 11:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't help consensus to be achieved if the attempt to rectify one point of controversy is side-tracked into another it doesn't relate to. A couple of policy points to consider:

1) Wikipedia does not require everything to be referred to published sources. We only need to do this to show that a comment made is not based on personal opinion or original research. From WP:V "in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". Whilst it is good to offer the Curry reference, the amendment is being proposed to eliminate a point of controversy, not to generate a new one.

2) The words we use must relate to the generally supposed meaning of the word. Hence it's pointless here to refer to alternative or complex meanings of the word 'divination' which are applicable only within a certain context or according to certain perspective. Therefore the discussion on what the word divination might or could mean should be brought to an end, and recognised as being time-wasting. In its assessment rating on articles WP states that a recommended rating is accomplished when:

The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

To help us achive consensus is there anyone who still wants to argue that the article should begin with the determinate and therefore misleading remark: "Astrology is a system of divination". If so, why? If not, can we then move on to discussing whether to introduce the Curry definition as proposed by Paul Quigley, or to restore the earlier content as proposed by Ken Ritchie:

Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs in which knowledge of the apparent relative positions of celestial bodies and related details is held to be useful in understanding, interpreting, and organizing information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters. A practitioner of astrology is called an astrologer.

I would support either of these but the latter is preferable and more elegant to read IMO. It doesn't matter that the phrase is not littered with unnecessary citations. Wikipedia allows editors, in fact expects editors, to exercise common sense discretion in the formation of its lede. Zac Δ talk 12:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not always a concensus is reached. Then no change is made. That's how it goes.

People have brought their arguments for and against. How many more times can you ask them to repeat their arguments ?

There comes a point where you have to let go of a proposed change if it doesn't get enough support. There are always other articles that can be improved. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The point here is that consensus has already been reached, and I am suggesting an opportunity for new voices to be heard before implementing changes that need to be agreeable to as many involved editors as possible. Consensus means majority support not unanimous support. I asked the question because at this stage you appear to be the only editor arguing that the the determinate and therefore misleading opening remark "Astrology is a system of divination" should remain without amendment.Zac Δ talk 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Layout

I've made some alterations to the layout and images used in the page. Although the layout still needs work along with the content I think this is a temporary improvement which gets rid of a lot of the ugly white gaps and fuzzy images we had previously. Since this is something that I could not get approved before it could be seen, I just went ahead and saved the page with the changes. I did this in the realisation that if it's not approved by consensus it will go back to the state it was in before (I hope that won't prove to be the case!). Zac Δ talk 00:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you revert your edit. By removing the subheaders and making them "big" the subheaders no longer appear in the content box at the beginning of the article. This makes navigation in a long article much more difficult for the reader. Please study WP:STYLE before making this kind of changes. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You may have a point and that can be easily fixed without the need to revert everything. I'd like the opportunity for other editors to review first. I familiarised myself with the style guide and see nothing about the need to make every minor subheading an entry in the menu box. If I missed anything relevant let me know. There is a general priniple that "a high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up".

The previous menu box held too many divisions, was over-long, ugly on the page, and did not improve navigation because most of the subdivisions are so small; some can be scrolled over in a couple of lines. Turning them text subheadings rather than page divisions (which they become when they use the code that creates the menu link) prevents the placement of images without having huge chunks of white space which makes the entry look ridiculous. I see this as a temporary fix, because there are so many areas where the text needs scrutiny and development. As that happens everything, including the images, can be considered for appropriateness.

If editors here put aside inclinations to over-analysise suggestions, and develop a spirit of "let's see what we can do to fix the problems, balance the controversies and correct the innacuracies" we could make this page shine. Astrology has its points of conflict, but that's what makes the subject fascinating. As an editor with an astrological interest I want to see it covered from all angles, including the criticisms. To get that balance right we need editors with different views to find the compromise that hits the right mark according to common sense and Wikipedia policy. There is no reason why this page could not become a featured article; this subject is interesting enough to allow that.

For this, the whole page needs a style workover, including text and references, but there is no sense starting that until we work over content first. I suggest we make the amendment to the lede that is currently under discussion then leave the lede alone until the other sections in the article are improved. The lede gets a lot of attention but I doubt many editors realise just how bad the other sections are because few people in their right mind would carry on reading this page more than half way through. It's boring, the content is very 'iffy' and it doesn't summarise the pertinent facts effectively.Hence, let's take a more relaxed and creative approach for a while and work on the bigger issues. Once the outline is in place we can critically assess the words, style and general layout to make sure it comes together as best it can. Zac Δ talk 09:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work Zachariel, the layout is much improved and more attractive. I can see a problem with the Paranormal and Hermeticism boxes, which on my screen overlap the References. These are ugly boxes and have scarcely any relevance at all to astrology. The farther they are pushed to the end, the better. Even better, delete them. Ken McRitchie (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ken - I'm glad you suggested that because I feel that way too. I'll remove them - they are not directly relevant to the page in the way that the astrology box is, and they are not project pages. If there is a reason for them to go back they can eaily be reinserted, but better to take out the superflous stuff that is not working so that we can clear away the clutter and focus on improving what is relevant. Thanks for the feedback Zac Δ talk 14:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Any chance the subheaders will be brought back? WP supports subheaders up to 6 levels deep, and here we had 2 levels (= not too many). Also, content boxes can be collapsed if they become too long, so there was no reason to remove the subheaders in a long article. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not that we've got deep levels, but that we've got 23 links in that menu box, and many general readers don't realise or think to collapse it. My personal feeling is that when the menu box gets too long it starts to create a nuisance divide between the leded and the main content. But that's just my opinion and no problem - I've restored the links.

I think we need to look at the big picture of how the astrological content works overall - what subheadings we have, and what needs a re-write. At the moment the information is so disjointed it's quite a painful read. Since it suits my interest I'll look critically at the history section, but with this in mind my priority is to create a page for the Tetrabiblos and then complete some work I started on the Ptolemy page; because Ptolemy needs a brief mention here, so it will lead back to this eventually. Zac Δ talk 16:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop! This is an encyclopaedia, not a debating society

Eight thousand words arguing about a definition of ... what? Divination? Astrology? Really? How many times has this same argument been conducted since the 2006 ruling on pseudoscience? Is this page some kind of theosophical society discussion group? Wait ... no! It's a Wikipedia page that has strayed from encyclopaedic purpose to embrace advocacy and the pursuit of personal agenda.

Is it really so hard to accept that people who turn to an encyclopaedia generally look for accepted mainstream definitions, and generally expect minority or obscurantist views to be identified as such? Is it possible for us all to consider for a moment that the vast majority of the people on the planet really don't give a shit what each of us thinks personally? They are looking for simple, elegant English describing and summarising mainstream views as reflected in reputable sources.

The prose on this page is so strained, inelegant and ambiguous that it shows it was created by committee, trying at once to summarise but also to exclude from every word used every imaginable inference that isn't palatable to someone. This is no way to present a topic in an encyclopaedia.

Introduction, not argument

What is the point of sidetracking the very first paragraph into an absurdly contradictory lecture on what is or is not a star? If astrology relates to the movement of planets relative to the signs of the zodiac, which are constellations of stars, but also to other sub-stellar and sub-planetary bodies, then astrology can be properly defined as being ‘based on the motion of celestial bodies relative to each other’. Full stop. No departure into historic conceptions about points of light in the sky is necessary.

There is no need to extend the introduction to second, third and fourth paragraphs, all of which deal with specifics that should be covered in the article sub-sections, and all of which should be carefully referenced rather than presented as undisputed assertions. Thus, for example, each assertion made in paragraph two should cite sources as follows —

Historically, astrology was regarded as a technical and learned tradition [citation needed], sustained in royal courts, cultural centers, and medieval universities,[citation needed] and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine [citation needed]. Astrology and astronomy were often synonymous before the modern era [citation needed], with the desire for predictive and divinatory knowledge one of the motivating factors for astronomical observation [citation needed]. Astronomy began to diverge from astrology in the Muslim world at the turn of the 2nd millennium [citation needed], and in Europe from the Renaissance through the Enlightenment in 18th century [citation needed]. Eventually, astronomy distinguished itself as the empirical study of celestial objects and phenomena [citation needed]. In the latter half of the 20th century astrology experienced a resurgence of popular interest as a major component of the New Age movement[citation needed].

Moreover, the wording 'from the Renaissance through the enlightenment in the 18th century' is ambiguous and misleading. Should this say 'by the 18th century' instead? Why say 'empirical study' when the distinguishing feature is scientific method? Does the use of the term ‘empirical’ not just open another rabbit hole about what is non-empirical and how many exceptions someone can list to such a definition?

Obscurantism is misplaced here

WP policy is clear that it is not necessary to include every variant point of view 'along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship'. Thus the entire sections on 'Obstacles to research' and 'Astrological education' become redundant qualifiers on a summary of generally accepted mainstream scholarship. Where in the articles on, say, nuclear physics or politics was it necessary to deal with 'research difficulties' or exceptions to mainstream pedagogy? Why is it necessary here? Make the case for this exception or omit the mentions.

The simple fact is that no scientifically acceptable or verifiable research exists to create scientific credentials for astrology. That fact is encapsulated in the descriptor 'pseudoscience'. What is the value of whittling away at the definition of that single word with hundreds or thousands of others? Astrology is not science and not even the subject of mainstream study in mainstream educational institutions. Let it go at that. If you feel the compulsive need to list every engagement or conflict between astrologers and scientists, create a separate page about scientific/astrological controversies.

The fact that Western schools and universities do not generally offer certificate or degree courses in astrology is not an invitation to list every possible exception, particularly if that list is as meagre as the one presented here. Listing every instance or exception of or to something is indicative of a paucity of real information to be imparted on a particular topic. That form of article padding is probably best left to neckbeards discussing TV shows, where it seems almost appropriate. Is anyone here really suggesting that astrology should be fetishised the same way as pop culture?

If something cannot be explained and summarised in plain, perhaps even elegant English, it is probably inexplicable and therefore obscurantism unworthy of mention at all in an encyclopaedia. What I detect in the article is a barely disguised lip service to mainstream taxonomy that is incessantly white-anted by attempts to progressively dilute clarity about distinguishing astronomy from science and nailing down precise features in concise language. What is left is a confused, confusing ramble.

I must suspect that the difficulty of describing salient features of astrological study and practice relates to a lack of uniform method and a predominance of individual choices made by individual astrologers when it comes to techniques and interpretations. If that is the case, this should be plainly stated. If it is not, plainly describe the real state of affairs. Being ambiguous about this issue is confirmation that no discernible methodology or rigour exists at all.

Misplaced dialectics

There is a form of tendentious, rhetorical argument designed entirely to draw out a debate without ever conceding any point. The purpose of this style is to wear down the opposition until even initially accepted starting propositions are made void and open for re-interpretation. It is a form of debate being used here to white-ant mainstream scholarly views on astrology. It will not ever convince or deter me, or many others, who care more for the encyclopaedic endeavour than personal viewpoints.

Offering a synthesis of science and non-science as a supposedly reasonable compromise is sophistry. This kind of dialectic offers up only metaphysics. It does not turn non-science into science. It does not bestow credibility, respectability, or gravitas on anything that does not attain these qualities in its own right.

Most especially, if the syntheses offered here are not referenced to a mention in a reputable mainstream scholarly work, they are primary research and misplaced in this article.

Coherence has disappeared

While arguing semantics and angels on pinheads, active editors might have lost sight of the fact that the article itself has an illogical structure and sometimes incoherent grammar.

The present introduction is a an argument or debate in itself, not a summary or introduction.

The section on core beliefs and practices does not list or describe anything recognisable as such. Should it be labelled 'techniques' instead? Are there core beliefs and practices common across cultures and discrete 'schools' of astrology? Why is there no mention of how horoscopes are derived from astrology? After all, horoscopes seem to be the most prominent products of astrology in contemporary mass media, and surely, therefore, a defining aspect or feature.

Separating out the history into 'traditions', 'horoscopic astrology', and 'origins’ appears redundant and misleading. Why not eschew sub-headings and just present two paragraphs on historical development, and make ‘contemporary developments’ a section in its own right?

The heading 'effects on world culture' is a misnomer. The listed 'effects' are in fact ‘references’. Perhaps the section would be better labelled 'Cultural references to astrology' or 'Astrology in world culture', but only if we actually mention three or more discrete cultures. Otherwise the heading should be accurately specific to one or two cultures.

Taken together, the various topics covered give the appearance of a potboiler, a vehicle for selective departure and distraction from the topic proper, which is then never explained. What, for example, are 'houses' when referring to celestial bodies? Why is that term used without explanation? Is it possible that the word ‘constellation’ is a more accurate and unambiguous label? And why is it relevant under any name at all if its outcome or product is unknown and/or unknowable?

On the point of grammar and logic, consider also the following (my square brackets) --

There are several techniques [plural] of forecasting in Western astrology. Transits [plural], the most popular, are [plural] based on the actual motion of planets moving through a sign or house within the horoscope. Another technique [singular], progressions [plural] are [plural] based on the movements of the planets after birth [whose birth?], symbolically related to a time period or cycle of life.

What is meant underneath this inelegant phrasing appears to be that two, not several, techniques are mentioned: one [singular] based on 'transits', another [singular] on 'progressions'. No explanation is given of the defining features of either, nor for the effective difference in ambit or outcome between these techniques, raising the question as to what might be the point of mentioning them at all.

Suggestions

To end on a constructive note, I offer the following as a proposed introductory paragraph:

Astrology is a pseudoscientific form of divination. Its study and practice is commonly applied to interpreting and forecasting human affairs, most often through the observation and interpretation of the movement of celestial bodies relative to each other. Astrological studies, practices and emphases vary across cultures and traditions.

On the proposal for layout changes, presentation that assists absorption of the information is welcome, but my personal observation is that the contents box should be immediately visible at first glance on a laptop or desktop screen, which is not the case if you view the page on screens set at resolutions of less than 1280 by 1024 pixels.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A good review of the recent discussions here.

One question occured to me while reading your piece: what if the 'potboiler appearance' is actually a rather correct representation of the confused and balkanized state of the field of astrology today? Maybe it is not such a bad lede after all?

I have not been involved with previous major edits of this article. I see one was done recently in March and agreed upon.

My question: What has changed so significantly in astrology, that this article and the lede already needs updating again?

Writing the lede should be the easiest part, as it is supposed only to give a good neutral summary of what is found in the rest of the article.

I can agree to your proposed change of the opening paragraph. Because there is an obvious error in the current text here: "In its modern form, it is a classic example of pseudoscience.".

This falsely creates the impression that non-modern forms of astrology are not pseudoscience. Your new text solves that problem. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would however change the wording a little bit. "a pseudoscientific form of divination".. are there any other forms of divination?.

Suggested change using mostly the same words:

Astrology is a pseudoscientific study, commonly practiced as a form of divination which interpretes and forecasts human and terrestial affairs, typically through the observation and interpretation of the movement of celestial bodies relative to each other. Astrological methods, practices and emphases vary across cultures and traditions.

I would avoid using the word 'study' more than once, because some parts of the article also criticize astrology for avoiding real 'study'. So I brought in 'methods' MakeSense64 (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter, welcome to the discussion and thanks for joining us. I agree with your view that this is not a debating society and should stop behaving like one. I don't agree it needed an extra 1700 words to make that point; which sort of perpetuates the problem :)

I think we can take a lot of your suggestions on board whilst dismissing the first sentence of your replacement suggestion for the lede: this does not represent general opinion and is not based on reliable sources, and manages to combine everyone point of controversy into one highly controversial and critically placed remark, whilst the purpose here is to produce something accurate and reliable, avoiding unecessary contention, acceptable by academic standards, and compiled with suitable terminology to explain principles the general reader can relate to. One thing the lengthy debate has managed to clarify is that astrology is not limited by what is generally understood of the word divinition, so at the very least we should use a suitable expression that will not recreate further cycles of discussion as to the nature of divination, (unresolved since before and after Cicero wrote his text on that matter at the turn of the last millennium). Your proposal is acceptable to me if it begins with a cut into your proposed 2nd sentence, hence: "Astrology as a study and practice is commonly applied to interpreting ...".

For the purpose of moving forward we should avoid new debate over a new suggestion on that point. Better to introduce what has been proposed and has found general consensus above, and then get on to the matter of the main body prose, which is indeed a problem. The matter of not being able to see the menu box on your laptop is due to the length of the lede. The lede needs reconstruction and should probably be edited down significantly, so that it does what a leded is expected to do, which is to briefly introduce the points that will be covered in the main article. Until we get the main article in shape all detailed discussions on the lede are a waste of time and energy. Hence a minor tweal along the lines proposed above, or by Paul Quigley earlierm should suffice for now, and then we can shift time and attention from talk page discussions to working productively on the main page content. Zac Δ talk 09:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@Zac wrote: "Better to introduce what has been proposed and has found general consensus above"

Where did you see such a general concensus being found? Peter would probably not write his above review if there was any concensus. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite so, MakeSense64. Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Because no one but Makesense64 has continued to deny the majority view of the contributing editors (which is what constitututes consensus, no?) that astrology has been effectively established, by both common sense and reliable sources, to incorporate the principle of divination, whilst not being entirely defined by that word. But Peter, if you want to go over that whole issue again now that you have joined us, I am sure that there are editors here who will accomodate you. In the meantime I plan to continue my contributions toward other points. Welcome again to the debating society! Cheers ;) Zac Δ talk 13:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, Peter! Your long post reminds me that we all want to make our point, but few of us want to have to defend it in a debate. ;) Debate can be tedious, but has to be preferable to edit wars.

Now first, as Zac says, it has been clearly shown that astrology can be divination but divination is not the label for the entire field of astrology. If you disagree, please outline your most compelling reasons without WP:OR. So far, it rests on two references to astrology as divination and one of them defines astrology as a study in another section. Paul Quigley has shown how scholars define astrology otherwise. To check if this was true, I took a sample of my own dictionaries and all those in my local Waterstones bookstore. I eliminated any with duplicate definitions (suggesting the same authors). Six: Oxford Compact English Dictionary, OUP (1996), Chambers Dictionary, Chambers Harrap (2010), Longmans Dictionary of Contemporary English (2010), Oxford Dictionary of English, OUP (2006), Essential Dictionary and Thesaurus, Harper Collins (2007) and the Collins English Dictionary, 3rd Edition, (2010) stated that astrology is a study. An older dictionary of mine the Concise Oxford Dictionary, OUP (1987) defined astrology as an art. Not one mentioned the word divination.

Since Aristotle, divination has been one of several competing models for astrology and is even defined in those terms on the page. Moreover, divination is not appropriate for natural astrology, electional astrology, historical astrology or rectification. This definition is contentious among astrologers and scholars and misleading to the readers. No one on the expert contributors to this page could agree on what divination meant, so how can the general public be expected to know? As you know Wikipedia is clear that the first paragraph should define the topic from a neutral point of view WP:MOSBEGIN and that confusing and specialized terminology should be avoided in the introduction WP:MOSINTRO. So the standard definition of astrology from verifiable expert sources is as a study. This does not make it a science as theology and philosophy are also defined as studies.

Second, this ‘debate’ is about the initial definition of astrology nothing to do with science or pseudoscience. As you know, the ArbCom guidelines state that astrology is “generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community”. Currently the claim in the first para on the page is that it is a classic example of pseudoscience. As you know this is highly contentious, but do you think it is the right time to reopen that debate that earlier this year led to an edit war, closed down the page, banning of Astro expert editors and halted all meaningful attempts to edit the page? You can chalk that one up as a 'victory' for scepticism for the time being and making PS even more prominent seems a bit OTT.

I agree that the page is crying out for improvement, but attempts to correct anything like this are being unreasonably blocked. Remember my attempt to alter Tyson's unattributed quote? This should not become yet another controversial edit.

Also, to finish on a constructive note, here is a proposed first paragraph with a new first sentence and minimal changes to the present format. Since writing swapping numerology for psychology as proposed (and unchallenged) earlier by Ken McRitchie has now become controversial and the proposal does not hang on this. Robert Currey talk 16:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states that psychology (the science of behaviour and mental processes) is used in astrology? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, psychology is also used in selling cars and things like that. Where is psychology not being used when it comes to human affairs? So it is a rather meaningless statement, and misleading in the sense that it suggest that astrology is somehow connected to psychology (a science).

The only thing I notice when astrologers propose a lede for this article is this: they consistently try to paint astrology as a 'study', probably because that sounds better. The statement that it is pseudoscience is always pushed out to the end of the paragraph. Why? Probably because at least some people do not read the lede completely and skip to the further sections rather quickly. So it looks like an excercise in making a frog look pretty.

The purpose of the lede is not to make a good impression for astrology. The purpose of a lede is simply to summarize briefly what is found in the rest of the article. So once the contents of the article are agreed upon, then how difficult can it be to write a lede for it?

Here is a simple proposal: let's send the content of the article to some high school, and the young people there will probably write a better lede in one day, than all editors combined (me included) have ever achieved here. A nice project for their class. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64, if analyzing the motives of others is your best argument, then you have no case. Since we all need to focus on content here WP:FOC, I have responded to your psycho-analysis on your Talk page. Then at least you can delete it, if feels uncomfortable or unreasonable.

To answer your question, you are both right and wrong. I don’t like the label pseudoscience because it suggests that I pretend to do something that I don’t – this is just not how I live my life nor how I see what I do. No sensible person would actually choose to be an astrologer and then pretend to be something else.:)

Frankly, whether Wikipedia editors here choose to redefine astrology as a study or divination is not going to offend astrologers. MakeSense64, you appear to prefer it because you see it as denigrating but I don’t like divination as a general label simply because it is wrong! I hope that other editors will be less driven by what could be interpreted as misplaced ill-will and motivated by the higher Wikipedian ideal of improving the page for everyone. Robert Currey talk 00:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In chronological order:

Zac, I thought it unkind of you to equate 1300 of my words about the entire article with 8000 words about a single word. But no matter. I see no fruit flowering from the 8000 words because the underlying cause has not been addressed: there is no description in the article of common or characteristic or defining features of astrology. Fix that, and the introduction will take care of itself.

Sorry, sometimes the directness of my posts can make them seem curt and thus unkind. I wasn’t meaning to be and I hope you won’t take future directness personally. To be clear, I think you are a great asset to the group. That said, unless Microsoft Word gets its count wrong, your post was not 1300 words but 1696 words, which I rounded up to 1700 to avoid seeming like a pedant (although I have learned by experience that it’s wise to check facts carefully when engaging in discussions on astrology). I like the message of ending the protracted discussions, so we can move ahead, act on sensible decisions, and free up time for the mass of editorial work that needs to be done.Zac Δ talk 10:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And no, Zac, consensus isn’t a simple numerical majority view. Nor is consensus enough to justify eliminating unpalatable sources and valid points of view, otherwise consensus to publish known lies as fact would be all it takes to turn Wikipedia into something other than an encyclopaedia.

I have no interest in eliminating unpalatable sources with valid points of view (I’m not here to push or promote astrology). But unfortunately I do see the publication of lies, misconceptions, misrepresentations and inaccuracies about astrology happening frequently in WP, and try to correct this with better information where I can. The editorial freedom by which WP allows anyone’s (sometimes uninformed) opinion to count is a double-edged sword, which sometimes means that widespread misconception is allowed to prevail. The answer lies in adhering to the principle of WP policy or verifiability and reliable sources. And if the sources are out there that build the misconception – well, I’ve learned to accept that as part of the current cultural story of the subject.

With regard to consensus - I'll address that point in a response I make to AndyTheGrump shortly.Zac Δ talk 10:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I’m a little disappointed, Robert, that you see my comment as trying to avoid debate, and that you chose to do so while being silent on the documented fact that some debates here have been drawn out for years with the probable aim of overturning WP rulings, of side-stepping bans on edit warriors, vote-stackers, and sock-puppets and of excluding all but one perspective. You know better. The history of this discussion page is the proof. You also know that I have never made a single change without discussing it here first, and that I have supported pro-astrology editors, sceptics and neutral editors according to stated reasons and interpretations of WP purpose and guidelines, not for vexatious or partisan purposes. Again, the history of this discussion page is the proof. Neither the possibility (nor any threat) of controversy or rancour will deter me from adhering to the same criteria now or in future.

On the matter of divination, I’m not wedded to the word, but what products or outcomes of astrology exist that don’t fit that terminology?

Many – see below.Zac Δ talk 10:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

On the matter of the introduction, it should present to a reader ignorant of the topic an immediate summary of the nature, purpose and products of astrology. It is by its methods a pseudoscience that, as far as I can tell, exists to make predictions or interpretations, producing written or verbal divinations. In that conception, study, diagrams, star charts, books and articles are inputs geared to facilitate the output, which is divination, is it not?

No –it’s a poor definition that implies astrology exists only to make predictions; interpretations is perhaps more widely applicable, because ‘interpretation’ does not deny the process of analysis which produces written or verbal assessments (not divinations).

Sometimes astrology is used to make hindsight assessments rather than predictions; sometimes it is used to explore the psychology of a situation (yes, psychology – the study of the psyche - which is deeply embedded into the most ancient roots of astrology and is evident in all its traditional sources - see below); sometimes it is used to explore meaning purely for the purposes of increasing understanding and awareness; sometimes it is used for agricultural purposes or to identify periods of increased fertilility; sometimes it is used to predict upcoming meteorological conditions. But when the weather forecaster presents information (which is still, to a significant extent, based on knowledge derived from the study of astrology – which anciently and traditionally includes the study of winds, cloud formations, sky patterns/colours, and so forth), we refer to this as ‘a forecast’; no one refers to it as ‘a divination’. The term is not appropriate. Some astrologers today refer to their astrological study as the study of 'World Cycles', or 'Geocosmic cycles' and they consider things like sun-spot activity, and would rightly reject that they are engaging in ‘divination’ alone.

For example, one of the largest astrological organizations, which exists to facilitate “raising the standards of astrological education and research” is called NCGR – the National Council for Geocosmic Research – it has a membership of 2500 and defines its purpose as being:

... to provide an environment to foster and publish research of a geocosmic nature and to pursue educational programs in various interdisciplinary fields related to geocosmic studies. The term "geocosmic" is defined as "of or pertaining to the study of correspondences and cycles involving earthly phenomena and cosmic (celestial) events."

Do you really think we would be fairly, and appropriately, describing this sort of astrological interest in an opening caption which limits the entire field of astrological interest as what is commonly understood of the word 'divination'? Zac Δ talk 10:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As for re-opening debates, Robert, I think this will occur as often as revisionist attempts are made to subvert rationality or WP guidelines and administrator resolutions on issues that should have been settled long ago but are re-opened by those who refuse to accept real consensus. I think I made my position pretty clear on how I would respond to such activities. My view on the prominence that should be given to the term pseudoscience is that this battle was fought so destructively and exhaustively that WP administrators actually made a directive, plainly visible at the top of this page, which stands as not only the consensus of a much wider group than the editors here, but as WP policy generally. No, we should not re-visit it, we should just comply with it. Those who want to challenge the ruling should do so in the appropriate administrator talk pages.

Your proposed first sentence is intriguing. Is astrology really only a quietist studious activity? Does it really have no output of conclusions, commentary or debate?

Of course it has conclusions, commentary and debate, as do many other legitimate branches of intellectual interest. The law for example, which is judicial in the same way that the traditional branches of astrology that you have in mind are traditionally categorized as ‘judicial astrology’ (as distinguished from its counterpart ‘natural astrology’ the elements of which are considered to be objectively explored and free of divinatory interest). These two, very strongly established traditional distinctions, which separate astrology into judicial and natural themes, require explanation and coverage on this page. This is a content issue, but it will take time to address properly. There is preliminary work that needs to be done on the pages this page links to for further information, so that this article is summarising what is explored more deeply in those pages, in the same way that the lede should outline what astrology is, as a brief summary of what is covered on this page. In the meantime I suggest that any contributing editor who does not understand the relevancy of the judicial-natural distinction of astrology, can look into that and realise why it prohibits the definition of astrology as purely divination. Zac Δ talk 10:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is right to ask for references, and I don’t think Robert will have difficulty finding citations for linking Carl Jung’s concept of synchronicity to some astrological discussion and practice.

I’ve covered the gap identified in the 'clarification-needed' tag. But it seems to me that the page is already full of ample references to demonstrate the point.

With regard to psychology, Jung’s own words were

“Obviously astrology has much to offer psychology, but what the latter can offer its elder sister is less evident” (Jung, C.G., Letters, op.cit., 'Letter to André Baubault, 26 May 1954', p.174)

Is it necessary to add that to the page? The point seems to be demonstrated sufficiently already. To me it’s bizarre that editors here question the traditional association between astrology and psychology. Apart from the fact that there are notable astrological associations which specialize their focus on astrology as a means to explore psychology (for example: CPA – The Centre for Psychological Astrology); Jung’s reference to astrology as the elder sister of psychology demonstrates his knowledge of how astrology has always been involved in the exploration of the psyche, and that the classical philosophical discussions of astrology concerned the role of the anima, as the psychological probing of the universal and individual soul-mind.

We have clear references to this in masses of traditional astrological texts, going back to the most ancient sources which talk about assessment of the anima and how to use astrological techniques to determine behavioural predisposition and character. We find this in the astrological works of Ptolemy and Alkindi and many, many others. Indeed, Alkindi’s name is notable in the history of psychology as being one of the first to formalize the study of psychology: see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-kindi/ for how his argument “consists entirely of supposed quotes from Greek authorities – Plato, Pythagoras, and Aristotle – about the nature of the soul”.

Hence when ancient Greek and medieval and renaissance astrological texts give instruction on how to determine the quality of the soul, they are engaging in psychology. There is no question that the study of psychology contributes to the study of astrology; this is well established in both the historical and contemporary understanding of the word.Zac Δ talk 10:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty will be in demonstrating with referenced sources that there exists an underlying core set of astrological methodology and practice, or whether methodology and practice is in fact as infinitely varied and unknowable as the intentions and products of the people engaged in its study and practice.

It won’t be difficult. We just need time to work on content rather than back-end overly-analytical discussion.Zac Δ talk 10:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

From that perspective it may well be true that some astrologers incorporate psychology in their work, but it becomes almost impossible to reference an assertion that ‘astrology’ as a discipline does so, or that there is an empirically verifiable group of ‘many’ or ‘most’ astrologers who do so. If that is indeed the case, linking astrology to psychology becomes trivia rather than a distinct feature or ‘aspect’.

Not at all. As I have shown.Zac Δ talk 10:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn’t agree more, MakeSense64: we are not concerned with creating a good (or bad) impression for astrology here. We should be concerned with offering encyclopaedia readers a concise summary of where astrology fits into the wider body of human knowledge, and what its defining features are. It seems to me that it fits into the wider body of human knowledge as pseudoscience aimed at divination, and that its methods are arcane and mercurial, making them impossible to describe except as sets of infinitely variable personal preferences. I now await being proven wrong.

Good. Be patient – everything comes to he who waits.Zac Δ talk 10:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If the introduction is to reflect the body of the article, let’s start with defining a baseline of knowledge, methodology, and output that is demonstrably common to a definable group that can be uncontroversially labelled ‘astrologers’ or ‘students of astrology’. Analysis of such knowledge, methodology and output will then tell us with some certainty whether pseudoscience and divination are accurate descriptors. However, Robert and Zac, while everybody wants to fiddle only with the introductory sentences, [I don’t – let’s get on with making this sensible change and move on to main article content, please … Zac Δ talk 10:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)] you can hardly chastise me for dissenting from wording not reflected in the body of the article, particularly since my dissent is currently passive rather than interventionist.

As an aside, one of my current endeavours is to source from the academic literature on sociology and anthropology a general perspective on astrology as a form of superstition and prophecy. I anticipate that astrologers will not be keen on such an avenue for definition, but its virtue is that credible sources exist, and both sociology and anthropology are universally recognised fields of academic inquiry. I don't anticipate having wording for consideration in the short term.

Why do you anticipate that? Assume good faith. If your general perspective is misconstrued or single-sided it is likely to be debated. If your argument is well grounded and reliably supported it is likely to be welcomed. But be aware of two things: 1) WP is not a platform for independent research 2) a great deal of academics and scholars have already explored such issues at great length and those works require reference too.

As for the high school proposition, MakeSense64, I was once vituperatively critiqued for making the statement that I thought an article wouldn’t gain a pass mark as a school assignment on the topic. The critic lambasted me for daring to criticise when so many others had made such substantive contributions. Just in case there is any doubt about this, I regard propositions that seek to invalidate comment on the basis of an imagined ‘seniority’, or word count, or political correctness, or anything that is not directed at rationality, as unworthy of an encyclopaedist and therefore of no consequence.

And let’s not imagine that you are the only one that feels that way. (As a 'sign off', I sincerely hope you don't consider these comments unkind or antagonistic - though we are not a debating society there is a debate going on here and my only motivation has been to respond to your points with valid counter-points. I mean no personal disrespect). Zac Δ talk 10:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter, I am relieved to hear your comments were not about stifling debate, which was what I had inferred. And yes, your editing record here is very good and there was no attempt to imply otherwise – I was reasserting that ‘jaw-jaw is always better than war-war’.

As you surmise, I have plenty of quotes that support the role of psychology in astrology from Jung and other sources and empirically verifiable groups such as the CPA school. However, I want to close or resolve one chapter before moving onto the next. I am not very good at what I see as the scatter gun approach to editing unless the page is non-controversial. (I have just seen that Zac has addressed this more thoroughly.)

Yes I agree that there is quite a lot of personal preference in selection of astrological techniques. This is why I consider the practice of most astrologers an art. BTW this element of choice also applies to fields like medicine or psychology. The preferences are not as you state ‘infinitely variable’ as there is a solid consensus within western astrology (as evidenced by the astrology schools) and an overlap with the Hindu system.

Is astrology really only a quietist studious activity? Does it really have no output of conclusions, commentary or debate?

Can you find a study that does not involve conclusions, commentary or debate? But then this speculation is no more than original research WP:OR since dictionary after dictionary and scholar after scholar define astrology as a study. You have always placed such emphasis on verifiable references, I am surprised that you support acceptance of an isolated definition when the majority of sources such as the OED state otherwise. You might clarify your vote as I cannot tell if you would like a review of alternatives or whether divination remains unquestioned. I think what you are saying is that divination is, in your opinion, better than study, discipline, method, system, practice, art or craft. Robert Currey talk 13:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I return to my point that, while one can find astrologers who enthusiastically say that astrology is divination, and critics of astrology who agree with them, to characterise astrology primarily as divination, or as science, or as anything else, is to forget its diversity. Csn I suggest that historians also make good sources for defintions of astrology, as well as sociologists and anthropologist. Here are three other general definitions:

Jim Tester, A History of Western Astrology, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1987, p 11.

‘Astrology is the interpretation and prognostication of events on earth, and of men’s characters and dispositions, form the measurement and plotting of the movements and relative positions of the heavenly bodies, of the stars and planets, including among the latter the sun and moon. This may or may not imply belief in stellar ‘influences’; it certainly implies constant and therefore usable relationships between configurations in the heavens and events on earth’.

Roger Beck, ‘Astrology’ in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edition, ed., Simon Hornblower and Anthony Spawforth, Oxford University Press, NY, 1996, p 195.

‘Astrology, the art of converting astronomical data (i.e. the positions of the celestial bodies) into predictions of outcomes in human affairs’.

Curry, Patrick, ‘Astrology’, in Boyd, Kelly (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Historians and Historical Writing, 2 Vols. London: Fitzroy Dearborn 1999, Vol. 1, pp 55-7 (p. 55)

‘Astrology is the practice of relating the heavenly bodies to lives and events on earth, and the tradition that has thus been generated’.

Also, to quote from a previous post "As you know Wikipedia is clear that the first paragraph should define the topic from a neutral point of view WP:MOSBEGIN and that confusing and specialized terminology should be avoided in the introduction WP:MOSINTRO." Can we go with WP policy?

Also, I made an earlier post repeating my point that a primary definition of astrology as divinaton excludes classical and medieval Aristotelian astrology, and cited David Pingree. Makesense64 pointed out that I posted it out of swequence, but I can't see where it is. I'll repeat Pingree's primary definition here:

David Pingree, ‘Astrology’ in Philip P. Wiener (ed.), Dictionary of the History of Ideas (New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons), Vol. 1, p 118.

‘the study of the impact of the celestial bodies - Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the fixed stars and sometimes the lunar nodes - upon the sublunar world... The influence of the celestial bodies is variously considered to be absolutely determinative of all motions of the four sublunar elements (Aristotelian physics is accepted as the basis for describing this influence...’

To conclude it is clear that astrology can be seen as divination and there are plenty of sources to say this. But we need a general definition to start withPaul Quigley (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Paul Quigley - for clarity purposes I've inserted indents into your post. Note how each responder adds an extra colon to each paragraph to indent it further in the page and differentiate from the preceding poster's comments.

Every one of your definitions is significant and relevant. These evidence how astrology is poorly defined when squeezed into the definition of any other single word but 'astrology'. As a further example of how astrology is essentailly multi-faceted and cannot be reduced to any of its various components, here is another, which proves that an attempt to do so would be to present false (pseudo?) information:

The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science -

Astrology is best defined as the set of theories and practices interpreting the positions of the heavenly bodies in terms of human and terrestrial implications. (The positions have variously been considered signs and, more controversially, causes.) The subject—and therefore its study—is fascinating, difficult, and often paradoxical. Although inextricably entangled with what are now demarcated as science, magic, religion, politics, psychology, and so on, astrology cannot be reduced to any of these. The historical longevity and cultural diversity of astrology are far too great for it to have been precisely the same thing in all times and places, yet it has always managed to reconstitute itself as much the same thing in the minds of its practitioners, public, and opponents alike. These points have particular relevance in relation to historians of science, who until recent decades predominantly analyzed astrology anachronistically as a “pseudo-science,” the human meanings of which could largely be derived from its lack of epistemological credentials...

Obviously some of the current lede has been taken from this quote, but with exclusion of its wider point. I don't have a page reference for this but found it whilst exploring previous discussions of the talk-page, as a definition proposed by Occassi. Zac Δ talk 11:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's Vote on Divination

I think it's decision time on this discussion. If the majority of those here truly believe that divination is the correct term, this discussion should cease and divination should stay pro-tem. I propose that we now vote on whether divination should stand as the best label for the entire field of astrology or whether we consider alternatives. If the majority wants it to stay unquestioned, I will move onto something else and not promote this argument here unless there is a serious change in circumstances.
Replies please by midnight 00:00 GMT/UTC at start of 16 July Robert Currey talk 01:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• I vote to seek alternatives to divination: For my reasons see here Robert Currey talk 00:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• I vote to seek alternatives to divination as suggested above: For the reasons I gave below (Sorry, but I originaly pasted this at the bottom of the talk - I'm only voting once!Paul Quigley (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Seek alternatives to divination. Not all Astrology is about 'the future' sometimes it's about the past, the present, to answer queries, to understand someone's personality, to bring light to important questions, to answer problems, to illustrate points...it's used for a whole gamut of different reasons...there are as many different ways of practising Astrology as there are stars in the sky...your discussion seems to imply there is only 'one way' to practice Astrology...which is as daft as saying there is only one religionVeryscarymary (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, if we're just defining what astrology is, then the consensus on the Internet is:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/astrology
http://komar.cs.stthomas.edu/qm425/Tesch4.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/astrology
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/astrology
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astrology
http://www.serendipity-astrolovers.com/definition-of-astrology.html
http://www.psychicguild.com/articles_view.php?id=497
http://odontology.co/2011/05/09/questioning-the-definition-of-astrology/
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/astrology
http://whatisholistic.com/definitions/astrology
http://www.definitions.net/definition/astrology
http://www.brainyquote.com/words/as/astrology133148.html

none of the above sites is using the term 'divination' when defining Astrology....so what makes the wiki editors think they should?? Plus may I add the obvious point, if YOU don't like/understand/believe/use/tolerate/are-interested-in Astrology, then don't bother editing the astrology page. It doesn't make sense. There are plenty of editors that enjoy the subject, leave it to them to edit. Wikipedia isn't the place to thrash-out your small-minded prejudices and/or intolerances Veryscarymary (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Veryscarymary - Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Unfortunately your vote does not count as I have requested votes from those who have already been involved in this debate. Robert Currey talk 13:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Robert Curry's opinion on who's votes don't count doesn't count, as he has no more right to make such decisions than anyone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Use 'divination' unless and until a more accurate descriptor can be established. Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Study, discipline, or divination in order of decreasing accuracy and weight of sources. Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• I vote to seek alternatives to divination: for the many reasons I have already given. See my latest comments in response to Peterstrempel and Paul Quigley for why the current definition of astrology being only divination is inaccurate and breaks WP policy by not being verifiable. Zac Δ talk 11:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This vote is meaningless. Article content isn't decided by votes, and a decision taken here would have no validity. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. If we can't come to a decision through consensus, and with due regard to policy, the best solution is probably to be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. MakeSense64 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read my proposal. This is a straw poll to see whether there is support for reviewing the use of divination as the defining term in the first sentence. It's simple, you consider it ideal so you vote that it remains. If you cannot commit, I will take it that you are ambivalent. This is not a case of deciding on the content and there are no proposed alternatives, but if a majority want it to stay, this will give a clear message that it is time to focus on other matters. If not, we should seriously consider alternatives. Robert Currey talk 09:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"If you cannot commit, I will take it that you are ambivalent". I don't care how you 'take it'. If you were to ask me whether I thought 'divination' was a reasonable term to apply to astrology, I'd concur. Now ask me whether I think that an involved party in a debate should be allowed to (a) set an arbitrary time limit (rather short, given the length of time the debate has been going on) for votes in a straw poll, and (b) decide for himself how others vote based not on what they say about the subject, but instead about what they say about the manner in which the poll is conducted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify the position in regard to consensus – when there are controversial pages such as this one, our remit is to ensure that editorial changes are discussed as a group, and generally agreed upon as appropriate and sensible. The WP policy on Consensus [WP:CON] explains:

What consensus is

Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles.Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes.

A request for comment would only add more comment, and we are not suffering for lack of that. No one can say that there has been a shortage of contributed opinions; that there has not already been sufficiently prolonged discussion; nor sincere attempt to formulate consensus. We are talking about a minor edit and we are not going to get unanimity - the only sensible solution now is to clarify the majority opinion of the group, make a decision, put this particular point to bed, and move our attention to the problems of hte page content. Zac Δ talk 12:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A simple solution. Those who want to remove 'divination' from the definition, let them point out which parts of astrology are not divination. If they can not find any, then defining astrology as a form of divination is perfectly appropriate. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Makesense, I have pointed this out already - the major example is the classical and medieval astrology which took Aristotelian causation as its rationale. Previously I cited North, John, 'Celestial Influence – the Major Premiss of Astrology’, in Stars, Minds and Fate: Essays in Ancient and Medieval Cosmology, London, The Hambledon Press 1989, pp. 243-98.Paul Quigley (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64, this point has been addressed a few times. See my post at 16:38 on 13 July para 3. Robert Currey talk 09:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64, this point has been addressed a few times. See my post at 11:58 on 14 July paras 9-13 and 16. Zac Δ talk 12:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just in case I wasn't clear, I vote to seek alternatives to divination, for the reasons I have already stated, and in line with the sources I have given Paul Quigley (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul Quigley, thank you – your single vote has been noted. Robert Currey talk 17:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that "divination" is not the correct term to apply to astrology. Even my two volume "The Worldbook Dicitionary" defines divination as "the act of foreseeing the future or foretelling the unknown by inspiration, by magic or by signs and omens". Such signs and omens generally refer to the shape of a sheeps liver, a black cat crossing your path, walking under a ladder etc etc. Astrology is not based on inspiration, by magic or by signs and omens but the study of correlations between relativel sophisticated stellar activity and events on Earth. It may be a mute point, but I have never seen a book describe astrology as divination.

• I vote to seek alternatives to divination. Terry Macro (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote, Terry. Robert Currey talk 09:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump – this is just a straw poll to see how we can progress a debate about one word that has gone on for almost a month! I am offering you a fair chance to close it down. I think 48 hours is a reasonable timetable to include everyone who is still involved. However, in response to your comment that it is too short notice, I have notified Kwami and Ocaasi who have been sympathetic to your views and Terrymacro who also contributed earlier on. Are you now suggesting that we enter into another debate until we get consensus about when to set a deadline or whether the vote should include new editors WP:MEAT – as I don’t have another month to waste? To edit this page we need to work towards greater cooperation instead of blocking constructive edits.

You are welcome to abstain from voting. Whatever your excuses, if you don’t vote, you leave a lasting impression that you are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is. Frankly, I can’t blame you because the divination label here flies in the face of WP policy: WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:MOSINTRO and WP:MOSBEGIN. I am sorry if I sound impatient, but I sense that it is time for all of us to put up or shut-up. Robert Currey talk 09:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I vote to replace with alternatives to divination as planets and geometric configurations are not supernatural or omens. Logical 1 (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Logical 1 - thank you for your vote. However, I cannot include your vote as this is a straw poll of those who have been involved in the discussion so far. Robert Currey talk 14:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I point out that it isn't for a single involved party to determine who gets to vote. This charade has no support from Wikipedia policy or practice, and as such any 'result' will be meaningless. There is no reason whatsoever why a decision needs to be made now in any case. With regard to the lede itself, can I suggest that supporters/believers in astrology try to come to a consensus amongst themselves as to what astrology is (based of course on reliable sources), rather than what it isn't. If we had some agreement as to what it is that astrologers are doing (or think they are doing) when they do astrology, we might be in a better position to decide whether 'divination' was an appropriate description. So: "Astrology is a system of what? founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies are signs of or—more controversially among astrologers—causes of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events". AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I’m not sure who this comment you have just made is addressed to: “can I suggest that supporters/believers in astrology try to come to a consensus amongst themselves as to what astrology is (based of course on reliable sources), rather than what it isn't."

Speaking for myself: I am not here to support astrology. I am here because I have good knowledge of what the astrological argument is, warts and all, and I am supporting Wikipedia in its attempt to build a reliable resource. I am not a believer in astrology, whatever that is supposed to mean. I keep an enquiring mind and a healthy dose of skepticism for everything I engage my mind in and I certainly don’t believe anything without question - not even the claims of some Wikipedians that they are preserving policies when they invoke them whilst misrepresenting the purpose of them. It is unnecessarily divisive (and silly) to imply that editors here must fall into two camps: of being prejudiced in favor of or against the subject matter. I assume in good faith that your mind is open and that you are contributing for the same reason that I am. Let’s extend that to other editors too unless there is good reason to suggest otherwise. How good it would be if we just pooled our resources and worked together to support the altruistic principles of Wikipedia.

With regard to your question: "Astrology is a system of what? founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies are signs of or—more controversially among astrologers—causes of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events".

How about "Astrology is a study system of what? founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies are signs of or—more controversially among astrologers—causes of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events".

What lengthy debates could be ended by one little word, which accurately describes what astrology is.

(A perhaps unnecessary explanation – the reason astrology was traditionally known as ‘a science’ is because, prior to 1678, the word ‘science’ was applied much more liberally than it is today, to mean "knowledge (of something) acquired by study" – check the word origin and history at the bottom of this disctionary page if you doubt that.) Zac Δ talk 15:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The first question is, what do reliable sources say? I assume that a sample of reliable sources will reveal that there are several diverging views. NPOV says we have to represent all mainstream vi8ews - all the more so when they conflict. Whatever the major sources say, is what we should say. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

From the ample sample of reliable sources given, the diversity is only in introducing the subject as a study, a practice, an art, an interpretion of ..., etc. None of them suggest that astrology is only divination as this lede does, so they are actually consistent in regard to the point being discussed. Zac Δ talk 19:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back Slrubenstein. In terms of published sources cited here, I calculate that astrology is defined as follows:

* Dictionaries (in English with separate definitions): 11 study, 1 divination , 1 art [8 published & 5 on-line]

* Scholarly sources: Encyclopedias & Books: 3 study, 1 practice, 1 divination, 1 art, 1 interpretation and prognostication.

70% study, 10% divination, 10% art, 5% practice, 5% interpretation & prognostication. I have only included online sites that have the word dictionary in the address. I have detailed some of the sources here Robert Currey talk 22:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Discipline, practice or study, or whatever neutral expression is agreed upon here, should be employed to characterize astrology (this does not seem to be the place to claim that it is either divination or science). Axel 22:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelHarvey (talk • contribs)

Thank you for voting. There were a total of 9 votes and 2 abstentions. 3 votes were discounted as these editors were not involved in the discussion of the proposal. The Results: 5 editors voted in favour and 1 against. This discussion has gone on for nearly a month. With a strong majority in favour of change, I have replaced system of divination with the word study – the term which has been overwhelmingly cited by verifiable sources.

I also propose altering the first paragraphs in a number of other ways:

1. Replace “Astrology is often characterized as "reading the stars", but "stars" in this context refers to the word's oldest sense—that of any small bright point in the night sky whether it be a star or a planet as those terms are used by modern English speakers.” With “Although astrology is often characterized as "reading the stars", the stars (other than the sun), by their modern definition[4], actually play a minor role.” The fuller explanation could be included in the body, but this detail is IMO not concise enough for the lede.
2. Replace “seven planets” with an alternative terminology as most astrologers use Pluto and the luminaries. (The Sun and the Moon)
3. Remove “…of interest..” in second last sentence as it is superfluous.
4. In the list of in the last sentence:
   1. Replace the word craft with practice.
   2. Replace the word mysticism with divination.
   3. Add psychology to the list, provided it can be supported by a solid reference .
5. Lastly, the first sentence has never been clear and concise and this needs to be reworded. I have left these proposals in the interests of keeping this well discussed replacement to a minimum. Robert Currey talk 09:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how other editors will feel about your change; generally only an uninvolved editor should close a poll or request for comment like the one above. I would also note that although several of the definitions you use include "study", they also frequently include some qualifier such as "supposed relationship" which indicates the tenuous, supernatural nature of the astrological hypothesis and its lack of acceptance by mainstream science. You've maintained that certain elements of natural astrology are beyond dispute (tides, for example), but we generally categorize those as simple astronomy and don't give astrology modern credit for them, even if they co-evolved or originated together. I think it would be unwise to group so-called natural astrology and divinatory astrology in the same category, or to have our definition reflect a union of the two. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 11:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi, I appreciate you coming back into this discussion. As you know this has been discussed here for a month and most editors have expressed a wish to reach some conclusion and a wish to move onto other areas. I posted a 48 hour deadline in advance and notified you and Kwami. If I took an initiative that did not exactly follow the WP rules, I apologise, but this has helped flush out the general view on this and may enable some useful editing to bring this page into better shape.

I can’t see a case to add a qualifier since there is no claim in this definition from the Oxford Dictionary of English, (2006). The word ‘indicators’ is very weak compared to influence, causes or my preferred word correlations. Even if there were a claim, it is clearly undermined by the pseudoscience claim in the first paragraph.

Though Natural Astrology was referred to on several occasions in the discussions (without being questioned before), as you know the argument over divination as a definition did not rest on whether Natural Astrology was astrology. However, this was as you know, Dr Geoffrey Cornelius’s argument as to why most but not all astrology is divination. I think this should be discussed as I consider that Natural Astrology has always been a key part of astrology and should be addressed in the body. Do have references to counter Cornelius’s argument and show that Natural Astrology is no longer part of astrology? BTW – I accept that there is an overlap between Natural Astrology and astro-physics, just as there is with natal astrology and psychology. Robert Currey talk 13:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert Currey, I have declunked the 1st sentence a little, but not in a way that would change its meaning. Hope that's OK. I've also made a start in applying the style guide to the references in that section, and building a list of sources. We can develop this as sections or paragraphs get scrutinised.

In regard to your suggestions:

1) I don't like the text as it stands, and sorry to say I don't like your suggested alternative either. Both are ugly editorially, and why that comment is in the lede is beyond me. Where is the point made elsewhere? Maybe we need a new section of discussion for that although I'm a bit sick of discussing the lede now. Would rather leave it until we can get it spot on.

2) So obvious I have just done it. We surely don't need a talk-page discussion on that.

3) Ditto - have changed it to "the system also allows reference to fixed stars, asteroids, comets, and various mathematical points." If anyone has a reason why they want the superflous words they can make a case for a revert on that, but the Wikipedia style guide policy is to avoid words that are not necesssary or adding further explanation.

4) Done this - I have already made a cast iron case for the integration of psychology in astrology above in my response to Peterstrempel diff if anyone wants to take psychology out again and resurrect that debate, then fine, but those points need considering first as I don't see how there is an argument left to deny this. On the other hand, it is necessary that we make sure the point is properly explained in the main article content. Plenty of references there already, but if some editors are not understanding the importance of the psychological connection, then obviously the message has got lost somehwere.

- Unfortunately this lede section is still far from perfect. Very clunky - it still suffers from looking like a committee wrote it with political correctness issues in mind. Anything more at this time, before the main page content issues are addressed, will be sticking on another plaster rather than attending to the wound. Cheers, Zac Δ talk 12:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zac, thank you for the edits. Explaining the difference between the ancient meaning and modern meaning of stars and the popular confusion of stars with planets may not be possible in a concise sentence. So it may be better to explain it fully within a section rather than clutter the lead, though I recognize that this misconception is widespread and needs clarification.

Like many astrologers with a background in psychology, the huge overlap with astrology has always been self-evident. However, looking at the exchange below, I sense that this point may need to be made beyond all reasonable doubt backed by a solid reference before editing. Robert Currey talk 15:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting focus on content

Unless I have missed a mysterious causal link between my indifference to accurate word counts and the generation of impenetrable rhetoric, I appear to have misjudged the clarity of my English.

So let me try a different avenue towards the same end. I see nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines that obliges us to summarize in the astrology article all the content in other related articles, as proposed by Zac. In fact, to do so would create a house of cards subject to collapse if one or more key specifications in linked articles were to change. I am therefore operating on the assumption that the opening of THIS article is intended to summarise ITS content. Is that assumption disputed?

I cannot discern in the present article any clear, referenced statement that astrology cannot be characterised as divination in the ordinary sense of that word. Agreeing with AndyTheGrump about a vote on the word being meaningless if the word is appropriate, I offer the following further step. Change the wording of the section ‘Core beliefs and practices’ to —-

A core belief of Western astrology is that earthly events can be made explicable by observation of the heavens, as suggested by the Hermetic maxim, "as above, so below" and Tycho Brahe’s phrase “by looking up I see downward".[14]

Modern astrologers use data provided by astronomers which are transformed to a set of astrological tables called ephemerides,[18] showing the changing zodiacal positions of the celestial bodies over time.

Two methods of astrology are interpretation of ‘transitions’ or ‘progressions’ of celestial bodies, relative to signs of the Zodiac or astrological ‘houses’, to propose causal effects on earthly events or human life cycles. [15][16]

Sceptics of astrology allege that astrologers do not make verifiable predictions, giving them the ability to attach significance to arbitrary and unrelated events, in a way that suits their purpose.[17]

The assertions about ‘most astrologers’ and ‘Hindu’ astrologers have been removed because they are unreferenced. To talk about most of anything requires statistical comparison of numbers: how many of what total. Talking about Hindu astrologers as a distinct group requires a slightly more complex statistical correlation: how many of what total who are also Hindu do what differently from the total, and whether that lends itself to a generalisation about Hindu astrologers in toto.

The strikethrough, which is an edited version of the existing paragraph, indicates that I cannot access the single citation offered due to a DNS error that could be unique to me, but may also indicate that the server is offline or the IP address no longer exists. If someone else could verify this we can either remove the sentence or the strikethrough.

In any event, an accurate summary of core beliefs and practices, either as described in the existing article or in my proposed amendment, is that they consist of unverifiable prediction. Hence the word divination appears appropriate in characterising astrology. If I am mistaken please point out the specifics in the existing or proposed prose.

As passing comment: MakeSense46 is right to ask that defenders of astrological rationalism really ought to provide concrete and reliably referenced examples of that rationalism. Taking that point to its extreme does demand that we move past theoretical discussion to even a single concrete instance in which astrology, not an astrological input derived from a different discipline, does not rely on interpretation of natural phenomena to suggest causal effects on human affairs that cannot be proved or disproved. This is not the same as mentioning a single instance in which a prediction proved to be literally correct, but rather a single instance in which the methodology used to reach such a conclusion can be repeated independently to reach correct conclusions significantly more often than not (ie, more often than the standard deviations of pure chance).

Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The core beliefs (principles) and practices section needs a lot of work. The two main core principles are the Hermetic maxim, "As above, so below," and the principle summarized by Francis Bacon (1605), “The last rule (which has always been held by the wiser astrologers) is that there is no fatal necessity in the stars; but that they rather incline than compel.” This second principle has led to a more psychological application of astrology to personality and analysis of relationship dynamics (which as you can appreciate was more suitable to the purposes of the individual and more in keeping with Enlightenment and later thought). I believe this last principle has been influential in horary and "Hindu" astrology only more recently, though I am no expert in those fields.

It would be speculation to try to associate these principles with causality. Causes might be interesting to think about, but they are not necessary for the practice, discipline, or study of astrology.

As far as practices go, astrologers use transits, progressions, revolutions, elections, horary techniques, relocations and localizations, etc. This could be a list of the practices and their descriptions.

The practice of astrology is really a question of consideration of similar case studies, historical examples, and textbook theory according to the published literature, and consulting in accord with the goals and interests of the client. Sources such as Rudhyar and Tyl come to mind, but there are many. That is hardly what you would normally call divination in the usual sense of the word, a rather ambiguous word that would tend to obscure rather than clarify.

The astronomical observations have changed from direct observation, to printed ephemerides, to computer programs, but all that is scarcely relevant to the practice. I'd delete it.

Regards, Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned that the discussion of the opening statement that 'astrology is divination' seems to be focused on issues of astrology's validity, and that those who wish to keep the statement are motivated by a sense that if the defintion is dropped it will seem to grant validity to astrology. Am I correct? However, as I see it an encyclopaedia article like this is not concerned with a subject's validity. It can report on debates over validity, but it should be concerned with representing the cultural phenomenon, not its validity. Hence, it is no more relevant to shape the Astrology page because of agendas over astrology's validity, than to do so on the Father Christmas page - which I just checked. There are plenty of astrologers who define astrology as divination and who see it as reinforcing astrology's validity - and probably plenty members of the public as well. I have cited scholarly sources to show that there is a naturalistic, non-divinatory rationale for astrology rooted in classical philosophy which is essential to an understanding of the subject in the classical and medieval worlds. The initial definition of astrology therfore needs to be broader before focussing on its various truth claims or practices. I really can't see the objection to this. The queston is, do we wish WP articles to reflect current scholarship as far as possible, including historical scholarship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.90.209 (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry forgot to signPaul Quigley (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Divination = "discover hidden knowledge usually by the interpretation of omens or by the aid of supernatural powers" implies a "supernatural ability" whereas astrology uses geometry and the movement of celestial bodies which can be discerned by any person. Therefore the knowledge would not be supernatural, nor is the information hidden or an omen, only a mechanistic analysis for which "cause" cannot be yet determined. Agree that it is more natural than supernatural. Logical 1 (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Logical 1, you have summed up a key point that seems to be lost on one or two editors. Robert Currey talk 15:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying the purpose of this article, and the correct focus of approach towards content

Peter S Strempel says:

“I see nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines that obliges us to summarize in the astrology article all the content in other related articles, as proposed by Zac. In fact, to do so would create a house of cards subject to collapse if one or more key specifications in linked articles were to change. I am therefore operating on the assumption that the opening of THIS article is intended to summarise ITS content. Is that assumption disputed?”

Yes it is disputed; it is a mistaken assmption. It seems wise to clarify this now so that we all understand the bigger picture that we should be working towards. It will be helpful for you to check Wikipedia:Summary style:

• “Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place”; these “Summary sections are linked to the detailed article”.

We don’t need to do this for every section if there is little content or potential for development. However:

• “Where an article is long, and has lots of subtopics with their own articles, try to balance parts of the main page. Do not put overdue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts. In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page.”

In terms of how this affects this page:

- All of the sections which begin with the link that says: Main article: … should present a summary of what is explained in more detail on that other page. This currently affects: History (and its subsections Traditions, Horoscopic astrology; the subsections of ‘Contemporary changes’: Western, Indian; and Effects on world culture.

- We can also see from this that some sections require development and a little expansion whilst the Astrology and science section should be spun off to its own page, so that there is a proportionate representation and sense of balance to the page.

The Core beliefs and practices section has no daughter article elsewhere, but must still reflect the core beliefs and practices as defined in the main astrology sections, and also present consistency with what is explained in other sections of this article. As Ken McRitchie says, the section requires thoughtful attention, but as it stands it is not too troublesome because (thorugh its use of ambiguous words like "most") it is not inaccurate. (I suggest editors read the section on the page to see what it currently says by comparison to how it is presented in Peterstrempels’s proposed edits). With development it may be wise to separate ‘Core beliefs’ from ‘practices’ but currently, since it refers to both, the reference to ephemerides is appropriate – I have fixed the link for that.

That section would become troublesome and inaccurate if we took up Peter S Strempel's suggestion to change the current content, which reads:

There are several techniques of forecasting in Western astrology. Transits, the most popular, are based on the actual motion of planets moving through a sign or house within the horoscope. Another technique, progressions are based on the movements of the planets after birth, symbolically related to a time period or cycle of life.[15][16]

to:

Two methods of astrology are interpretation of ‘transitions’ or ‘progressions’ of celestial bodies, relative to signs of the Zodiac or astrological ‘houses’, to propose causal effects on earthly events or human life cycles. [15][16]

Not only would this impose an inaccurate and unjustified restriction on how transits and progressions are believed to work, it directly contradicts the point made clear in the Mechanisms section, which explains:

Researchers have posited acausal, purely correlative, relationships between astrological observations and events, such as the theory of synchronicity proposed by Carl Jung which draws from the ancient Hermetic principle of 'as above, so below' to postulate meaningful significance in unrelated events that occur simultaneously.[90][91] Others have posited a basis in divination.[92] Other astrologers have argued that empirical correlations stand on their own epistemologically, and do not need the support of any theory or mechanism.[83]

NB: the correct terminology is ‘transits’ and not ‘transitions’.

Paul Quigley has made a very strong point which needs serious consideration. It is not wise to edit towards the direction of unreliable and controversial content, and we are not here to impose upon the subject our own assumptions or personally preferred definitions. Hence the necessity to pull this article together as a summary of what WP reports on astrology as a whole, always keeping the principle of verifiability by reliable sources in mind, to ensure that what WP reports is a fair summary of what cultural opinion and current scholarship has to say of the subject as a whole. So yes, if the daughter articles undergo significant changes of content, then this parent article needs to undergo maintenance changes too. But that's not a problem - WP's strength is that it is an organic encyclopedia, which can update its content as necessary. And that's why the page benfits from having a team of editors working collaboratively together, with a clear understanding of what this page's purpose is. Zac Δ talk 09:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

References for the pseudo-science comments in the lede

I have started to apply style guidelines to the footnotes and list of sources - as a result I am checking through all the references given, to make sure that the reference reinforces the comment made. There are a number of problems with the references attached to the final paragraph of the lede which relates to the pseudoscience issue. Since can this become a controversial issue I want to check every point before making a copy edit. My first problem is with this comment:

The scientific community bases astrology's pseudoscientific status in its making predictive claims which either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved.

None of the following footnotes in the paragraph make this point, so I'm adding a citation request. The only one of the paragraph's 7 footnotes which relates to the criteria by which astrology is defined as a pseudoscience is the Thagard one attached to the following sentence - and even then the definition given here is not the one that Thagard presents.* To keep things simple and avoid a rewrite, can anyone here produce a reference which qualifies the comment as it is written above?

• Thagard Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience

Zac Δ talk 01:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to consider very carefully whether Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience effectively prevents you from raising the issue here. The arbitrators have effectively ruled that for Wikipedia's purposes, astrology is pseudoscience (indeed, it is almost an archetype for this) - so if you want to argue that it isn't, you need to do it there, not here. I can see no objection for asking for references over this, but any attempt to remove the assertion from the lede is likely to be problematic. Whether this is a just or reasonable situation is of course open to debate (though not here), but that is the reality of the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

AndytheGrump - if you think there is any policy that prevents me from asking the question I have asked then you better go straight ahead and report me to someone. Alternatively you could re-read what I just posted with your blinkers off. Zac Δ talk 02:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you can't ask the question. All I'm doing is pointing out that not getting an answer might not permit you (according the the arbitration ruling) from doing anything much about it. However, I think this is entirely a hypothetical situation, as finding a citation that backs up the scientific community's rejection of astrology as pseudoscience will surely not be much of a task. If nobody steps in, I'll have a look myself tomorrow - I should be in bed by now... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

OK - this can wait. I am not trying to delete the comment, I am trying to substantiate it. I'm sure it won't be hard to reference. The comment says it is a pseudoscience "because it makes claims which either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved". This is where a reference is necessary, because the ones we have so far don't show that this is the reason. Thagard gives quite a different account of why astrology is a pseudoscience.

Whilst we are on this point, your comment above "it is almost an archetype for this" bears resemblance to the one on the page which says "In its modern form, it is a classic example of pseudoscience". I have added a citation request for that comment too. Like the general reader I have less experience of the sources on this issue (except the ones linked to on this page), and I don't see any of them making the suggestion that astrology is "a classic example of a pseudo-science". They mention it along with many other subjects without any particular spotlight thrown on astrology. For example, ref 8 mentions 10 pseudoscience topics

"Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body."

We need a reference to support the view that astrology is a "classic example"; otherwise the comment should say something like "In [year] astrology was categorised as a pseudoscience by [?]"(ref.) Or at least something that can be qualified by a reference to a reliable source. To use unnecessary and unqualified adjectives goes against WP guidelines on content. We report just the verifyable facts as supported by independent reliable sources, without puffing them up because of something that Wikipedia has ruled. Zac Δ talk 02:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Zac, I realize that you are pursuing good editorial policy and normally this would be a valid question to pursue. However, given that every nuance of the pseudoscience reference has been debated at great length earlier this year, is it possible to leave this controversial point and work on improving other parts of the article? Robert Currey talk 09:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem with me. I don't think it should be necessary for me to have to state this, but for the record, it was not in my thinking that the comments should be deleted. My objective is to see the quality of this article improved so it becomes a featured article on Wikipedia. Its a long-term objective; for it to happen the article must explain the relevant criticisms (but all comments need to adhere to WP standards). It's unfortunate that those pseudo-science references in the lede need attention because I was hoping to tidy up the lede as it stands right now. Some of the references are very poor and don't connect to the point being made. On the other hand others are very credible. So what's the policy here when, say, we have 4 references supposedly justifying one comment, but only two of them are directly relevant and of a 'reliable' standard? Isn't it better to remove questionable material of any form (even if it is a footnote) so that the attention goes to those that are significant?

I'll continue to add citation requests for comments that make definite remarks without qualification. I want to move beyond the lede myself and will procede as if walking on eggshells - at the same time we can't behave as if we are blind to any of the article's flaws. Zac Δ talk 10:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have moved this topic off the bottom of the page. Robert Currey talk 10:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

'Psychology' as a part of astrology.

I have removed the reference to psychology as being involved in astrological study. This is not only unreferenced, but looks like an attempt to get around the arbitration ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience) by linking astrology to a defined scientific field which rejects the very premises that astrology supports. If anyone attempts to reinsert this dubious claim, I reserve the right to take this to arbitration, with the intent of getting the ruling enforced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

AndytheGrump I think this is a bit ridiculous. Your edit revert comment said "removed thoroughly - misleading claim that astrology uses the science of psychology (as our linked article correctly describes it"

The lede said "As a practice, astrology is a combination of basic astronomy, numerology, divination and psychology". There was no stress on the word 'science' - no mention of the "science of psychology"; just as there was no mention of the "science of astronomy".

And how can you say it was unreferenced when there are so many references to the psychological relevancy of astrology already on the page. It is very easy for me to add a reference to qualify the comment, so why didn't you just add a "citation needed" tag?

I wonder if you actually bother to read the talk page discussions, because this has already been discussed enough to leave no logical reason for you to declare it to be a 'dubious claim'. I am going to copy below some of the comments I have already made on this myself. Please feel free to counter the arguments if you have valid points to make which are based on reliable sources and not your own preference for seeing the matter exactly how you want to see it.

[Peters S Strempel said] AndyTheGrump is right to ask for references, and I don’t think Robert will have difficulty finding citations for linking Carl Jung’s concept of synchronicity to some astrological discussion and practice.

[I replied: 10:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)] I’ve covered the gap identified in the 'clarification-needed' tag. But it seems to me that the page is already full of ample references to demonstrate the point.

With regard to psychology, Jung’s own words were

“Obviously astrology has much to offer psychology, but what the latter can offer its elder sister is less evident” (Jung, C.G., Letters, op.cit., 'Letter to André Baubault, 26 May 1954', p.174)

Is it necessary to add that to the page? The point seems to be demonstrated sufficiently already. To me it’s bizarre that editors here question the traditional association between astrology and psychology. Apart from the fact that there are notable astrological associations which specialize their focus on astrology as a means to explore psychology (for example: CPA – The Centre for Psychological Astrology); Jung’s reference to astrology as the elder sister of psychology demonstrates his knowledge of how astrology has always been involved in the exploration of the psyche, and that the classical philosophical discussions of astrology concerned the role of the anima, as the psychological probing of the universal and individual soul-mind.

We have clear references to this in masses of traditional astrological texts, going back to the most ancient sources which talk about assessment of the anima and how to use astrological techniques to determine behavioural predisposition and character. We find this in the astrological works of Ptolemy and Alkindi and many, many others. Indeed, Alkindi’s name is notable in the history of psychology as being one of the first to formalize the study of psychology: see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-kindi/ for how his argument “consists entirely of supposed quotes from Greek authorities – Plato, Pythagoras, and Aristotle – about the nature of the soul”.

Hence when ancient Greek and medieval and renaissance astrological texts give instruction on how to determine the quality of the soul, they are engaging in psychology. There is no question that the study of psychology contributes to the study of astrology; this is well established in both the historical and contemporary understanding of the word.Zac Δ talk 10:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

So please explain to me why you hold to your view that astrology does not, and has not always, involved psychological assesment of temperament and character. (And if you are not prepared to present an argument, then don't edit the content of the page as if there are not others here who already have). Zac Δ talk 13:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Psychology is a science - one that has expressly rejected the claims of astrology. That practitioners of astrology can drag up past links between the subjects is irrelevant. Anyone practising astrology now is not using psychology as it is currently defined, and to claim otherwise is misleading. Or can you point to reputable institutions that teach astrology as a part of psychological practice? Astrology is a pseudoscience, psychology is a science (one that rejects astrology as unscientific), and any attempt to conflate the two is contrary to the arbitration ruling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

AndytheGrump - have you read the comment at the top of this page - where psychology is defined as 'questionable science' which some criticise for being a pseudoscience? I think I understand better the point you are making now - but what do you suggest as a solution to this? The fact is that astrology entails psychological profiling and it has a long-established history in the development of the study of psychology. However, I agree with you that the study of astrology should not be made to look directly comparable to the modern study of psychology. Yes, that would be wrong. On the other hand there are many qualified Jungian analysts, all properly trained in the modern 'science' of psychology, and they do use astrology as the vehicle of expression of their psychological technique. So it is not possible to discuss astrology without acknowledging its psychological element. So what do you recommend as the way to deal with this ? Zac Δ talk 14:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User AndytheGrump writes: "I have removed the reference to psychology as being involved in astrological study." Can I ask; if there are psychologists that employ astrology in conjunction with their psychology or psychological practice specifically to gain psychological insight in their work does this count as a form of astrological/psychological connection being involved together in astrological "study?"Logical 1 (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read that again. It is psychoanalysis that is defined as 'questionable science'. This is beside the point though. If you are going to claim that astrology has a 'psychological element' you need to clarify how. Certainly, the science of psychology is useful in understanding why astrology is seen by some to work - as the lede makes clear when it discusses cognitive bias - but if you are going to assert that it is 'using' psychology you need to provide evidence that directly links the methods of psychological study with the methods of astrology. I think much of the problem revolves around the rather loose way the term 'psychology' is often used - in a crude sense, everyone uses it all the time, but as a science psychology proper requires an objectivity and verifiability that is singularly lacking in astrology. Perhaps what we need is a term for the 'folk-psychology' that is involved in everyday human discourse - I've no objection to that being included as part of the 'study' - indeed, I think that it has a role in a sense that the 'stars' don't (something which psycological science seems to also imply). What is clearly wrong though is to simply use the term 'psychology', with an internal link to an article which describes it in the strict 'scientific' meaning, rather than the 'folk' one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is this section named "psychology as part of astronomy"? Don't you mean "psychology as part of astrology"?

In his preface in his book "The Astrologer's Guide to Counselling" psychotherapist Bernard Rosenblum, MD writes the following:

This book is written from the point of view of a psychotherapist who believes that good astrology can make a profound contribution to the growth of the spirit and consciousness of people today. It can be of significant assistance to the psychotherapist in particular, and in various ways, the most important being the excellent psychological overview of the patient that it provides.

Just as many astronomers reject astrology so do many psychologists. Are we going to claim next that astronomy, because it is a science, cannot be a part of astrology and all references to it should be removed? Even if we argue that astrology is not a science, or even that psychology is not a science, what has that to do with astrologers incorporating ideas from psychology or psychologists incorporating ideas from astrology? This seems to be another case of an editor wishing to advance a personal agenda against a subject's validity, as discussed by the concerns of Paul Quigley (July 15). Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about this. Certainly astrology makes use of basic astronomy, though it's pre-scientific astronomy, from the days before they were separate fields. It addresses some of the same issues as psychology, but does not make use of what we currently think of as psychology. Perhaps it would be better to reverse things, and rather than saying it makes use of either astronomy or psychology, make a statement to the effect that both astronomy and (partially) psychology grew out of astrology? — kwami (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to argue about whether astrology is a science or not. Arbitration has ruled that it isn't, and those that think otherwise will either have to argue (not here) that this ruling be overturned, or argue their case off-Wikipedia. And can we not have weasel words about how 'many' astronomers reject astrology etc. This is pure humbug. The overwhelming majority of astronomers consider astrology bunk, as do the overwhelming majority of psychologists. As for having a 'personal agenda', yes I have one - to contribute towards making Wikipedia an encyclopaedia that discusses subjects objectively, and doesn't allow dubious linkages between science and pseudoscience to be inserted into articles by proponents of said pseudoscience.

(Thanks for pointing out the error in the section title by the way - pure incompetence on my part) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ken McRitchie, I agree with most of your post but not the last comment. At first I thought the same myself but I get the point now. I was looking at the word in its loose meaning but outside of that I would agree this AtG's objection is based on a valid argument. @AndytheGrump - Thanks for clarifying that, and apologies for calling it 'a bit ridiculous' earlier. I don't think it is but it needs some thought. I hope you continue to input and help us find an appropriate solution. I'm off away from the computer now. Cheers Zac Δ talk 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, one last comment to Kwami. Astrology uses astronomy; astronomy as a study underwent changes in the 17th century and its modern form, which is no longer directly relevant to astrology, is called 'cosmobiology'. But there could be something in what you say. The psychology insert has already been reversed so maybe this is the theme to think about over the next week: to see if we can collectively come up with the right way to express this. Zac Δ talk 15:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, I think you mean 'cosmology'. Back on topic, or at least back on what I intended the topic to be when I started the section, is it ok for me to change the header from 'astronomy' to 'astrology' as I originally intended, or have I so thouroughly confused everyone (including myself) that I'd best leave it as is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, yes cosmology! (You started this.) Zac Δ talk 17:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I did it. I didn't even notice you wrote "astronomy", since it was so obvious what you meant from context.

As for Zac's point, simple astronomy today—not cosmology—is much more than what astrology uses. Which is why we use the word "basic". But thinking of it along the lines of psychology, I think it would be more accurate to say that they share a common core than that astrology "makes use of" astronomy. AFAIK it doesn't, outside of that historically common core. AFAIK the only additions are observations we make with telescopes, such as adding Pluto and asteroids, which isn't so much science as just observation, and would have been in astrology from the beginning if the Greeks etc. had known about them. — kwami (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I am just trying to get my head around the arguments here. Is anyone still suggesting that because astrology 'is generally considered' pseudoscience and psychology is science, there can be no link between the two fields? Presumably the argument is that any link has to be supported by evidence.

Logical 1 - I can't answer for andythegrump, but if you can show evidence that "psychologists employ astrology in conjunction with their psychology or psychological practice specifically to gain psychological insight" this would of course, support the link. However, since this claim is challenged, your evidence could not be isolated examples and must come from an independently verifiable source. Robert Currey talk 10:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

On a related point, can editors here take a look at reference 11: Objections to Astrology and the Strange Case of Astrology: This is given as qualification for the comment "Psychology explains much of the continued faith in astrology as a matter of cognitive biases".

The webpage this reference leads to has no connection to the point being made. It gives a PDF link to an important document which is extremely relevant to several other points made in this article. But it's not in any way relevant here. Anyone who doubts this please check. Unless someone can see a connection that I have missed and can present an argument why that document supports the view that Psychology explains faith in astrology to be a matter of cognitive biases, I intend to remove reference 11, whilst leaving the the document linked to the other places where it is pertinent.Zac Δ talk 11:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto reference 10: http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology3.html#defense - this is a bad refrence anyway, being little more than one man's unreferenced blog-style argument.Zac Δ talk 12:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Groan... after checking, ref 13 Scientists dump cold water on astrology holds no connection to the point either. There is another reference given later to this same study, which is a much more authoritative reference; but neither connect to the issue of cognitive bias.

Reference 12 is also unsuitable The case for and against astrology - it sort of covers the point but not in a way that relates directly to the comment being made. We could use this due to the fact that it says "Your sun sign and birth chart may fit you exactly but so do other sun signs and birth charts not your own". However, the problem with this reference is that the article has no author, no publication details, no date of publication, etc., etc. I have tried to find other versions of the article online and failed. I've also searched through the website it is hosted on for more information and failed. I thought about emailing the hosts of the website to ask for these details but no email address or contact details are given. Unless we can find these details I cannot see how this unreferenced web article could possibly be used as a reliable independent source.

It surely cannot be difficult to find one good reliable reference for this point. If necessary I will try to locate something suitable myself. I have no intention of deleting the comment but unless someone can justify how any of the four references that are supposed to qualify the comment do that to the standard expected by Wikipedia, it would be better to remove all of these naff references and replace them with a "citation needed" tag.Zac Δ talk 13:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As to astrology using psychology, there are plenty of psychotherapists with advanced degrees who are well known in the astrological community for speaking at conferences and authoring astrology books, for example, Bernard Rosenblum already mentioned above, Glenn Perry, Paul Reeder, just to mention a few. The question is are these psychologists who use astrology or are these astrologers who use psychology? Is there a difference? Is there any good evidence that psychotherapy is not psychology?

The statement "Psychology explains much of the continued faith in astrology as a matter of cognitive biases" is something I was saving for later, but Zac has raised it here and maybe this is as good a time as any. This comment is stated as if it is a fact, but is not supported by reliable references. The best references I've seen refer to the Barnum effect, or Forer effect of subjective validation. Forer, and the many replications, concocted a statement that was cherry picked from horoscope columns to enhance the effect in classroom demonstrations. This obvious selection bias cannot validate any sort of argument against astrology and in fact this claim is never made, nor is there any claim in these exercises that astrology is a question of "faith." If this statement stays it needs to be qualified that it is a presumption of evidence against astrology and has been used by opponents of astrology to mislead. Ken McRitchie (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Zac also raises another important problem. The statement, "Studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate statistically significant relationships between astrological predictions and operationally defined outcomes." is not supported by good references. The Fracknoi citation is not good for the reasons Zac has given. The Carlson reference is to a very flawed study that actually, upon more recent analysis, seems to support astrology. These hardly constitute verification of the "repeatedly failed" statement. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is explored fully in Eysenk and Nias' Astrology: Science or superstition pp.42-48, so I'll place that as a reliable reference and omit the others. If anyone here can find a relevancy in the others I'm taking out then please explain and they can be reinstated. I am doing this to substantiate the point of criticism rather than remove it. Ken, it is not appropriate to add a comment that the argument is used to mislead people. Such a point could only be made if there is a verifiable published source to be given as a point of reference. You may well be right but Wikipedia does not publish original research or personal opinion - even if the opinion is based on good knowledge of facts. Sorry for sounding like a stuck record but the only way to build credibility into this article is to be insistent that the information given is verifiable and referenced to reliable sources. Zac Δ talk 16:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my inappropriate conclusion on the subjective validation effect. Eysenk and Nias cover Forer (1949), which itself is a reliable source, and numerous other experiments including Gauquelin's famous Dr. Petoit test. No one is suggesting that there is no such thing as subjective validation. The Forer test and these others were designed to test subjective validation not invalidate astrology. These tests were designed to test the most unspecific, vague, and generally true statements selected from poorly written commercial horoscopes. Such tests, to be scientifically applied to astrology, would need to avoid selection bias. No claim was made by Forer, Gauquelin, or the others that these were tests of astrology. To be accurate, this should be mentioned so as to not leave WP readers with the impression that these tests made any conclusions that they did not and could not make. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, it sounds like you have a good point. But the published reference for this is .... where?