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.

Edit request from 78.2.93.209, 24 April 2011

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)

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)

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)

Hi, if someone wants to start a new header saying 'Criticisms' I'm happy to start the discussion.Paul Quigley (talk) 16:30, 18 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, which they did not do, but rather enhanced it to obtain a stronger subjective validation effect. 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions have been put forward that astrology might work psychologically by cognitive biases[cite]. However, no experiments, controlled for selection bias, have scientifically supported this hypothesis.

How can we give references to something that does not exist? If there are any, then by all means someone should put them in. The closest attempt I've seen to scientifically test this was Wyman and Vyse (2009), but they found a "Barnum effect" in both the astrological and non-astrological selections. This was a very flawed study, but it could possibly be included as an example of not finding a subjective validation (cognitive bias) effect for astrology. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with citing Wyman and Vyse (2008) is that it is based on several faulty assumptions and replicates some of the self-selection problems Carlson (1985) encountered. Using this classroom test or a sun sign test is like setting up a straw-man argument. Though astrologers accept that astrology like every field that involve human behaviour including psychological tests can be subject to cognitive bias, I don't believe there is a valid test of the Barnum/Forer effect in astrology that supports this belief. Robert Currey talk 22:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

But this article has to report the critisms that have been raised against astrology, whether legitimate or not. Otherwise it will be accused of not maintaining a neutral point of view WP:NPV. Remember: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" WP:V

The only way the points you are raising become relevant for inclusion would be by reference to published arguments. If they don't exist, it is astrology's problem, not Wikipedia's. If they do, then the point could be developed to explain the salient facts and report both sides of the argument - but not in the lede: the lede is already overly long and needs reducing, not expanding. I want to make a suggestion and since it would involve a significant change I am starting a new section for that below.Zac Δ talk 07:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Rethinking the structure

One solution to various problems would be to introduce a new section called 'Criticisms', which would help satisfy the NPV requirement and provide interesting content in itself. Astrology has been one of history's most controversial subjects, so this section could explain how it has been subject to debate since classical times, and what the arguments are. It could explain the importance of the philosophical arguments of Posidonius, Cicero and Ptolemy, and later medieval criticisms and Pico's rebuttal, etc.; give some coverage to common points of misunderstanding (precession, 13th-signs, etc), and also look at the inability to fit astrology into the analytical methods of modern science. This would also help to clarify the nonsense on this page that astrology was rejected by the Islamic world about 1000 years ago and that it was rendered obsolete for muslims. This is such a pile of garbage based on one philosophical criticism which was of no more significance than the many philosophical debates that preceded it and followed it. As a result the article leaves the false impression that astrology declined in the Islamic world, at precisely the era when it was reaching its intellectual peak.

I would also like to propose developing the section called 'Core beliefs and practises' and splitting it into: 'Core principles' (not beliefs) and 'Astrological techniques and practices'. The former could elaborate on the philosophical principles of astrology, the latter could elaborate on how astrologers have and do now work, what elements are built into astrological practice (including psychological astrology), what astrology claims to do and the different techniques that are used for different purposes (horary / mundane/ elections / nativities / forecasting, etc). Plus the use of ephemerides and modern computer software.

I then think it would be sensible to reorder the content so that it runs:

1) Lede

2) Etymology

3) Core principles

4) History

5) Astrological techniques and practices

6) Effects on world culture

7) Criticisms

8) Astrology and Science

9) Astrological education and organizations

It is undeniably innapropriate the way that the 'Astrology and science' section has been allowed to dominate this article on an age-old subject which has a vast cultural legacy and philosophical relevancy. We need to rethink the content from a fresh perspective which allows the reader to understand the subject - as well as the reasons why it has been hugely popular but never free from criticms and controversy. I am not suggesting this is done overnight.

Thoughts? Zac Δ talk 07:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. It's important to have a Criticisms section and I'd like to get involved in that. Also in 'Astrology and Science'. I'm not sure what you mean by 'Effects in world culture', in view of the fact that astrologers believe astrology has an effect on culture. I presume that's not what you mean. If you mean by 'effects on culture', the use of astrology in Religion, the Arts and so on I agree. In that case I would ditch the single category of 'Culture' and have instead two categories 'Religion' and 'The Arts'. Lastly, I think we need to star building up a the bibliography of scholarly literature.Paul Quigley (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm moving my earlier response on the bibliography suggestion to the new section at the bottom of the page Zac Δ talk 15:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your lead on this, Zac. I think this is a more logical structure and Paul Quigley's separation of sacred and secular (arts) makes sense. The 'Astrology and Science' section is far too extensive in this article. I would like to update it with recent research, but this requires space and there has been some resistance to pruning down superfluous and faulty baggage like the Tyson quote. I still believe there is no argument to support inclusion of this erroneous and incorrectly attributed quote on this page and have made the case here. If any editors still feel it should remain, could they review the discussion and address the questions raised - otherwise, I propose that it is removed.

While I imagine that the Astrology and Science section may not be of particular interest to most visitors to this page, this subject is of great interest to a section of readers. So I believe the main page should outline all the key the issues and information. The details of the various studies, arguments and evidence or lack thereof should be explored in full on a separate sub-page.

It is possible to mine an odd reference to support the case that Muslims rejected astrology on the grounds of rationalism. However, the overwhelming evidence is that it was based on religious intolerance. Anyone who has studied the influential work of al-Ghazali and his doctrine of occasionalism will know how the Muslim theologians actively stifled scientific enquiry. The end result of this and the Mongol invasion meant that Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' was not translated into Arabic for 50 years after publication! However, looking at the claim on the page and elsewhere on WP, I get the impression that there has been at an attempt at revisionist history. So, subject to the views of others on this page, I support an edit of this negationism and can provide good references to support this. Robert Currey talk 10:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To Robert Currey - are you willing to make a start on the Astrology and Science page? We need someone to take the initiative on that.

I think the highly dubious comment on Muslims needs to go but for different reasons. Medieval muslims did not stufle astrology or reject it. They developed it. Of course there was always philosophical discussion and argument, just as there was in the Hellenistic era. The problem on this page is the result of the unreliable information presented on the Astrology in medieval Islam page, which is flawed throughout its content - from suggesting that they invented techniques that they only inherited, and by listing notable astrologers (including Alhazen, Avicenna, Al-Biruni and Averroes) as critics who were supposed to have refuted it. So there needs to be a correction of that page's content before we can correct the content on this one.

To Paul Quigley - The section 'Effects on World Culture' already exists but it's in need of improvement. Concur with Robert Currey that the suggestion to include reference to religion and arts is obviously sensible. Great to learn you would be willing to contribute. Since the 'Criticisms' section doesn't yet have a presence would you be prepared to make a start on that? If you were to contribute a bit of content, others could then add to it. Is this something you could contemplate within the next few weeks?

I think the suggested restructure would be an improvement. I would contribute to Core principles, as I have already offered suggestions on this earlier. Perhaps this would be a good place to clarify that a natal chart is a map of the universe with the individual at the center. All bodies then are regarded as "planets" relative to the individual. It would help to clarify the confusion about stars, Moon, and planets being different. This should be self-evident simply from looking at any astrological chart, but maybe it is not for some. Ken McRitchie (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion. Whilst the principle of astrology is a universal one, can we also make it clear that the references we make in relation to the zodiac is utilising the geocentric perpective (or you can clarify that to be the person-centred perspective if you prefer), since this is based on the division of the Sun's apparent path as it traces its annual circle around the Earth? Great that you are willing to contribute too. Do you think you could initiate that section and give us something to start off with? Obviously use what is relevant from the current section. I would be able to contribute a little about the ancient philospophical principles which are embedded in some elements of astrology (i.e., aspects), but if you cover that then it won't be necessary. Cheers Zac Δ talk 14:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If someone could start a new section headed 'Criticisms' I'm ha[[y to start the discussion.Paul Quigley (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the top of this page (next to the search box) there's a tab labelled 'New Section'. Just click on that and enter 'Critisms' in the subject line and then put your discussion or proposed content in the main text area. I (or another editor) will be happy to add your content to the main aticle because it is a little awkward for new editors to know how to format the references within the page code. Equally, if you put your text in the wrong section of this page I'll move it for you, so don't worry. Wikipedia is not a very 'user friendly' platform but we have ways of making good contributions count. Cheers, Zac Δ talk 17:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article criteria

This page once tried be a 'Featured article' but failed due to not meeting the standards required. Out of interest I am copying this over from the page that defines the criteria for a 'Featured' Wikipedia article. This is what we need to be aiming for in revisioning this page:

1. It is—
• (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
• (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
• (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
• (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
• (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
• (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
• (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
• (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.
3. Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Zac Δ talk 17:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Remaining problems with the lede

The lede is too long and still presents a number of problems. To keep things simple I suggest looking at the points systematically, and dealing with them one at a time.

So firstly, with regard to the first paragraph:

On 13 July Peter S. Strempel criticised the reference to the stars in this paragraph, saying:

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.

I agree with this 100%. It's also non-sensical to make this point about the stars here, rather than in the main article content (which presently doesn't discuss it). I suggest moving the comments "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. The stars (other than the Sun) play a relatively minor role" from the lede to the 'Core beliefs and practices' section where they can be reviewed as part of the development of that section. The first paragraph of the lede would then be more concise and relevant, to read:

Astrology is the study of the relative positions of celestial bodies as indicators of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events. The primary astrological bodies are the Sun, Moon, and planets. The main focus is on the placement of the planets relative to each other and to the signs of the zodiac, though the system also allows reference to fixed stars, asteroids, comets, and various mathematical points. As a practice, astrology is a combination of basic astronomy, numerology, and divination. In its modern form, it is a classic example of pseudoscience.

Anyone have an objection to this? Zac Δ talk 08:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I favour this more concise lede. The confusion between stars and planets is widespread, but it is not a major controversy or issue that needs to be in the lede. It should however be very clearly explained in the historical context and in relation to the modern split in definition between astronomy, professional astrology and sun sign stars in the newspapers. In this context, the more controversial but related difference between the signs of the zodiac as spatial and temporal divisions and the constellations based on stars needs to be clarified with reference to the Zodiac page.

I would trim the first paragraph even more:

Astrology is the study of the relative positions of celestial bodies as indicators of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events. The primary astrological bodies are the Sun, Moon, and planets, which are analysed relative to each other and their placement in the houses and the signs of the Zodiac. The main focus is on the placement of the planets relative to each other and to the signs of the zodiac, though the system also allows reference to fixed stars, asteroids, comets, and various mathematical points. As a practice, astrology is a combination of basic astronomy, numerology, and divination. In its modern form, it is a classic example of pseudoscience.

The relatively minor astrological bodies (including Nodes, Arabic parts etc) could be detailed in the body. Robert Currey talk 11:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have argued another way:

Astrology is the study of the relative positions of celestial bodies as indicators of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events. The primary astrological bodies are the Sun, Moon, and planets, which are analysed relative to each other and their placement in the houses and the signs of the Zodiac. The main focus is on the placement of the planets relative to each other and to the signs of the zodiac, though the system also allows reference to fixed stars, asteroids, comets, and various mathematical points. As a practice, astrology is a combination of basic astronomy, numerology, and divination. In its modern form, it is a classic example of pseudoscience.

This provides a sufficient outline of what astrology is, suitable for the first paragrpah of the lede. (Indicating its main points of reference whilst acknowledging that other factors are sometimes brought in, to a lesser extent). And no need to argue about whether it leans towards psychology, numerology, whatever. The controversies of those points can be eliminated by dealing with them appropriately in the main body of the article. Then:

• The second paragraph outlines its historical and cultural significance.

• The third paragraph outlines its philosphical controversies and contradications.

• The fourth paragraph outlines its pseudo-scientific status and rejection by modern science.

In this way all the main areas of immediate relevancy are succintly introduced and given the appropriate attention they deserve. (The pseudoscience reference would not be diminished but given greater clarity and focus in a less cluttered lede).

How would you feel about that Robert? Others? Zac Δ talk 11:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I see an editor has added extra comments to the first paragraph today. I've left a message on the editor's talkpage explaining that we paragraph is under discussion; that we are trying to obtain consensus as a group, and that it's probable that the new additions will go or be moved as we decide on this. Have also invited that editor to join us here to contribute opinion on this issue. Zac Δ talk 16:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph is now looking very top-heavy - I sense that no one is ever going to agree with the list of fields within astrology - psychology, meteorology, geometry, astronomy, physics, philosophy, numerology, chronology, symbolism, mysticism and divination. Why leave any out or why should any be included since astrology is astrology and possibly older than most of the other fields who developed out of astrology? This will be debated for eternity and should be self-evident within the body. So I like a lean first para and notice that this is not uncommon. Why clutter the start with detail - so I say keep it minimal, neutral and essential:

Astrology is the study of the relative positions of celestial bodies as indicators of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events. The primary astrological bodies are the Sun, Moon, and planets, which are analysed relative to each other and their placement in the houses and the signs of the Zodiac.

I have not put in all the links here but I have directed planets to Planets_in_astrology and not Planets - which goes to the Astronomical planets which arguably do not include dwarf planets like Pluto. Also signs go to Astrological_sign and Houses to Astrological_houses, Zodiac to Zodiac as expected.

Also your proposed format paragraphs: short outline -> history/culture -> philosophy/controversy -> pseudoscience - will make the lede concise, uncluttered and well-structured. What do others think?

Robert Currey talk 18:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't aware of this discussion and simply tried to add minor improvements where warranted. Thanks to Zac for bringing this to my attention. I agree with most of your suggestions. However, the wording as indicators of doesn't ring well to me. I would suggest using as they relate to, which I believe to be also a more accurate rendering of what astrology is in the minds of leading astrologers today. Also, I would phrase the primary bodies more accurately as proposed since astrological planets already include the luminaries. At the same time, it is very important to distinguish between them and the astronomical planets as Robert Currey also noted. Linking astrology to numerology seems to me a stretch. Could someone please explain? Petersburg (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made the edit and have included all the suggestions made here. The references to the stars has been moved to the Etymology section - this needs revision itself and it may be that the star references are better placed elsewhere; however, there was already some clumsy text in that section making the same point, so for now it allows us to improve the lede without worrying about cutting content that needs to be present somewhere.Zac Δ talk 08:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Two thoughts: Though the Sun, Moon and (astrological) planets is a tautology as Petersburg pointed out, I think it should be expressed this way as even quite educated readers will not know this.

I can see a connection between astrology and geometry, but numerology seems more tenuous, though I suppose it could be argued that the symbolism of numbers relates to the different harmonics/aspects. Is that numerology? I think of numerology as divination by means of adding up numbers from your date of birth or your name? Robert Currey talk 10:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert, it was the link that was wrong with the 'planet's reference - it said "astronomical planets" by mistake. I've corrected that and now the word 'planets' leads through to the page Planets in astrology. Also the comment referring to numerology has gone. Numerology as part of the Pythagoran philosophy plays a big part in the founding theory of aspects and house divisions, but we don't need to introduce that complicated point at this stage (if at all on this page).Zac Δ talk 10:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

2nd paragraph

Thanks Petersburg for following up with your copy edits. The next task is to look at the 2nd paragraph critically. It currently reads:

Historically, astrology was regarded as a technical and learned tradition, sustained in royal courts, cultural centers, and medieval universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.[2] Astrology and astronomy were often synonymous before the modern era, with the desire for predictive and divinatory knowledge one of the motivating factors for astronomical observation. 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.[3] Eventually, astronomy distinguished itself as the empirical study of celestial objects and phenomena. In the latter half of the 20th century astrology experienced a resurgence of popular interest as a component of the New Age movement.[4]

I would like to suggest the following which is only minimally less in word count, but more informative and succinct in its historical outline. Difficult to cut this further since astrology has such a vast history. All comments are substantiated by good quality references - will add those details if most of us approve this text (or something similar):

Astrology’s origins trace to the third millennium. Ancient civilizations developed it as a system to predict seasonal shifts and interpret celestial cycles as ‘signs’ of ‘divine communications’. Historically it was a learned tradition, sustained in courts, cultural centers, and universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine. Astrology and astronomy have a closely connected history before the modern era, but astronomy broke its ties with astrology during the Enlightenment of the Renaissance, when astrology lost its standing as a science and suffered a decline of intellectual attention. It experienced a resurgence of popular interest in the late 20th century as part of the New Age movement. (see new version below)

Any comments or suggestions on this?

BTW Petersburg I notice you are changing spelling to American spellings. I have no problem with this as long as the article is consistent throughout, but I was under the impression that English spellings are usually expected on this English language edition of Wikipedia (based on a copy editor changing words in that direction in another page I worked on). Have you seen any reference to this in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. As I said, I have no prefernce personally, but it would be good to clarify that at this point.

Robert - do you have statistical information on what percentage of the population hold an interest in astrology? There is information on the page about how many people, percentage-wise consider it 'scientific' but I'd rather know how many admit to believing in it or being interested in it, because I'm sure many or most that show an interest don't necessarily consider it scientific. This could go into the 'Effect on world culture' section and would round of this 2nd lede paragraph very nicely with something like:

" ...astrology lost its standing as a science and suffered a decline of intellectual attention. It experienced a resurgence of popular interest in the late 20th century as part of the New Age movement, and it has been estimated that ??% of the [American/European/whatever] population currently declare an [interest/belief/whatever] in it."

Or somthing similar. Prose-wise, that would work well.Zac Δ talk 11:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The new wording sounds reasonable to me. With respect to spelling, I was always under the impression that American style needs to be followed. Don't have a reference for that but will look for it. Petersburg (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Zac, the 2nd paragraph looks OK to me, but can I make three corrections?

1. You wrote 'Enlightenment of the Renaissance'. Actually astrology flourished in the Renaissance and got a whole new lease of life from Neoplatonism. The Renaissance was in the 15th-16th centuries, the Enlightenment in the late 17th-18th centuries. So delete 'of the Renaissance'. 2. You wrote 'It experienced a resurgence of popular interest in the late 20th century as part of the New Age movement'. That there was a resurgence of interest is actually doubtful, as is whether it was part of the New Age movement. However, regardless of this, I would say 'It experienced a resurgence of popular interest in the late 20th century via the development of newspaper horoscopes in the 1930s, and was widely associated with the New Age movement.' 3. You wrote, 'and it has been estimated that ??% of the [American/European/whatever] population currently declare an [interest/belief/whatever] in it." I would say 'According to Gallup opinion polls around 25% adults in the UK and USA believe in astrology, although the real figure may be much higher'. I will try to find you references for both these and post them on your page.Paul Quigley (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent feedback thanks!. I'll rejiggle and post again.Zac Δ talk 14:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, new version acknowledging the revisions suggested by Paul Quigley:

Astrology’s origins trace to the third millennium.1 Ancient civilizations developed it as a system to predict seasonal shifts and interpret celestial cycles as ‘signs’ of ‘divine communications’.2 Historically it was a learned tradition, sustained in courts, cultural centers, and universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.3 Astrology and astronomy have a closely connected history, but astronomy broke its ties with astrology during the Enlightenment in the late 17th-18th centuries, after which astrology suffered a decline of intellectual attention.4 It experienced an increase of popular interest in the 20th century, partly through the popularity of newspaper horoscopes and by association with New Age philosophies.5 According to Gallup opinion polls around 25% of adults in the UK and USA believe in astrology, although the real figure may be much higher.6

The references are sound for all comments (including the "real figure may be much higher"), so this is mainly a matter of looking at the prose and the way it captures the history of astrology in one nutshell. OK now?

Zac, I have looked up some sources. Belief in astrology in the US and UK is around 25% of the adult population, source:

Linda Lyons, ‘Paranormal Beliefs Come (Super) Naturally to Some: More people believe in haunted houses than other mystical ideas’, Gallup, 1 November 2005, http://www.gallup.com/poll/19558/paranormal-beliefs-come-supernaturally-some.aspx;

Figures for belief are actually higher than Gallup says, source: Bauer, John, and Martin Durant, ‘British Public Perceptions of Astrology: An Approach from the Sociology of Knowledge, Culture and Cosmos, Vol. 1, no. 1 (1997), pp.55-72, give 73%.

For astrology and New Age, source: Nicholas Campion, A History of Western Astrology, Vol. 2, The Medieval and Modern Worlds, London: Continuum, 2009, p. 239-249.

For newspaper horoscopes, source: Nicholas Campion, A History of Western Astrology, Vol. 2, The Medieval and Modern Worlds, London: Continuum, 2009, p. 259-263.Paul Quigley (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zac, I think your new edit is good - with the references. I'd go with it.Paul Quigley (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Gallup Poll 2005 http://www.gallup.com/poll/19558/paranormal-beliefs-come-supernaturally-some.aspx says 25% Americans, 25% Canadians & 24% Brits believe in astrology. (as mentioned above)

In a Harris Poll in the USA in 2009 26% of respondents believe in astrology. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris_Poll_2009_12_15.pdf

Data tables set out on http://www.astrology.co.uk/news/astrostats.htm Robert Currey talk 16:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Robert.

I've updated the 2nd paragraph now, so it can be viewed with references included.

The inclusion of newspaper astrology in the lede is a good one - but this means that the article should include more coverage of that point. I am going to repeat the comment under 'Effects on world culture' for now, as a reminder to revist the point with more attention later as that section is revised.

My own opinion is that the third paragraph is fine as it is and doesn't need any extra references; since it's not presenting controversial comments and the details will be given again in the main body. Anyone feel differently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 17:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph looks good, great teamwork. My only issue with it is the first sentence on two counts: (1) BC or BPE needs to be added, (2) I believe origins go much further than three millennia but will need to look up the ref to that. Started a new subsection on the 3rd para and copied Zac's respective comment below. Petersburg (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

3rd paragraph

My own opinion is that the third paragraph is fine as it is and doesn't need any extra references; since it's not presenting controversial comments and the details will be given again in the main body. Anyone feel differently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 17:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Divination

The current lede is misleading, as it now describes astrology as a 'study', while it is not a field of study at all. The studies that have been done into astrology have consistently failed to find any evidence for the workings of astrology, and as the relevant chapter in the article points out, many astrologers argue that astrology cannot be 'studied' by scientific methods. So it is then the 'study' that cannot be 'studied'?
Astrology is based on dogma and belief, not on study. It avoids study.
That's why it is more aptly described as 'a form of divination'.
I am changing the lede accordingly. If some editors disagree with the use of the term 'divination' then all they need to do is bring one example of a branch of astrology that cannot be considered divination. So: bring us the name of that form of astrology, bring the source and make your case.
That is standard procedure and logic. One example cannot make a case, but one example is enough to disprove a case. So why not bring that example if it exists?
The only attempt I have seen so far is the argument that medieval astrology took Aristotelian causation as its rationale. All nice and good, but the WP article about astrology is supposed to give the contemporary view and understanding about it, not the ideas of 500 years ago (that can go in the history of astrology chapter). So, we still don't have any example of a form of astrology that can currently not be considered divination. In absence of any examples we can consider it a concensus that astrology is divination. Read "How wikipedia works" for those who have questions on that approach. Concensus is not made by straw polls and how many editors favor or oppose a certain edit. Concensus comes from which arguments remain on the table. If an example can be brought of a form of astrology that is currently not considered divination, then the argument in favor of 'divination' gets removed and the lede will then be changed according to the new information.
In the same way I will also change the last sentence of the paragraph to "All forms of astrology are considered a classic example of pseudoscience." If people want to change that statement we can reasonably expect them to bring an example of a form of astrology that is not pseudoscience. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I notice my edit was promptly reverted without giving any good reason, and accusing me of disruptive editing , which is not civil and goes against WP:AGF.

It appears to me some editors are now acting as if they own this article. I suggest they read WP:OWN

I expect the reverting editor to bring us a valid argument why he reverted my change, as was asked for in my edit summary. The absence of a valid argument/example would suggest an unexplained bias against the term 'divination'. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We've had this discussion, in full, ad finitum. The arguments have been answered endless times already. There is a group of editors working here and no one editor has the right to determine the content against the consensus of the ediorial group. It is pure disruption for one editor to continue to push his personal opinion as if the previous discussions haven't taken place. Can I suggest that this new section is moved to the top of the page so that it doesn't distract from ongoing discussions about page development? Zac Δ talk 13:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The editing of a page and the discussion about it is never finished, it is always a work in progress.

To say that something 'has been discussed many times before' is not an argument on WP.

If you have read all previous discussion, then for sure you will be able to tell me which form of astrology was not deemed to be 'divination' in previous discussion. Name of that form of astrology, please?

And no, you cannot request that this section be moved 'out of sight' ? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Zac, new discussion topics on talk pages should always go at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, MakeSense, Zac is right. Straw polls are not binding, but they are a useful tool in determining consensus, and in this case a decision was made to use study be used. WP:OWN has little to do with it, and reversion of changes related to ongoing or recent discussion is a very common occurrence on WP. Note that study is an open enough word, and could be read to include divination – a tarot card reader studies a spread of cards to read your fortune, regardless of whether you believe in what he tells you.

To turn your argument around ("tell me which form of astrology was not deemed to be 'divination'"), I see no place in the above discussion or a reliable source that unequivocally uses the word divination to refer to all astrology. It seems to me like a synthetic claim based on interpretation of certain sources. And, as pointed out above, several good sources do unequivocally use the word study alone – we should, by WP:V, follow them. /ninly_(talk) 14:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Makesense, you don't seem to be intersted in conversation or consensus. Yoo keep askiong for exampples ofastrology which are not divination and on three occasions I have given one. You say that if examples can be produced you will agree. I have produced academically cited examples and you have produced nothing. The page also seems to ghave been subject to an attack of vandalism from 'Petersburg' who has played no pary in the discussions and has apeaqred from nowhere. l am undoing all his/her 'undos' and if s/he wishes to join the discussion all well and good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Quigley (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So, and what is the name of the form of astrology that is not divination?

That not all dictionaries have used the word 'divination' in their definition of astrology doesn't mean anything. Not all dictionaries use the word 'study' either. And those who use the word 'study' in their definition typically include other wording to indicate that astrology is a form of divination. And dictionaries are not good sources, anyway.

We are not supposed to list every dictionary definiton here in the article. All we need is a definition that reflects what comes in the further article. The current lede doesn't do that, because non of the further sections makes the case that astrology is a field of 'study'.

Let's face it: where are all the 'studies' supposedly done by astrologers? The few serieus studies that have been done to try to establish evidence for astrological effects were mostly done by none-astrologers, and they yielded nothing. It's a strange field of 'study' when most adherents to a given practice either avoid or protest the results of the studies that have been done.

Astrology is a 'belief', not a study, and that's why there is a section 'Core beliefs and practices'. So why is that not reflected in the lede? MakeSense64 (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is based on a very limited interpretation of the word study. Take Christian theology, for instance: it is a field of study that is rooted in a set of assumptions and beliefs (and all fields of study are rooted in various assumptions, I might add). This doesn't make it any less studious a field to theologians, nor does calling it a study necessarily imply that it is a field of pure science. You also seem to be confusing studies about astrology (whether or not it is true, effective, etc.) with the study of astrology (studying and producing charts, horoscopes, or whatever). /ninly_(talk) 19:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping for somebody to bring that argument. Everything can become an object of study. We can study French, we can study dogs, we can study religions as theologians do. But that doesn't mean we can describe French or dogs as "is the study of...". Not everything that can be studied is in itself a "study of..".

If something is really a "study of.." then it is easy to find the various studies it has done.

So, where are the studies, showing that: the relative positions of celestial bodies are indicators of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events. If such studies do not exist then this opening statement of the lede is clearly false. MakeSense64 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Your first argument would only make sense if the article nonsensically stated that "Astrology is the study of astrology" It doesn't. To expand on your example; "We can study French. Francophilia is the study of French."

Your second argument relies on the definition of a "study" being reliant on it reaching what is, in your opinion, a valid conclusion. I could study wrinkles on pigs' noses as a way of determining the course of Russian history. Total nonsense, of course, but I can still study it and even give it a name. That in no way invalidates its description as a "study". Your preferred word, on the other hand, "divination" is needlessly obscure. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree that a "study" does not need to be valid, I see it the opposite way: "study" is so ambiguous as to be obscure, where "divination" is clear and straightforward. — kwami (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Divination" may be a more precise term, but I think WP:MTAA applies. It's an unusual word used when a more general, readily understood word does the job just as well. "Divination" also has a touch of POV to it that should be avoided if possible. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that studies need to be valid, I am saying that if something is foremost a field of study, then it should be no problem to find 'studies'. Where are they?

Astrologers explaining individual events after the facts, and posting it on a blog or forum, we do not call that 'study', do we? Such articles invariably suffer from Confirmation bias. 'Study' is indeed a very vague word, and in my opinion, when it is used in the context of an encyclopeadia then it means 'serious systematic study'. And that kind of study is typically avoided by most astrologers, because their dogmas do not survive it. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Every single reading ever given by an astrologer constitutes a "study" of the subject's time of birth and related astrological events; i.e. what is commonly called Astrology. And a reading can be a study as serious and systematic as you like, no matter how much it may be influenced by confirmation bias, dogma or a million other flaws.

You and I may be 100% in agreement on the value of this "study", but a "study" it remains. Your definition is too prescriptive and not in line with general usage. Indeed, in line with neutrality principles, we should be actively avoiding any term that may be construed as an evaluation of astrology, particularly in the lead sentence. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography and external links

Pulled down from earlier discussion (hope that's OK):

Paul Quigley wrote (copied):

I think we need to star building up a the bibliography of scholarly literature.Paul Quigley (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I responded (moved to here):

Re. the idea of a bibliography - I've been developing a 'sources' list of the references used in the article. In the process I've realised that many of the current references are not reliable WP:QS and some don't even relate to the points being made. We need to get rid of all these and provide better quality references, so that the 'sources' list is seen as a credible one. Links to websites are fine if those websites publish or reproduce articles that have been subject to meaningful editorial oversight; otherwise no - blog style web articles that present one person's opinion are going to have to be removed. The subject of this article is too controversial to allow poorly substantiated controversial content. Where this relates to criticism we are going to have to find better quality sources, because for the sake of nautrality we need those criticisms to be raised and properly explained.

I've also been looking at the 'Further reading' section at the end of the page and wondering what we should do with that. Do we really want to recommend texts like:

• Jay Agarwal, East Meets West: Fun, Accurate and Honest Personality Insights (Combines Western astrology with Chinese astrology), Analisa Enterprises, LLC, 2008. ISBN 978-0-9798572-0-1

... whilst other seminal works are not included?

This seems to be the place to produce a list of recommended texts but I imagine it needs to cater to all levels of interest, not just the academic. I'm uncertain about the policy for that section and whether there is a limit to its length. I'll raise a question on the External links noticeaboard and try to find out. Cheers Zac Δ talk 11:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I almost deleted this entirely irrelevant work but didn't want to be so drastic. Agree that it should go. Petersburg (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've now had a response to that question which I'm copying over from the External Links noticeboard:

:The official guideline is at WP:FURTHERREADING; a failed proposal is at WP:Further reading.

In general, the primary purpose of the section is to list sources that are desirable or interesting, but that you didn't happen to use in building the article for one reason or another. Because Wikipedia is WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, people usually avoid creating a "directory" or bibliography that lists the most important books published on a subject. Also, most people believe these lists should be rather short, and a list of seminal works in Astrology is likely to contain more than a handful of books. If you want to do something more substantial, there are a handful of "Bibliography of..." articles (e.g., Bibliography of fly fishing) on Wikipedia that might make an interesting model. (I do not know how well-accepted these lists are, but a search shows that some exist.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'Further Reading Guidelines' state:

Contents: An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Editors may include brief annotations. Publications listed in Further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article. The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list. This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content.

So perhaps we need to be thinking of a small selection of important books that feature the subject according to different needs or different perspectives. Since we will not be reproducing what is given in the sources list, we can state that these are books to which reference has not been included, but which offer valuable insights into diffeent aspects of astrology. It would need to be small and selective (not longer than 10?), to justify its inclusion on the page.

In regard to external links the general principle seems to be, shorter the better. Personally I favour including only the link to the Open Directory list of websites related to astrology. This covers all perspectives, including Skeptical websites (opposing views), so what else could anyone need? Placing a 'no more links' notice in the code should help prevent the nuisance of passer-bys endlessly placing links to their own websites. Zac Δ talk 15:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that people shouldn't be able to post links to their own websites. I agree with your point in general.Paul Quigley (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with that. Petersburg (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sub-pages to avoid disputes?

The comment by Zac on 15 July arguing passionately that any summary on the astrology page must necessarily summarise sub-pages is untenable here.

The guideline on sub-pages states explicitly that two of the purposes to which sub-pages must not be traduced is to avoid an NPOV content fork, or for permanent content meant to be part of the encyclopaedia.

Examining the Astrology Portal page and the History of Astrology sub-page, I find that both present their own definitions of astrology which do not reflect the discussion of a definition on this page. To me this is clear evidence that the controversies being discussed are being circumvented.

It is my view that the proper place for establishing the single and undisputed definition is in this article, not any other, and that sub-pages and the portal page should accurately reflect content on this page. This is particularly the case since the portal page lists no references at all, and the History of Astrology page is a long and rambling exposition so short of references I venture the page could be cut to a tenth of its length is all unreferenced assertions were removed.

The issue of whether we need to summarise all sub-pages on the main astrology page must be resolved in a more rational manner than merely legitimating the circumvention of consensus on this page by creating and editing sub-pages.

If we cannot establish some consensus on this matter, I will take a word razor to all unreferenced assertions here, in sub-pages, and the portal page itself, to ensure that disagreement here is not simply circumvented elsewhere. For those of you who weren’t active in March, check out the discussion at that time for an example of my intended method. It is aimed only at ensuring all assertions that are unverifiable are removed, in line with the commandment that all encyclopaedic content must be verifiable, which is given to you every time you add a comment to this talk page.

The core intention is to simplify the debate about a definition by re-focusing it on verifiable content, not personal opinions, semantics, or hair-splitting. That cannot happen while several different definitions already exist, apparently based on different rationales, interpretations or personal whim. My personal declaration: I cannot see how we can even begin to summarise content when it is unclear what legitimate content we are talking about.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem of content fork is a legacy problem, which is being attended to. It looks like you have not been following recent discussions, so you may be unaware of the extent to which this issue has been addressed in recent days with the commitment to rectify these problems and make them a priority of concern. For your convenience here is a list of page diffs from the last three days which demonstrate how much consensus we have gained in collaboratively agreeing to ensure all comments requiring substantiation are referenced to good quality citations:

17 July: 2:203:52 10:49 11:4211:57 12:54 13:28 14:05 17:06 17:59 | 18 July 12:06

A couple of snipped comments in case you don’t want to read all those diffs:

"The problem on this page is the result of the unreliable information presented on the Astrology in medieval Islam page, which is flawed throughout its content - from suggesting that they invented techniques that they only inherited, and by listing notable astrologers (including Alhazen, Avicenna, Al-Biruni and Averroes) as critics who were supposed to have refuted it. So there needs to be a correction of that page's content before we can correct the content on this one."

"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 this can become a controversial issue I want to check every point before making a copy edit. My first problem is with this comment ..."

The discussions reveal the extent to which there is willingness, consensus and commitment to undertake what has been recognised as a significant problem which will take time to rectify. The latter comment indicates the sensitivities involved, and the caution that is being applied to ensure consensus from all editors with opposing views. We want to handle this problem appropriately and apply long term solutions to long standing problems, so it’s not beneficial to suggest a one week deadline before you return with a word-razor. Also, please bear in mind that references are not necessary for every comment on Wikipedia though they are of course necessary for controversial points (see WP:verify:

“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”.

It may be that you would be doing us all a favour in the long run by drastically cutting material that is not substantially referenced, but since there are a number of editors here working hard to get the right solution and find the best way to bring this page up to the best policy practices of WP (see here), whilst striving to get the collaborative involvement of those who view the subject from different angles; and since there are discussions to be had as to what is reliable content, what is controversial, and what constitutes a reliable source in each specific context, the most helpful thing you could do is join or support those efforts, and place ‘citation needed’ tags where you feel the content is in need of them.

Please help in what you consider to be the most productive way possible, and consider that there is a lot of content in this and the related pages, involving controversially ‘difficult’ content, and a handful of editors fully intent on rectifying all problems, whilst trying to squeeze this work into other commitments. (As an indication of why it cannot be rushed. I am awaiting the mail order delivery of a book to clarify a dubious reference on a daughter page, and need to wait for that book, get a clear understanding of how it supports (or not) the single references which is used to hold up the multiple dubious points; and then – if necessary- present an argument and gain consensus in order to rectify that page which needs to be reconciled with this). Other editors have stated a commitment to locating citations for unreferenced comments, and this is already producing positive results – as you’ll see if you check the page history and notice how citations are now being added to content that has suffered from this problem over a long period of previous neglect. Zac Δ talk 09:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter S Strempel, Please join in on the discussion and editing rather than deciding single-handedly what's right or wrong with the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Petersburg (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not as if discussing has led to much improvements on this page. Sometimes it is much better to be bold and delete entire parts of an article that are not or poorly sourced. That gives it a fresh start and then statements are allowed back in if they come with proper sources. Deleting unsourced materials is not rarely the fastest way to bring an article up to standards. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverting Makesense64 edits due to total lack of consultation and not working with other editors

All the previous edits were undertaken in good faith following extensive consultation amongst the editors. You have suddenly and without advance notice, consultation or any other reasonable notice made drastic changes to the topic. You are editing disruptively against consensus and against the interests of collaborative editing on Wikipedia. I request that you don't edit the page again when you know that those edits are directly contrary to what has been agreed by consensus. i belive you edits invokes WP:TEND Terry Macro (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again I am unfairly accused of disruptive editing. How does that fit with asume good faith WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL?

Please read WP:BRD. Editing boldly is encouraged as a way to keep the discussion moving and break up deadlocks, among other things.

Please give valid reasons why you reverted all the edits I did this morning.

By the way, the recent 'concensus' was pushed artificially. See new section below. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I support all reversions by Terry Macro. MakeSense64, every single one of your edits was with the aim of degrading astrology and overly emphasizing it's pseudoscientific nature. Moreover, none of your edits had consensus, which would indicate POV pushing. I suggest that you work with the editors on this page before unilaterally making such one-sided changes. Petersburg (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Claiming to know the 'aim' of my edits. How does that go together with WP:AGF? That can never be a proper argument to revert an edit. And by the way, it is Terry Macro who is asked for his reasons why he reverted every edit I did this morning.

WP allows reverts but the reverting editor is then expected to engage in discussion and answer fair questions about his reasons for the reverting.

I am waiting. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 Due to your pattern of disruptive edits, harassment, personal agenda, persistent targeted tagging and incitement here and on other pages, I have reported you to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Robert Currey talk 19:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Astrological education section

The astrological education section on the page looks like a complete joke.
Institutions referring directly to a page on their website where you can buy their 'correspondence course'... Huh, what is this doing on WP?
Listing every halfway-reputable organization that offers astrology courses somewhere in Wales is ridiculous and giving it undue weight WP:UNDUE.
If there even is to be an astrological education section, then it probably shouldn't be more than a few sentences long. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A point like this could be made quite reasonably. The notice at the top of this page reminds editors of how this page has been afflicted by conflict and dispute. Hence it advises: 'Be polite'. There are ongoing discussions about what to do with these tail end sections. The proposal is to remove content that draws criticism so I have removed the link to the online correspondence course. As the page is developed it would be better to give reference to the list of astrological organizations. In the meantime there is nothing "halfway-reputable" about a British university which offers Masters degrees in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology. This appears to be a disingenious attempt to strengthen your vacuous argument that astrology involves no element of study. Since this Masters level course is one of notable academic weight, it is right that the reference attached to that remain. Zac Δ talk 10:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The correspondence courses offered by american institute are still right there.

What the Wales university offers is a postgraduate 'course' available only through distance-learning online. It gives a certificate or diploma for it. Does this information belong in an encyclopeadia article about 'Astrology'? I don't think so. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the information given. It is clear enough. The university offers a Masters degree in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology.

I have replaced the comment that named an organization in America and replaced it with the List of Astrological oragnizations. The content on Kepler college gives pertinent information about the history of that college's involvement with degrees in astrology, and how these have been downgraded.Zac Δ talk 12:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent straw poll

The recent straw poll initiated by User:Robertcurrey, was handled in a questionable way, as was already pointed out by User:AndyTheGrump and User:Ocaasi.
But today I noticed another irregularity when I looked up the User_talk page of User:Terrymacro. @Robertcurrey had told us that editors who had participated in the recent discussion about the 'definition of astrology', which started about a month ago, were being invited to vote in his straw poll. We see how Terrymacro got invited and I found similar invitations on a few other User_talk pages, but I also notice that two editors were interestingly not invited. Look at the user_talk of User:The_Four_Deuces and User:Mystylplx, who both commented in the earlier discussions and clearly talked in favor of using 'divination' in the definition. Could that be why they were not invited?
Can Robertcurrey explain why involved editors were invited so selectively?
Does he agree that this 'mistake' renders the recent straw poll useless?
The use of straw polls is not encouraged on WP, and if they are used then more than a simple majority is required to conclude 'concensus'. We do not see that here. The recent edit has been pushed in artificially. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite editors' desire to put this issue to rest, I recommend we collectively write two 'arguments', one for divination and one for study, and then hold a proper WP:RfC. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, definitely the latest changes have been done on the basis of a very questionable 'concensus', but let's wait and see what other editors have to say about two involved editors being conveniently forgotten in the straw poll.

Asking for RfC is one possible way going forward.

But based on answers from the involved editors the question looks more or less 50-50 evenly divided to me. So another possibility is a compromise solution that both sides can live with.

I think 'pseudoscientific study' could be such a compromise, because it keeps the word 'study' that half of the editors seem to insist on, while using 'pseudoscientific' as an adjective can also satisfy the editors who prefer 'divination'. The word 'pseudoscience' has to be used in the lede anyway, as per earlier arbritation decision about astrology, so why not use it in this way?

By the way, Graphology is also described as 'is the pseudoscientific study...' , so there is precedent for such a compromise being made in other articles. There is quite a bit of similarity between the case of graphology and astrology, e.g. how they have had some weak scientific support but then lost it in later studies. So how things were done in that article can be quite relevant here. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion, primarily over one word, has gone on for a month. What MakeSense64 has either forgotten or omitted to mention was that on 09:49, 15 July 2011 I posted that "I have notified Kwami and Ocaasi who have been sympathetic to your views and Terrymacro who also contributed earlier on. " in my post on 15 July. No one objected to this at the time. I was quite open and even handed about this. I have repeatedly requested arguments on this issue but nothing solid beyond WP:OR or personal preference has been provided and there are plenty against and superior citations. I had no idea where the consensus lay and offered to bring my role in this debate to a swift conclusion if I was in the minority. It turns out that the 5 votes supported the change and 1 was against. There were 2 abstentions, 3 additional votes in favour were not counted for not being involved in the debate and a further two editors have since argued against MakeSense64's arguments.

I realize that some will not like the result of the vote but this is a case of crying foul after the whistle has blown. Since I accept that this debate is never closed, can I propose that in the interests of ending further disruption of constructive editing that we follow the consensus of the community for now and reconsider this definition in the way that you, Ocaasi propose in six months time.

Ocaasi, when you defined the entire field of astrology as divination in March this year, it was a time when many established editors with expertise in astrology who would have been able to contribute to the debate were banned. As a lone editor with knowledge of astrology, I had to accept the way it was done and I have, as you know since it has been raised by Paul Quigley, requested that you provided the original references that you consulted and the argument to make this decision.

It is now time to move on as this page needs to be edited - and expert editing is being blocked. Robert Currey talk 15:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64, once again you are single-mindedly pushing an agenda, which is to make sure that astrology is presented as disreputably as possible. I suggest that first you demonstrate your knowledge of astrology for example by refraining from shallow comparisons to graphology, and start working together with other editors on improving the article. You have alienated nearly all editors here with your unreasonable stance and refusal to cooperate and collaborate. Petersburg (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is definitely time to move on. The suggestion to revisit this later is a good one but we should be thinking 12 months, not 6 months. Remember, this discussion went on for over a month zapping all the time and energy that could have gone into overall content. Just imagine how much could be achieved if we had just a week which was free of such pointless and divisive time wasting. Zac Δ talk 15:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

@Robertcurrey. Maybe other editors simply trusted that you had notified all editors who participated in the 'definition of astrology' section. I was not around on July 15 to notice it, but that makes no difference. The question why these two involved editors were not notified remains unanswered.

I hope you realize that selectively notifying editors is considered WP:Votestacking, and not acceptable. Do you agree with that?

I understand that some editors want to move away quickly from a flawed straw poll, but some questions have to be asked here.

Still awaiting answers. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with tabling this issue for 3-6 months while the rest of the article is worked on. The straw poll was useful for testing the waters, but it was not thorough or comprehensive. Polls are designed to elicit opinions not just votes. WP:NOVOTE is a good guide here. The lead should reflect the body of the article anyway, so it's worth spending time on that and coming back to the first paragraphs once the rest of the article has been improved.

Robert, we didn't just banish expert editors a few months back, we deterred a hoard of astrologers who knew or cared nothing about our policies. You and Zac are in a different category and have made sincere attempts to cover the subject while adhering to policy. It's appreciated, but in this contentious an area, continued debate is somewhat expected.

For what it's worth, I was in Borders bookstore yesterday and looked up Astrology--I found it in the Divination section. Anyway, the current introduction is tolerable if not ideal and I'm okay with putting off another round of discussions for a little while. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ocassi. Its clear that all perspectives need to be represented properly. Yesterday I posted the Featured article criteria as a target to be working towards (personally I see gaining that as the token we are striving for to turn the problems of this page around). We need the involvement of editors who have what may appear to other editors to be critical views of the subject, to make sure that the subject is presented to a standard that would pass independent external review. Sometime soon (not just yet but perhaps the next couple of weeks) it would be useful to get input from yourself, AndytheGrump, Kwami, or others regarding the problem I have noticed with the references connected to the pseudoscience statements. I want to propose a clarity of definition and a revision of references, but nothing that I think need be unpalatable to anyone. Right now I'd like a break from edits that need to be made subject to intense scrutiny and debate, so would prefer to leave that for the moment and hopefully revisit it soon to get the ideal solution. It would be great to have a few months to concentrate on better quality content, referenced to better quality sources, with the intention to rewrite the lede as the final flourish to a well prepared page! Regards Zac Δ talk 20:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response to this, Ocaasi and your link to WP:NOVOTE, which looks helpful. I second Zac's proposals of working towards a high quality page that is informative, elegant, tolerable to all but ideal to none! Robert Currey talk 23:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Updated Core Principles section

As promised (18 July 2011; 13:26) in accord with the discussion in Rethinking the structure, I have split Core beliefs and practices into two parts, Core principles and Astrological techniques and practices. I have clarified Core principles and provided reliable references. This section has general importance because it helps to clarify some of the concepts presented later in the article. There are numerous other principles that might be included here, such as the Ptolemaic precept that established the tropical points as the primary reference frame, but I am undecided at this point, based on the literature I have seen, whether these should be regarded as separate entities.

I haven't done anything with the Astrological techniques and practices. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The reference link for The Emerald Tablet of Hermes seems to have brought with it a PDF icon. I'm not sure if this link was properly formatted. Any suggestions? Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is normal behaviour for all links referencing PDF files. Petersburg (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Finally somebody kicks out the word 'belief' from that section. That was an eyesore, isn't it?

What else could gradually be removed so that nothing is left to suggest that astrology is not a serious academic discipline, based on firm 'principles', and being taught on various universities? MakeSense64 (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken McRitchie, this is a major improvement. Petersburg (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken, this expands this topic in an informative way. I have one suggestion an "astronomically relativistic map" could be an "astronomical schematic map" or "schematic celestial map". I may have more suggestions. Robert Currey talk 15:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Great work ! - thanks for getting onto that so quickly. When there has been more time for suggestions or alterations I'll go through the text with an eye for copy-editing consistency and will rework the reference details so they are consistent with the others I have already done. Just so good to see attention being paid to content. Its a fantastic start to kick off that new section. One question - is there another ref for the comment

"Francis Bacon, who wrote, "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."

Or is it the same as the one that follows? (If it is the same I'll use the reference twice to make that clearer)

Excellent! Zac Δ talk 15:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert, I think it is important that the Hermetic maxim (as above, so below) be presented as a relativistic principle because misunderstandings of the observer's frame of reference is one of the places where so much commentary on astrology begins to go wrong. I don't see how "schematic" or "celestial map" helps to resolve the huge confusion on this issue, but would only tend to obscure it. These don't clarify anything about the relationship between the microscopic and macroscopic views as the Hermetic maxim was intended to do.

The chart is relativistic with (preposition) reference frames centered on the native. I think the grammar is clear.

Zac, All the Bacon quotes are on the same page of De Augmentis. I can add extra links since this would seem to be more clear. Ken McRitchie (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If you would in view of Peter Strempel's warning about a desire to razor text which is unreferenced it is best to play on the side of caution. Just repeat the tag and when I format I'll do any necessary tidy ups. Thanks Zac Δ talk 18:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I accept your expertise on this. I now see that relativistic refers to the the relationship between 'macro and micro-cosmos'. I was thinking totally differently of a chart which is schematic (like an underground/subway map) in that it is not realistic where distance to planets or the size of the planets are not included. Be warned, I have experienced the Strempel razor and it requires a lot of good and necessary sourcing with ISBN numbers for publications wherever possible. :) Robert Currey talk 23:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This item has not attracted controversy among editors and I believe the sources conform to WP guidelines. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Vote to support or debate Wikipedia guidelines and rulings

I have been challenged here and elsewhere to justify the case for the word razor. So here it is.

In any debate in which controversial or fiercely contested arguments are discussed, if prolonged existing discussion has failed to arrive at a resolution, it appears that simply continuing to debate the same issues ad infinitum has little chance of resolving disputes. Put another way, adhering to the same methods has little chance of yielding different outcomes.

But there is a simple method to reduce the number of possible areas of dispute. We all agree to abide by existing Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings. In the context of almost every article there are two entry level criteria: encyclopaedic content must be verifiable with a credible reference, and discussion on this page should be about the article, not unverified assertions that constitute general debate of the topic.

Ergo, cut all unverified assertions unless and until they can be verified. The number of possible points of contention is instantly reduced without a need to compromise at all on rational analysis of verifiable content.

Anyone opposed to this method will need to argue that the existing Wikipedia principles and guidelines and rulings should be open for debate, and be prepared to do that in the appropriate forum, which is not here.

The first step for anyone who wants to pursue this line of debate is to put up your hand now or forever hold your peace on this issue. Once you have identified yourself, I’m sure other editors here will assist you with advice on how and where to lodge a formal challenge to the Wikipedia guidelines that underpin these principles.

In the same vein, the number of points of contention can be further reduced by adhering to Wikipedia arbitration rulings on previous disputes. This has particular relevance for the issue of pseudoscience (see the notice on the top of this page for specific instructions). So I will assume that the first step for anyone wishing to further debate that issue is to identify yourself now or forever hold your peace on the matter. Once you’ve put your hand up, the proper approach and forum for challenging or debating that arbitration ruling can be identified for you.

There is no avoiding the meaning of WP:Verifiability as a 'policy' or the meaning of WP:CONLIMITED —

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

I will assume that all who don’t put their hands up for challenging these wider consensus positions will now cease to debate these points here in the spirit of constructive focus on those issues that are legitimate for debate about this article.

A corollary of these points is that continued debate predicated on arguments against the application of an Arbcom ruling, or to avoid cutting unverified assertions, or to debate unverified assertions, can be legitimately regarded as deliberate obstruction to resolving disputes about verifiable content in this article.

I ask for a simple show of hands – all who favour abiding by existing Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings, say yes, those opposed to these principles, guidelines and rulings, say no –

• Yes. Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good evening, Peter! I need some clarification before I vote or submit a !vote.

1. If this is a vote on whether we will strive to abide by Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings, then you are asking whether we are in favour of motherhood and apple-pie. It's a given - I will vote as a courtesy to you but I believe that, with the exception of one editor who has already voted, this kind of vote is wasting time.
2. If we are discussing the Strempel razor as a technique of duplicating the page and then marking all unverified points for deletion, then having experienced it, I think it can benefit an article. I am aware that it is controversial and it can be hugely time-consuming for editors. If editors can be given sufficient time to find sources, sources are not unreasonably quibbled over and common sense prevails over self-evident or non-controversial points, then I favour it as a technique. However, IMO it should only be applied to a page where there is an on-going controversy, certainly not to an article in editorial development (citation tags are better here) and not to two astrological pages at the same time as it requires a lot of hard work and there is not enough expertise to go around. Without editorial support, this technique would be iconoclastic (in the traditional sense) and reduce the content on Wikipedia by at least half. WP may become more reliable, but it will be much less informative.
3. If you are asking us to vote on whether we will abide by Arbcom and in particular the ruling on Pseudoscience, then you have my support and I believe it should remain in the lede. Any debate on this should be at a higher level. If you would like us to vote to agree not to work to implement the correct interpretation which should, of course, be "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" rather than "a classic example of pseudoscience", then I can't support that kind of censorship.

Robert Currey talk 08:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Robert, I mean to identify who does not agree with apple pie and motherhood because common sense has demonstrably not prevailed, and good faith requires that I clarify who may be pursuing deliberate obstruction here before I address that problem as such. The issue of time and expertise cuts in all directions and is no excuse for showing the world unverified content as credible content. The rational argument for my 'iconoclastic' approach has been made. And my request is specific to the Arbcom ruling at the top of this page, not any other contestable proposition. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 12:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Peter, I do not understand. What effect will this vote have? What will change? Ken McRitchie (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

While some have failed to pay attention, others have been getting on with good work. Even discussion on whether this is a silly discussion would be a silly discussion. I'm not fond of apple pie myself.Zac Δ talk 13:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is beyond silly. All editors are in support of WP rules and guidelines by default. If you are looking for support for your proposed draconian edits, my vote is NO. First off, not every single sentence needs to be referenced because this would simply make the article unreadable. Secondly, it is unreasonable to cut anything reasonable from the article without asking for verification here. You can point out, one by one, the sentences you have difficulty with. Then we can either add the required reference or explain to you why it is not needed. Please do not try to have editors conform to your ideal process of editing but follow WP rules and guidelines, as we all do (or strive for doing it anyway). Petersburg (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• I vote in favour of abiding by WP principles, guidelines and rules. Other proposals should be discussed. Robert Currey talk 14:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter let's just move forward. Commitment to Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings is surely self-evident by the collaborative effort to bring this page up to WP best standards. We don't need another time-diverting discussion when it's obvious that most editors here understand the issues involved and the necessity for consensus on how best to meet those policies and demonstrate their principles in every element of the page's content. Zac Δ talk 15:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)