Talk:Astrology

Please read before starting Welcome to Wikipedia's Astrology article. This 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: Pseudoscience ♦ Due and undue weight ♦ Making necessary assumptions ♦ Giving "equal validity". 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). Since the nature of this topic has been deemed controversial, all contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Also remember this "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article; it is not to be used as a soapbox, or for comments that are not directly relevant to the content of article.

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

Fronting the pseudoscientific aspect of astrology

It seems to me that the fact that this is a pseudoscience is burried too far down. I have tried to introduce it quite early, but my edits have been reverted by User:FreeKnowledgeCreator. The approach I took was the same you find it articles such as phrenology, Feng shui, homeopathy, and reiki. You will see that two of them start by saying the it is a pseudoscience, as I did with astrology. The others say it in the next sentence or very soon after.

In his reversion, User:FreeKnowledgeCreator claims that "we need to start by explaining its specific features, not a feature it shares in common with many other things." This doesn't pan out. Such a claim precludes introductions like "The Invisible Man is a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells", which are obviously ubiquitous. Moreover, the revision simply replaces "a pseudoscience" with "the study", which itself is a feature shared in common with many other things. Any argument that the study is then modified by the of prepositional phrase is matched by the argument about the phrase following pseudoscience.--Brett (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop trying to fix problems that do not exist. The lead is fine as it is. Anyone reading it can see that astrology is considered pseudoscience. The first sentence of the lead ("Astrology is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial objects as a means of divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events") is clearly written; your preferred version ("Astrology is a pseudoscience, the goal of which is to find a means of divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects") is needlessly contorted. It is not even properly accurate, as astrologers believe they already do have a "means of divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events", as opposed to believing that they need to find such a means. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:Your excuses keep shifting. I disagree that there is no problem. If someone reads the first paragraph only, which is not unlikely, there is nothing at all there to suggest that this is a pseudoscience. That's a problem. It's a problem recognized and dealt with on other pages related to pseudoscience. It should be dealt with here too.--Brett (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the approach of "burying the lead" in this article comes from a decision by Second Quantization (possibly while bringing the article to WP:GA status?) with the idea of seeing whether believers could be drawn in to read a bit more of the article instead of having a knee-jerk rejection that would lead them to stop reading entirely. Plausibly, it could also reduce the amount of effort required by editors to maintain the article. It might be possible by now to see if this approach has been more effective at correcting misinformation, although I'm not sure what data we could use to test that.

Since it's a pretty important question, if data for an analysis isn't available one approach would be for Wikipedians to run a study ourselves, or else find some scientists who study Wikipedia and might be interested in finding out. This sounds like something that Doc James might be interested in, or he might know how to either do it or find someone to do it. (Despite this not inherently being a medical topic, the issue itself is of course very relevant to certain parts of the medical topic area.) It might also be that there are already analogous studies addressing the question in the psychological literature that we could use to make a judgement. Sunrise (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hum, an interesting question User:Sunrise, "Does calling out a pseudoscience lower in the lead result in greater or less engagement / vandalism?"

Once could take all pseudoscience article, see which are in what format, than look at both vandalism and the number of subsequent headings opened (the second being a marker of engagement).

One would both need to take into account variations in readership and quality between the two types of articles as I image those both affect the amount people read / vandalism. Could be an interesting study. However I do not think I have the ability to take it on. Will keep it in mind if I come across a student looking for a project :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed these updates when I replied. I agree that it is an emperical question as to what works. Unless we can turn up some data, though, I think we should follow the conventional wisdom: don't bury the lede.--Brett (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Leads are intended to be written as summaries that can stand in themselves, per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Worrying that people will read only part of the lead, and therefore not realize that astrology is considered pseudoscience, is an utterly baseless concern. That concern might possibly make sense if the article's lead were unusually long, but it isn't - it consists of only two reasonably short paragraphs. So we should simply follow the relevant guideline.

I note that Brett simply ignored my point that his proposed wording is not factually accurate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The accuracy of the claim @FreeKnowledgeCreator: makes about a particular wording is not relevant to the discussion about whether to mention pseudoscience in the first few sentences. In the guidelines about the lead, it says specifically that "the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences," not somewhere down near the bottom of the second paragraph. Moreover, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic," and the fact that this is a pseudoscience is really important. If we can agree that the characterization should be more prominent, then we can work on finding appropriate wording.--Brett (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

After reading this talk page I think that the lede should mention PS. Other fringe articles do. See Acupuncture or any of the titles in this.--Akrasia25 (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead does mention this, just further down, after its explanation of what Astrology is. Explaining what a thing is before people's attitudes to it is standard narrative order and gives readers a handle on why attitudes have formed this way. It is very hard, also, to allow anyone to make up their own minds when you have stamped an opinion on the subject in the first sentence. It is normal to describe a thing before stamping opinions on it. Britmax (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, "the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences," not somewhere down near the bottom of the second paragraph. As Akrasia25 says, have a look at other pages. See, for example, alchemy or ancient astronauts.--Brett (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

PS is not an opinion, it is a fact about Astrology as every study has proven. It is as important to put in the first sentence. Whatever your opinions are about Astrology, the lede without this says that you can determine the course of human events thru the stars --Akrasia25 (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:: As you have pointed out, the lead must contain the most important information. The fact that Astrology is a pseudoscience is essential. User:Brett talked about "reading only the first paragraph", and indeed, in my smartphone only the first paragraph appears before the index, so the rest is indeed buried. Elizandro max (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Following the example of "X is a (genre) (thing) that Y," "Astrology is the pseudoscientific study of the yadayadayada..." would be the best phrasing.

"Astrology is a pseudoscience, the goal of which is..." would be like saying "Star Wars is science fiction, presented in movie format, about..."

Or, following the example of alchemy, something along the lines of "Astrology was a protoscientific study of celestial objects that became a pseudoscientific means of divining information..." Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. That is where I started. But then User:FreeKnowledgeCreator reverted the edit with the comment that this implies a non-existent scientific study thereof. The argument strikes me as silly, but rather than argue, I tried to adjust the wording. The goalposts keep moving though.--Brett (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The science would be astronomy. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, I agree. But, their argument goes, that's not the scientific study of divining the future.--Brett (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The most important thing about Astrology is that it is PS. It is completely part of the 'definition' or essence about it that horoscopes are on the same page as the cartoons. The rest of its definition follows after that. Also, we are writing an encyclopedia of truth and we should not be afraid that someone will try to vandalize it. WP has many tools and editors and page protections to prevent that from happening. It might be interesting to see if vandalism happens less if we bury the lede but it would not change my opinion that PS should in some way be in the first sentence. I really can not understand why some editors want to argue this discussion on the Astrology page when less clear situations exist on other PS topics. And finally I agree with Brett that the goalposts are changing. What about something like what ian.thomson suggested "Astrology was a protoscientific study of celestial objects that became a pseudoscientific means of divining information..." --Akrasia25 (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

There’s probably a due weight issue in comparing this article to acupuncture. The pseudoscience mention in the acu article gets a bump because (as it claims to be a medical treatment), lots of doctors take the time to publish reports stating that it’s a PS bag of crap. Astrology is more concerned with what color shoes you ought to wear when you go out to day and as such, is crapped on by scientific publications from a height far closer to ground level. I don’t think a comparison of alt-med articles is a reason to bring this article “in line”. A case by case analysis is due. If there’s really a massive preponderance of sources discussing the pseudoscientific nature of this subject, then it probably belongs further up in the lead. If sources focus more on the historical aspects, then those should take precedence. I recently brought up the article shamanism as an example, in which pseudoscience isn’t really mentioned, despite there being lots of it associated with the practice. The reason for this is that is isn’t discussed in scientific terms that much. Perhsps when glassy eyed crystal chuckers work out a way to market it within the medical community and end up poisoning people, then we’ll start calling that pseudoscience too. Edaham (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"Astrology is more concerned with what color shoes you ought to wear when you go out to day and as such..." Seriously? Are you folks too young to remember Nancy Reagan consulting astrologers to help her husband make decisions as US president? Read about it here. If only Wikipedia was available back then. Stop kidding yourself. Many use it to determine who they will date/marry, where to live, etc. "Pseudoscience" belongs in the FIRST sentence. At worst the second. Perhaps move the last sentence of the lead to follow the first sentence as: "Astrology is recognized by the scientific community as a pseudoscience—a belief that is presented as scientific without reasonable evidence." RobP (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

you’re probably right. The article should still be based on the availability of its own sources thought, not squared up with other articles. I am a bit young for the Nancy story. I was around, but I’d have been young at the time. Great story. Really amazing. Edaham (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Waaaiitt... Regarding this implies a non-existent scientific study thereof -- by that reasoning parapsychology is not really the pseudoscience form of psychology, except insofar as they both study the mind, but parapsychology is definitely pseudoscience nonetheless. What's the legitimate science for parapsychology? If it's psychology, then astronomy is the scientific study for which astrology is the pseudoscience, both studying the stars. Pseudoscience doesn't have to be the incorrect form of some other science, it can be bad science in isolation.

"Predicting the future" is divination in general, not specifically astrology. And predicting the future with astrology was just judicial astrology, which was just as often used to assign post-hob meaning to past events instead of predicting future ones. Medical astrology is a pseudoscientific medical practice, Natal astrology is a pseudoscientific psychology practice, and both were probably more common historically than judicial astrology. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The majority of comments here support putting it in the first sentence. Only Britmax and FreeKnowledgeCreator seem to be against this. They have offered arguments against particular wording, but those seem to have been overcome. Their main claim seems to now be that it doesn't need to be there. Others have offered good reasons for why it does, including the fact that what shows up on a phone is just the first paragraph by default. Unless some stronger arguments against putting it in the first sentence are presented, I think they should accept that it's useful and stop reverting useful edits.--Brett (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits are never useful if they introduce factual inaccuracies. I see no point in objecting to a wording that does not introduce a factual inaccuracy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Then why did you revert Akrasia25's most recent change?--Brett (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The reason was given in the edit summary. In addition to the reason given there, my opinion is that Akrasia25's edit added poorly-worded text and contorted language to the article. However, I no longer care. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

ok Brett. I think that is a clear go ahead to add PS to the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.249.134 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Done.--Brett (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

On the authority of an IP with one edit to their name who might possibly be you. Britmax (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That was me doing it away from my PC and not Brett. I couldn't log in where I was as I have a complicated PW. There is now only one editor that does not want PS to be in the lede. I think that we have consensus now.--Akrasia25 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone provide any evidence or any reference where it is claimed that astrology is a science? Personally, I have never seen any. If such evidence or reference is lacking then astrology cannot be labelled as a pseudoscience.

Astrology is primarily a form of divination AKA "a divinatory art". Being an art form, it cannot be labelled a science or a pseudoscience. That being the case, to begin to define an art form based on a scientific qualitative evaluation is not immediately relevant to the definition of the craft under scrutiny, regardless of whether it is able or not to produce anything of value in any way, shape or form.

The same approach to defining any other art form would immediately disqualify the definition.

Indeed, since there are undeniable important mathematical elements to music and since some musicians and/or computers are able to produce some music on that basis, music could be defined as follows:

"Music is a pseudoscience that claims to effect certain emotional changes in people by means of the application of various frequencies to the sense of hearing. For example, although the action of scratching horsetails with catguts -- an action known by practitioners as playing string instruments -- frequently manages to cause emotional reactions such as joy or sadness as evidenced by facial expressions such as smiles or tears, there is no scientific evidence and no neurological mechanisms capable of explaining the phenomenon. Moreover, such emotional reactions are not replicable in all subjects at all time."

This is how ridiculous the Wikipedia definition of astrology sounds. I am not suggesting to throw away whatever scientists may or may not have to say on the matter. I am merely pointing out that the scientific perspective on astrology is as irrelevant as any other scientific perspective on any other art form.

Factual accuracy

Akrasia25, in regard to this edit, it seems I have to point out again that the wording it introduces ("Astrology' is a pseudoscience, the goal of which is to find a means of divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects") is not factually accurate. No, astrology does not have as its "goal" finding "a means of divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects" because astrologers already believe they possess such a means. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, the particular wording is not at issue, so the claim is somewhat besides the point. You could easily reword it to "goal of which is to divine". --Brett (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

No, because that is not the goal. As FKC says, Astrologists think that they have already found this method: they call it "Astrology". Britmax (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The goal of physics is to understand the physical world. The fact that we understand some of it already or that we have a method for doing so does not alter that. Astrologers don't think they have already divined everything that will ever happen in the future. The statement is true as given.

Also, as I observed above, the goalposts keep shifting. In your revert, you said it's not about the meaning, just that you can't have everything in the first sentence. Now it's about the meaning. If that's really the case, then be cooperative and suggest some wordings that you might accept rather than forcing me to play guessing games trying to figure out what excuse you're going to make up next.--Brett (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you are concatenating two arguments here, which is why you think the goalposts are moving. "Astrologers are not looking for this, because in Astrology they think they have found it" is a different argument from "Astrology should/should not be called a pseudoscience in the first sentence". Britmax (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Threat of vandalism as a reason to not put PS near the top of the lede

Trying to separate the various arguments. It seems like we will not get there unless we separate the arguments.

An editor stated that we should not mention PS in the top of the lede because this would lead to more vandalism. I suggest that vandalism is always possible.

A controversial topic is always prone to vandalism. That's why pages are protected... Now, the argument "we need to start by explaining its specific features, not a feature it shares in common with many other things" is totally absurd... The fact that Astrology is PS is too important to be be buried down. On smartphones, only the first paragraph appears before the index, so the PS info should be there.

A page on my watch list is Harp seal. For some reason, this odd topic is vandalized and it gets reverted the same minute.--Akrasia25 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The threat of vandalism argument is interesting, but without data to support it, and given that the page is already protected, I don't think it holds any weight.--Brett (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"A controversial topic is always prone to vandalism." Ridiculous. I regularly remove/revert vandalism from articles on films, novels, folklore topics, and archaeology-related topics, which are not remotely controversial. They still attract their share of vandals. Why should that matter on how we cover topics? Since when do we cater to the views of vandals and trolls? Dimadick (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree. What is next on this topic? How do we get to resolution? --Akrasia25 (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Leave it alone. There is no need to pander to the short attention spans of some people who think that it's not important if it isn't crammed into the first ten words of an article, with no room for narrative flow or any idea of why the subject became notable in the first place. Britmax (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience"

If astrology is introduced as "pseudoscience" in the opening statement, shouldn't every single religious belief? 75.167.180.24 (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Go for it! RobP (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Only those that claim to be scientific. Or rather, only those where we have reliable sources saying they are pseudosciences. Like astrology. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Effectiveness

I doubt there is much literature or even consensus, so perhaps bringing this point up is perhaps a fool's errand, but at least one Scientist explains astrology's effectiveness as due to placebo. See: Dr. Christopher S. Baird, West Texas A&M University "How does astrology work?"> I don't know this physicist personally, but his reasoning has merit. Volpane (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Volpane: Dr. Baird is wrong IMHO. Any perceived accuracy in astrology is due to the well understood Barnum effect which Baird failed to mention, yet is critical to understanding why horoscopes seem accurate. Unfortunately, scientists are not generally trained in, or skilled at, being skeptics. If you are interested in learning more about this topic, see this book. RobP (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

So, how is placebo not a valid argument when dealing with psychological counseling? I don't understand your argument; a skeptic viewpoint doesn't replace scientific training. You do understand what a placebo is...?Volpane (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A placebo is an inert substance or treatment which is not designed to have a therapeutic value. Astrology is not an inert substance. PepperBeast (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Astrology is not an inert substance, but you have only covered part of your definition. As a group of cultural ideas and a method for psychological counseling it can and is prescribed as a treatment. Can it or is it not?Volpane (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@RobP: The definition on Barnum effect suggests it is only a partial explanation for astrology, et al. So perhaps this is not such an open-and-shut question. In my understanding of the subject, new research translating writings from the Hellenistic astrology traditions from the 2nd century BCE suggest methods were developed to be very specific in interpreting astrological information. Now, I realize this does not cover modern sun sign astrology, which I concede is very generalized, nor even other branches like mundane astrology, which deals with nations, are not intended to cover individuals. So my argument is Forer effect applies to applications of astrology that are general but becomes problematic as an argument for natal astrology, which is the part that is actually tailored to an individual, so it would be very rare that two data sets and their interpretations will be exactly identical. In other words, Forer effect can apply, but the chance of it applying seems slim if the interpretation is well developed. Accuracy of interpretation, of course is subjective, which I see is really what your objections are by applying Forer effect because interpretation is always subjective, even for medical doctors who are expected to have enough training to stay out of litigation when they prescribe treatment. But this point leads to my conclusion that placebo within a counseling experience, whether psychological or culturally based, does in my mind account for interest in astrology and its continued popularity, despite scientific consensus that astrology has no, as of yet, discovered material mechanism. The definition of Placebo as a treatment with no mechanism does allow it to be applied to the effectiveness of astrology, despite not being accepted as having therapeutic value.Volpane (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)