Talk:Algol

Algol

Is the star system really younger than 300 million years as suggested by the box? That seems pretty young.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.24.60.12 (talk • contribs).

Yes. Massive B-class stars have a main sequence life span of 11-400 million years. — RJH (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Demon star

Demon Star redirects here, perhaps an explanation of this could be made in the article? Miremare 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the nick name of the the star is "Demon star".--207.68.235.128 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Weird

the chilmead material which I guess Allen read. Nice to get one step further down the source-line. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Planets and Moons" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. In addition I removed the movie poster lacking a fair use rationale for use in this article. I also removed the unsourced mentions in popular culture, and listed them below. If sources can be found then they can be readded to the article. Rather than developing a list, try to convert the relevant information into prose. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would recommend going through all of the citations and updating the access dates and fixing any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced information

• The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy mentions Algol several times.
• The sci-fi comedy book Bikini Planet features aliens from Algol. They are a feminist society and all have lizard-like features.
• In the short story, Beyond the Wall of Sleep, by H. P. Lovecraft, a nova is mentioned as having taken place near Algol on February 22, 1901; this nova is, according to the story, the result of an epic space battle between two incorporeal beings, known in the story as the 'entity' and the 'oppressor.'
• In the Sega video game series Phantasy Star I- IV, the star system which the series takes place in is called the Algol Solar System.
• The PS3/XBOX360 fighting game Soul Calibur 4 features a character called Algol, likely named so for his binary nature.
• Neptune Towers have released two music albums featuring Algol: Caravans to Empire Algol and Transmissions from Empire Algol. The music genre could be described as cosmic ambient.
• In the MMORPG Final Fantasy XI, a rare sword is named Algol. It is dropped by the demon-hound Cerberus (the demonic dog with three heads).
• Progressive/folk/Viking metal band Vintersorg's album Cosmic Genesis from 2000 contains a song called "Algol".
• Ra's al Ghul is one of the supervillain character in the Batman Universe.
• Dino Crisis 3 features an enemy named Algol. They are hammerheaded Velociraptors with the ability to shoot electricity and camoflauge themselves.

Error in Article

System contains the following: "Algol is 92.8 light years from Earth; however, about 7.3 million years ago it passed within 9.8 light years". If that was the case its travelled over 10 times the speed of light. I've checked the reference to get accurate information but it is subscription. Can someone please check and amend. Thanks.--94.194.237.87 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

92.8 minus 9.8 LY = 83 LY travelled in 7.3 MILLION years implies a travel speed (with respect to the Solar system, presumably in a galactically-rotating frame of reference) of 0.00001137 LY/year, which is approximately 12271 km/hr. This is comparable to the orbital speed of the Earth with respect to the sun. Evidently a perfectly reasonable speed in celestial mechanics.(talk) 11:17, 22 February 2010)

What got me following these threads was the question : how long has the Earth been within / will the Earth remain in the region of Algol's sky where it appears as an eclipsing binary?(talk) 11:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign.)

Inclination terminology

It's odd that the inclinations of the two component pairs (A vs B and AB vs C) are given in different quadrants compared to the plane-of-the-sky (97degrees in one case ; 83 degrees in the other). This could mean that they've a 14degree difference between the planes of orbit (large, but not unprecedented within Sol), or that one of the components is orbiting in approximately the plane of the others, but retrograde. I'm also noting that the travel path implied elsewhere in the article is 6.04degrees to the line of sight (and therefore about 84 degrees to the plane of the sky in that direction). This could be an interesting coincidence, or it could mean that Algol has only just entered into it's period of being an eclipsing binary, or is just about to leave it. I don't have the geometry to work it out, and I'm pretty sure that the article doesn't have sufficient information to work it out. Yes, I know, "original research" ; but it's an interesting question, which may reflect on numerous other aspects of the article. Consider the implications to the most dismal of pseudosciences, astrology, if it turned out that Algol only started blinking at us at the time of the Trojan war. Aidan Karley (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

astrology?

Since this article is about the star, then is it normal there is also an astrology section? The astrology of Algol is covered in Behenian_fixed_stars, so it can be removed here. Any objections? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. mine. It is like any popular culture/cultural depictions section. I prefer to have them all at the topic, as that is what we are talking about. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Going through all the Behenian Stars one can see that any astrological references are typically put under the 'Etymology and cultural significance' section, but without making a sub section for astrology. See Regulus, Capella_(star), Spica, Antares, Vega.

The only other star using an astrology section is Gamma_Corvi.

I think it would be better to use the same template for all these stars and just put any astrological references directly under 'Etymology and cultural significance'. What do you think? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Casliber. The astrological tradition associated with the star has had a significant impact upon historical and cultural associations. For that reason alone the astrological references hold merit. I have undone your changes which removed the astrological subheading and deleted the astrologically relevant external links. I think there should be a clear consensus before you delete the content because it is not to your personal liking. Zac Δ talk 20:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It is only the unnecessary 'astrology' subheader that was removed, the information itself was retained. This brings it line with other articles about stars and is a perfectly sensible edit. Have reverted the changes. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You may not have realised that you removed the relevant link, so I have restored that. As it stands the subheading works very well, with astrolgy forming a minor heading under 'Etymology and cultural significance'. If you are not happy can you create a case for change and get consensus before introducing it? Currently you don't have agreement from others that your proposed changes are prefered Zac Δ talk 06:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is first and foremost an article about astronomy, as is obvious to anybody who sees the page. Just because there is one sentence that mentions astrology of Algol in the context of cultural significance, does not mean that there have to be external links to pages about the astrology of Algol. If external astrology links are going to be added to astronomical articles about stars that have ever been used in astrology somewhere, then where is it going to stop? In the same way I removed the external link to a music band using Algol in its name, and it was a dead link anyway. The astrology related passage is properly sourced in the article, and that's enough. Have reverted the edit back. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I have invited other editors to comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Astrology.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakeSense64 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Getting agreement before making changes is the way to go. Note that in reverting again, you have removed a subheading, a link, and the code which places the astronomical co-ordinates for the star at the top of the page. Therefore I shall undo this and suggest that you get consensus before making the edit again. The onus is on you to make your case before removing approved content that has been part of the page for 6 years. With regard to the disputed link (not the dead link which has now gone) this was originally added to the page in August 2005 with the description "Discusses the history of Algol". Diff It's a well researched, informative article concerning the cultural as well as astrological significance of Algol. The author has a Cambridge sicence degree and has worked as a teacher of physics. Where is it going to stop? Where common sense dictates. You seem to have a phobia about astrological references but they are hardly taking over the page here Zac Δ talk 11:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's 4 reverts within one day. I have issued you with a 3RR warning. Edit warring is not the way to resolve disagreements.

Let's see what other editors have to say about adding external links to astrology websites in articles that are under the scope of astronomy. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - and note what the 3RRR policy says "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring". I have given clear reasons for my reverts, to show that I am enforcing policy (and in the latter preserving necessary code). Zac Δ talk 13:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edits had nothing to do with 'enforcing overriding policies'. Giving 'your' reasons for your reverts doesn't mean you can skip the 3RR rule. So in this case it is clearly edit warring. Better to stop it. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the "skyscript" link, which is a mishmash of astrological nonsense and not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and the removal of the Astrology subheading, as it contains only two sentences, is not found in other articles on stars, and the text fits in just fine in that section. The sky coordinates should stay. I'm of mixed mind about the "cieloeterra" link, which discusses historical astrology, though is rather hard to read. I've removed the heading and link, but kept the coordinates. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing. The sky coordinates were deleted by mistake, so of course they should be put in. As for the "cieloeterra" link, I could not make sense of it either. Perhaps it should go as well. Maybe others will weigh in. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the sub-heading was not essential at this stage for such a small section. Whether we believe that astrology is nonsense or inappropriate for an encyclopedia is irrelevant here. The article will be of interest to anyone who seeks to understand the historical context of this star and unless you can give a valid reason, I propose that the link should be reinstated. Robert Currey talk 16:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, the change has been made before achieving consensus on an ongoing discussion. As many, in fact more editors have argued against the change as have supported it, and by taking the content off the page whilst it is under scrutiny, that makes it difficult for other editors to review and add opinion to this. So I would ask you or someone else to revert until proper consensus has been achieved. (If consensus is achieved, then I am happy to go along with it).

With regard to a ‘mishmash of astrological nonsense’ not being appropriate for an encyclopedia; as pointed out earlier the article was well researched and soundly supported by references; so it makes ideal follow up reference for readers who want to explore the astrological associations of the star.

Although this article falls within the scope of the Wiki Astronomy project, that does not mean it should exclude coverage of information that extends beyond the purely astronomical. The page is dedicated to the star Algol, and all information that directly relates to this star and its historical and contemporary use is appropriate for inclusion – especially since Algol has a very important and consistent astrological tradition attached to it, of interest to all sorts of researchers, historians and scholars, as well as modern day astrological enthusiasts. So whilst the astrological content is relatively limited as it stands, that should not mean that it is not a valid subject for discussion within the article; and whilst the astrological reference is so limited (as it stands) then it makes sense to at least offer an external link so that those wishing to can discover more about that. Zac Δ talk 16:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why I'm not sure about removing the "cieloeterra" link: it's an overview of historical astrological commentary on Algol. The "skyscript" link has many references, yes, but that doesn't mean it is a good reference for Wikipedia. The references in it are to a combination of ordinary news reports, conspiracy theory websites and books, and other astrological webpages and books, along with a very few historical references. One might want to include it in a Wikipedia page about astrology (or, perhaps, in a page about humanity's desire to create causations out of correlations), but it does not belong on this page. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. I'm more concerned about the principle of astrological references being omitted than an attachment to that particular link. The conspiracy theory element is where I would be inclined to agree with you. But I think there should be an astrological reference made available which suits the need of the general reader, as well as the cieloeterra one which is valuable as a translation of one historical text but does not give an overview of astrological details. What do you think of this, which offers a collection of details without any sense of emotive contribution from the author: Algol Zac Δ talk 18:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If Algol is astrologically as important as Zachariel wants us to believe, then why is there such brief mention about it on Behenian Stars , an astrological article where Algol is covered alongside 14 related stars? Why push these external links about astrology onto the astronomy page, when there is an astrology article about this star? Just doesn't make sense.

Astronomy articles often have an 'etymology and cultural significance' section, but it is not given undue weight, because it remains an article about astronomy in the first place. The amount of scientific information about stars and planets is now typically much larger than the historical and astrological writings about it. Pushing astrology links into astronomy articles would be no different from insisting that alchemy websites have to be in the external links on certain pages about chemistry. Just because a webpage is 'interesting' is not a reason to include it. The internet is full with 'interesting' webpages, and that's what search engines are for. MakeSense64 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

None of the other Behenian fixed stars pages have astrology external links, so I wouldn't support any such links on this page, other than purely historical ones. These pages are about astronomy, not astrology. If you want, you can add astrology links to Stars in astrology (which could use cleaning up anyway), and link it from here. That is what is used by, e.g., Sirius and Aldebaran. - Parejkoj (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Makesense64, I do not want to persuade anyone to believe anything. Wikipedia is not interested in personal belief; its basis is verifiability through reliable sources, as you know. You say there is an astrological article about this star – where?

As I have said before, the focus of this article is not pure astronomy, but the star popularly known as Algol (from its Arabic name ‘the ghoul’). This article is not limited to covering only modern scientific information on the star: the question of why it has been considered ghoulish is of interest to an enquiring mind and suitable for inclusion on the page. There should be some expansion of the single astrological reference to its meaning that currently exists “Algol is considered the most unfortunate star in the sky”. Why? If an external link is considered inappropriate then I shall aim to provide some explanation of that within the main text – though I would remind you and Parejkoj that it remains the case that the changes were made without obtaining consensus. Zac Δ talk 23:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I was directed here from a comment on the WikiProject Astrology page. The Behenian fixed star page is specifically designed to talk about the use of a certain set of fixed stars for magical purposes. Since the use of Algol was not restricted to magical purposes, I see no reason to restrict the discussion of its astrological usage to that page. Just because the article primarily discusses astronomical details of algol does not mean that some information about other cultural significance that it has cannot be mentioned as well. Additionally, I don't see why we would want to remove any well-sourced references which verify the statements made in the article. --Chris Brennan (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Variability of Algol recognized before 1667?

The recent addition of astrologically related material on Algol contains claims which are in variance with the earlier statement that the variablility of Algol was first recognized in 1667 by Geminiano Montanari. It is true that some have speculated that that Algol's variablility was known before the 17th century but this has never been proven conclusively.

Ancient star catalogues, such as those of Ptolemy and al-Sufi, never noted any variability and early 17th-century discussions on temporary stars (sparked by the 'new stars' of 1572, 1600 and 1604) never referred to Algol's supposed variability.

Accordingly, I think that the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in the astrology section on Algol should be deleted as they are based on ill-based assumptions and secondary sources. AstroLynx (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

But actually it's not in variance to the earlier comment - which reads:

"The variability of Algol was first recorded in 1667 by Geminiano Montanari, but it is probable that this property was noticed long before this time."

Yes, but the second part of this claim is unsourced. It would be closer to the truth to write possible instead of probable.AstroLynx (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say probable is accurate, but this could only be argued according to subjective opinion, which is not the best way to get to the truth. But if this concerned you why didn't you address that matter before I made reference to it in my reply to you? I'm not responsible for that comment.Zac Δ talk 11:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I had not noticed this (in my opinion) misleading statement until yesterday. AstroLynx (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So there you go - the article already mentions the probability that Montanari's is only the first known astronomical record of that variability: this is a testament to the way that official records tended not to catalogue variability before the 16th and 17th century when astronomy changed its theoretical basis and allowed the principle of its mechanism. Before that, astronomy was inhibited by Aristotelian principles, but it is well known that observed reality often contradicted with the ideal Aristotelian principles, hence the reason why medieval astronomy developed many 'minor' problems. What could be taught and what could be published in official records were two different things.

There was a lot of discussion on the variability of stars at the start of the 17th century (due to the 'new stars' of 1572, 1600 and 1604) and nobody (many of whom were very knowledgeable in ancient astrology) mentioned anything on the variablility of Algol. AstroLynx (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is one reason why knowledge of star names, such as this star being known as 'the Winking Demon' or 'the blinking eye of the Gorgon', shows how cultural awareness extended beyond tabulated astronomical information. The report makes clear that whether the variability was astronomically recorded or not, it was observed, and meaning was extrapolated from it. As you say, although some have speculated that that Algol's variablility was known before the 17th century, this has never been proven conclusively; but neither has it been disproven conclusively. However, I take your point about the necessity to tie the passage into what has previously been stated, so I have amended the passage to make that point clearer.

Name me one pre-17th century reference identifying Algol as 'the Winking Demon' or 'the blinking eye of the Gorgon'. I have only encountered such claims in the recent literature. AstroLynx (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there is a time limit in which I would find it quite difficult to locate and trawl through all the world's pre-17th century references that exist on this topic, and even then my mind would be niggled with concern that I might have missed a manuscript or two. Fortunately, as a Wikipedia editor I don't need to do that kind of personal research. I refer to what is published in independent sources, recent or not. If you want to provide reference to a reliable published source that argues this was not the case, then the text can easily be ammended to accomodate that fact. Wikipedia aims to offer what is publicly known, or considered to be publicly known; it's purpose is not to publish yours or mine original research Zac Δ talk 11:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I can save you the trouble - I have seen most of the pre-17th century literature on Algol (Babylonian, Greek/Roman, Chinese, Islamic and early European) and I never encountered such claims. Note b.t.w. that Allen (cited by you as a source) was very sceptical about claims that Algol derived its name (and fearful connotations) from a supposed ancient knowledge of its variability. AstroLynx (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

With regard to your comment that the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs "are based on ill-based assumptions and secondary sources" - there is nothing illogical or 'ill-based' about the assumptions, and the reader can be the judge of that. The passage presents substantiated details of value to researchers; who can then follow this up further if they wish. In fact secondary sources are not at all unsuitable for Wikipedia and these sources fall well within the remit of what Wikipedia considers reliable. Remember that the Wikipedia policy WP:V states "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". Sources for all relevant comments are given so that the reader can check these details and verify where they have been published and in what format. Regards, Zac Δ talk 09:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted the latest edits because they are not minor edits and adding such a big section should not be done without concensus. It was clear from the recent discussion that User:Parejkoj and me are not in favor of adding more astrological content to this article. We have to adhere to WP:PSCI, which makes it clear that where science and pseudoscience are presented next to each other in an article (which can be for good reason), the pseudoscience part should not be made as big as to look equal in importance. That becomes a case of undue weight WP:UNDUE. It is for that reason that there are not rarely separate articles for the astrology of a planet or star. See for example Venus, where astrology is briefly mentioned, but for a more details about the astrology of Venus you have to go here: Planets in astrology, an article that is under the scope of Astrology. Just imagine how it would be if astronomers came to add their materials in an astrology article about a planet, that would not benefit any user of WP. Please consider that it will not be helpful for astrology articles if you go to war with the astronomy community on WP. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) In the same way there is also a separate article for the mythology of Venus: Venus_(mythology) MakeSense64 (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above: as I mentioned earlier, there is a specific page, Stars in astrology, that is linked from various individual star pages where it would make sense to put astrological material. It needs cleaning up, but the text and references that were added to Algol earlier (and that MakeSense64 reverted just now) could certainly fit in there. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Makesense64 I am reverting your undo. This is not something I often do. Your objection is that there was no consensus – yet you have deleted a link to an article that explained the cultural and historical background to Algol despite objections. When this link was deleted (without consensus), you created a gap that needed to be filled. On, 7 July 2011 @ 23:29 Zac notified this page of his intention to fill this gap by adding some background information on Algol. The comment was addressed to you and no objection was raised. So procedures were adhered to, though they may not have been convenient to you.

WP needs good content and these edits are well sourced and of a high quality. Care and research has been taken. There is no question of the content being WP:UNDUE since it was less than one third of the page and as you will see from the top of this discussion page, this article is “within the scope WikiProject Astrology”. If you feel that the thousands of years of cultural history including astrology relating to this or any other star is not of interest or irrelevant here and elsewhere, maybe you should take it up on the Project pages and a wider solution can be explored. This is not the place to try to airbrush history just because as an ex-astrologer, it is no longer to your taste.

Lastly, what is of more concern is your comment “Please consider that it will not be helpful for astrology articles if you go to war with the astronomy community on WP”. This is not only inappropriate, it is unnecessarily inflammatory and appears to be intended to incite conflict when all editors should be working towards cooperation. Your editing history suggests that you are the only person who might be ‘going to war’ by undermining Zac’s constructive attempts to edit where it is needed. Robert Currey talk 18:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As for your first comment. Deleting an external link doesn't leave any gap, because the external links are not sources for the article. And it would make no sense to object to new material before it is brought, that would be prejudice. My not objecting to somebody stating an intention to bring more material doesn't imply that I have agreed with the materials.

As for the second part. How interesting that an anonymous editor added an "Astrology Portal" template to this Talk page earlier today, without leaving any edit summary. And somehow you are the first person to notice. But, the scope of article is not changed by adding a portal template, anybody can add templates. Here is a good explanation about scope: WP:SCOPE. Scope is typically made clear in the lede of the article. It is obvious from the lede here that the scope of this article is astronomy. The scope of an article can be changed, but that too needs concensus. So no matter how well researched the latest edit was, it falls outside the scope of this article, and throughout WP can be seen that astrology and astronomy are mostly kept to separate articles already.

As for your last comment, I can only recommend to 'focus on content' WP:FOC. If you have something to say about an editor, then that is normally done on their User Talk page. There are so many astrology articles that are seriously lacking, that I don't understand why your 'constructive' efforts have come to this Algol page, which has GA status already. Stars in astrology can use the attention much better. MakeSense64 (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I would like to clarify that I was not involved with or aware of any anonymous edit and would not have mentioned it if I had known it was a recent edit. I believe that anonymous editing in Wikipedia is a licence for people to promote personal agendas.

Second, your point about WP:SCOPE actually supports the edit. The first line reads "Algol (β Per, Beta Persei), known colloquially as the Demon Star, is a bright star in the constellation Perseus." This is a clear reference to star lore and it would be wrong not to expand on this within the body copy. "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article,.." WP:MOSINTRO

I am more interested in the astronomy of stars than the astrological history of stars, but reducing WP pages into pure astronomical data by extracting the historical, cultural, mythological and astrological background does a disservice to star gazers of all persuasions. Robert Currey talk 22:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I said above: there is a specific page, Stars in astrology, that is linked from various individual star pages where it would make sense to put astrological material. The information that was in the "Etymology and cultural significance" section before the recent edits was a good summary of references to Algol by a variety of cultures (though it only uses one reference, which I understand is a bit of a controversial one). - Parejkoj (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Parejkoj, I don't know why there is that tiny page containing little more than a list of half a dozen stars which says for its lede "Several stars have played a role in ancient and medieval astrology". The fact is that all the bright stars and all the main constellation stars have played a significant role in ancient and medieval culture, with astrological meanings that reflect something of their astronomical details in the way that this one does. Such a page as Stars in astrology, if it was developed (and I don't believe it is worth developing) could only serve a purpose as a list which then linked back to where the star details could be given in full, ie., for this star, here. If a user wants to find information about Algol, about its astronomical details, its historical significance, its associated meanings, then they will run a search for the term 'Algol' in the Wikipedia search box and expect to find the information on this page. I understand that you and Makesense64 object to the fact that the information is not purely astronomical, but I don't see that the content detracts from the astronomical information at all - it merely adds relevant information of a different nature, which connects to its historical relevancy. This kind of addition makes the feature on Algol more interesting for some, and more complete as a resource. Those that don't want to read the astrology information can choose not to; just as for some readers the astronomical details will be of less interest. Others clearly feel the same as I do about this; I'm sorry you don't. I think we have to lose the view that this is a page from an astronomy book; it's not, it's a Wikipedia feature on Algol, and it allows for segmented sections that can cover the subject from different angles Zac Δ talk 00:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@Robertcurrey. An article about a star inevitably starts with mentioning the name (and alternative names) of the star. Just because some names are based in star lore doesn't mean that the scope of the article includes astrology. You can also have a look at this astronomy article 2060_Chiron. The astrology of Chiron has its own article here: Chiron_(astrology). This is how it is done throughout WP.

You will have a hard time convincing editors that astronomy and astrology should be merged back into one article. Astrology and astronomy seperated a few hunderd years ago, and WP reflects that fact. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 - I would disagree here on all counts and again your example makes the point. A search under 2060_Chiron should deliver the astronomical facts on Chiron. Similarly a search under Beta Persei or GJ 9110 in WP is clearly seeking astronomical data. However, searchers for Algol will include stargazers who are interested in both the technical specifications and the star lore. So this is what should be delivered.

Following your argument through suggests that astronomy should be removed from this page and put on a separate page entitled: Beta Persei or GJ 9110. I would disagree with this and now consider that an equally split disambiguation on a search for Algol (which I had originally considered) is bureaucratic and unnecessary.

In Chiron, you picked a strange example since Chiron was a mythological figure long before a dwarf planet was named after the figure in 1977. So any search naturally goes to the mythological figure first and not the astronomy nor the astrology pages. Unlike Algol, Chiron is not a star and it does not carry a huge amount star lore going back to prehistoric times.

If your argument is “this is how it is done on Wikipedia”, then you should respect the convention that star lore is included with the fixed stars. This has nothing to do with “merging astrology back with astronomy”. This is an instance where the history of astronomy and astrology overlap and this history cannot and should not be rewritten or swept under the carpet due to reasons of personal taste or beliefs. Robert Currey talk 09:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There are countless examples on WP where the astronomy and astrology about a planet, star or asteroid is kept to separate articles and use a disambiguation page. If there are any articles where the astronomy of a 'body' (complete with scientific infobox) is found together with extended sections about the astrology, and mentioning astrology next to astronomy in the lede, then you are welcome to show us. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Doing a Catscan I found only 2 articles that belong to category "Astronomical objects" and "Astrology" at the same time, and both have to do with the constellations: Constellation and Searching_for_the_first_X-ray_source_per_constellation. This is not unlogical because the constellations is where astrology and astronomy come closest together. Still, for each constellation there is always a separate article, so you have Aries_(constellation) and Aries_(astrology), and so on for all other constellations. The astronomy articles about constellations have typically one line that refers to astrology, and for more you have to go to the astrology page. This is a most clear indication that astronomy and astrology are kept to separate articles in WP, no matter how interesting or relevant the star lore may be. So I will revert back the latest changes. To avoid edit wars, please stop reverting the edits every day, and first get concensus if you think that the scope of this page should be altered, and done differently from all other astronomy articles.

As I have mentioned on WikiProject Astrology Talk , please do not try to alter the scope of this page without notifying the members of WikiProject Astronomy WP:AST.

By the way, I noticed that several of the astrological articles on constellations have been tagged with issues for more than a year, and are not getting attention. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Raising the matter on the Neutral Point of View noticeboard

Makesense64, I am going to undo your deletion, to allow the content to be seen for what it is. I have just placed a notice about this situation on the Neutral Point of view noticeboard and asked for some guidance or clarification. I have said that I will undo your last deletion and ask you to leave the content in place so it can be evaluated by those with more experience than you or I. I am not sure of the protocal for these things, never having done this before, but I will place a message for you on your talk page because I have fowarded my view that you are trying to make this matter more divisive than it needs to be, for reasons that are not of benefit to members of the WP astronomy project. I hope the members of the astronomy project will read my report too, and realise that there is no intention for astrologers to "take over" astronomy pages, and you are blowing this matter out of proportion and losing touch with common sense. This is my personal opinion of course, but sincere and genuinely held, based on the familiar and consistent cycle of me trying to propose content and you then arguing for its swift deletion. Zac Δ talk 15:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Algol_-_feedback_on_whether_.28and_if_so.2C_to_what_extent.29_pseudoscience_policy_affects_the_content_of_this_star_page.

Summing up and trying to find a way forward

The recent discussion whether this article should have a broader astrology section or not has not reached concensus so far. Trying to sum up the arguments that have been brought so far:

• Proponents of the proposed changes contend that because of NPOV this article should be broadly scoped and also accept astrological material and star lore, as long as it is properly sourced.
• Opponents of the changes have brought up the point that this article is within a more narrow astronomical scope, and that an extended astrological section can be properly put in an article like Stars in astrology, which exists already and has entries for other fixed stars like Aldebaran, Procyon, Sirius and Vega.

WP:SCOPE is very relevant for the article here. Some considerations:

1) The Algol article opens by stating that this article is 'about the star', but the word 'star' does not really differentiate between astrology and astronomy. In the further lede of the Algol article there is no mention of astrology.

2) The editors who favor the proposed changes have not made efforts to connect previous editors or WP:AST to ask what is the scope of this article.

3) Many examples have been found where astrology and astronomy of a given body (planet, fixed star, asteroid..) or constellation are kept to seperate articles. For example:

• Venus_(astrology) redirects to Planets_in_astrology, where the astrology of all classic planets is covered.
• Chiron_(astrology) redirects to Asteroids_in_astrology, where the astrology of several asteroids is covered.
• Aries_(constellation) is kept separate from Aries_(astrology), and so for all other main constellations.

4) Proponents of the changes have not brought significant examples where astrology and astronomy were not kept separate.

In effect this means that in the cases of all these planets, asteroids, fixed stars and constellations, the editors who worked on those articles have always come to the concensus to put astrology and astronomy to separate articles. By doing it different here we would be going against a concensus reached by many different editors who worked on those other articles about planets, stars and constellations.

Are the editors willing to change their position and go with how it is done for astrology throughout WP? If not, why not? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with having an astrology section in an article about a star, as long as it had some historical significance, is kept in proper contest, reliably sourced, and does not either dominate the content, drift too far off topic, or presume that the reader accepts astrology as fact. I.e. it is in line with WP:PSCI, WP:RS, WP:RNPOV and WP:TOPIC. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems sensible and the way I would expect the matter to be treated, Zac Δ talk 05:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@RJH. Probably many people have no problem with seeing astrology in an article about a star. But we should not be editing from the perspective of what we personally prefer or have problems with or not. There are definitely astronomers and others who do not want to be confronted with astrology when they look up information about a fixed star. This is not really different from the situation where some people smoke, some people don't smoke but they have no problems to be in a room with smokers, and still others don't smoke and don't want to breathe smoke. For that purpose non-smoking rooms are created, because that solves the problem for everybody. In WP we use disambiguation pages. We can see that astronomy and astrology are kept to separate articles throughout WP. Why do some editors want to deviate from that approach here in the case of Algol? That questions has not been answered.

Nobody has been saying that there should be no astrology in WP, or that there should be no astrology of Algol in WP. But when certain material qualifies to be included in WP, then we have to ask in which article it belongs. WP:DISAMBIG explains all about it. Here in this case it is clear that Algol is considered a primary topic WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and if we check 'WhatLinksHere' it is indeed a vast majority links from other astronomy pages. That indicates Algol is the article about astronomy and the primary topic. Any secondary topics are then sent through disambiguation, there already is one Algol_(disambiguation).

Insisting that astrology about Algol should be put in the primary topic article , is going against WP guidelines about disambiguation.

MakeSense64 (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No it is not; there has always been some astrology content on these pages; I know because I have used them for my own research in the past. And what's more, to clarify the issue I took the matter to the NPOV noticeboard to ensure that policy has been adhered to. The feedback has been that you are wrong in every respect and are acting disruptively. Why are you not taking on board the feedback you have been given there? Zac Δ talk 07:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Because one editor giving feedback does not mean that editor cannot be wrong.

Nobody has denied that there can be 'some' astrology on this page. Even in my reverts the original sentence with reference to astrology was always kept.

The NPOV noticeboard does not address the question whether extended materials about astrology should be Algol or on Stars_in_astrology. Why is the point about disambiguation not taken on board? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion has been considered and rejected many times from various editors, from the same point of view as Casliber's original reponse when you first proposed it -- "It is like any popular culture/cultural depictions section. I prefer to have them all at the topic, as that is what we are talking about." Zac Δ talk 08:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary says: 'disambiguation has been rejected'. So I can only repeat my question: "Why is the point about disambiguation not taken on board?"

Let me remind you that concensus does not depend on how many editors reject a suggestion or on how many times they reject it. Citing from WP:MEAT: "Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors."

Rejecting a fair point about disambiguation, equals going against WP guidelines. I ask you to reconsider. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

All sides might like to take a good look at how this has been dealt with at Moon, a featured article. There are various sub-articles that relate to the Moon and culture, as well as a section in the main article. Can we head off a dispute over whether to break out a separate article on Algol in culture, resolving to keep the possibility open for the time being, and trying to improve the current section. I think it could do with shortening a bit. If possible, the references should be to scholarly works on mythology, but currently the Allen work is drawn on extensively, and is probably not fully scholarly, and there is still a reference to a current astrologer, which isn't appropriate. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to the living astrologer - that wasn't part of my text and to avoid controversy I've cut the comment it related to. It was an interesting cultural point but hardly worth hanging onto if it adds to the need for this level of discussion - hopefully now there is nothing that would be considered 'questionable' by anyone; nor any need to consider that there is a disproportionate amount of information on the page. The references to Allen's work were present before I contributed; I dare say that many WP star pages rely heavily on Allen but I added five new references, all to different reliable sources. Zac Δ talk 11:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith. The article about Moon is a typical example of what I have been saying. The astrology of the moon is put on a separate page and uses disambiguation Moon (astrology). If you shorten the section here it will be right back at what it was before some editors insisted on putting in an extended astrology section. See the earlier version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algol&oldid=438564945

The five new references that @Zac has brought are not likely to be considered reliable for an astronomy article.

It may also be useful to take a look at Talk:Stars_in_astrology. Quoting the comment of an editor there: "I suggest you move astrological meanings of stars from respective star articles here. If the star has a substantial historical section, something could be mentioned there briefly (in one sentence, for example). More detailed descriptions should be added only into this article".

Moving astrology of Algol to Stars_in_astrology has been suggested here from the very beginning. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

At least some of it could be covered there, but there is also an assertion here that Algol has had a cultural significance across a number of cultures and through many centuries. That can't all be summed up as "astrology", so it would make sense to keep a brief mention of that here, just as the Moon article has a brief mention of the various cultural dimensions. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I Agree. Cultural significance that can be properly sourced is worth mentioning as long as it is kept brief. Statements like "The 17th century English astrologer William Lilly considered Algol to be one of the most portentous stars, and considered any planet to be unfortunate when placed within five degrees of conjunction to it." belong to Stars_in_astrology MakeSense64 (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a reason why I took the trouble to raise this matter on the NPOV noticeboard, because you are trying to force an extreme, non-common-sense agenda on this page, and pretend that some policy exists that prohibits the inclusion of astrological information or requires it to be unecessarily restricted. But it doesn't. This page is about Algol, the star, the disambiguation pages are for things called Algol that are not about the star. The stars have astronomical facts and these hold astrological meaning - cultural references that have existed for centuries and are embedded in the history of society. If the astrological meaning is going to be referred to at all, then it requires explanation, and this requires reference to show how famous astrologers in history treated of the star, and why. You seem to be on a mission to get every reference to astrology censored in Wikipedia through the claim that presenting the information constitutes pushing a POV - but there is no POV being pushed here. This is factual information which the reader will either have an interest in, (in which case they will appreciate it) or not (in which case they will not read it). Also, the content of this page cannot be compared directly with the mass of information that can be presented on the Moon, which, as the Earth's satellite is a major body in astronomy and a major 'planet' in astrology. These star pages are relatively limited in their content and benefit from additional information that directly relates to the star but explores the topic from another angle. The only comment I would agree to is that of RJHall who wrote:

"I don't have a problem with having an astrology section in an article about a star, as long as it had some historical significance, is kept in proper context, reliably sourced, and does not either dominate the content, drift too far off topic, or presume that the reader accepts astrology as fact. I.e. it is in line with WP:PSCI, WP:RS, WP:RNPOV and WP:TOPIC.

That is a suitable solution and allows the application of common sense. Zac Δ talk 16:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no point just making a separate article if there isn't a decent amount of material to split off, and there should still be a section on cultural significance here which would point off to it and give the major points. To MakeSense64, perhaps you would like to raise this yourself at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism? That project tries to cope with pseudoscience being stuck into articles and maybe you might take their advice on board better? Dmcq (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you did not read the discussion, which is Ok because it is very long.

There is no need to make a separate article, because it exists already: Stars_in_astrology, and it can use some extra materials and quality sources. The only problem is that @Zac refuses to put the astrology of Algol there, without explaining why. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) The other obvious WikiProject to alert is WP: Wikiproject Astronomy. Astronomers quite rightly want astronomy articles to be firmly focused on the scientific facts. Cultural importance, if there is any, comes in a small section towards the end, with links to other articles that carry more detail. Stars in astrology seems to be a good place to carry the detail of Algol in astrology. It should of course be linked. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I notified them with a 'please see' template 4 days ago, and announced it also here. This is the link [1]. I think User:Parejkoj came here after seeing that notice. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I did read the discussion and moving all the stuff to an article like stars in astrology that would be just as senseless as having all the stuff for different stars under Star. Such an article should be more about the general topic of stars in astrology not about individual stars. If the topic is very small individual stars could be included but it would still not cover the other significance of stars in culture. This has already been raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Astrology_in_star_articles by Parejkoj but they didn't get support for their idea that articles about stars should be purged of anything about astrology. Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The astrology about all the planets is put together in Planets in astrology, the astrology of various asteroids is together in Asteroids in astrology, the astrology of centaurs is together in Centaurs in astrology. But somehow you are trying to tell me that putting the astrology of fixed stars in Stars in astrology would be senseless. What works for all these bodies is somehow not possible for Algol.

If somewhere down the road the article Stars in astrology would become too long and too many entries, then future editors will find a way to split it up in several articles, for example classified by constellation. That will be taken care of when the need arises. Currently Stars in astrology has only five or six entries (= plenty of space to add more).

Do you have any better reasons why the astrology of Algol cannot be in Stars in astrology? MakeSense64 (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you not look at those articles? You will see they give information about the topic and then have lists which give basic information about individual entries and refer to separate articles about what they refer to. You are simply wrong in what you say. They no more completely cover the entries than star does for stars in astronomy. Dmcq (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way are you going to ask for some support from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism which specializes in spotting pseudoscience? If anyone is going to agree with your point of view it should be them. Dmcq (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you look at the articles? Just try this. Go to Venus (astrology), Mars (astrology), Jupiter (astrology) and so on for the other planets. Then tell me on which page you have arrived. Scroll to the top of the page and you will see that you are on Planets in astrology, or not?

So Planets in astrology IS the complete coverage for astrology of all these planets. Any questions about that?

Now tell me why the same cannot be done with Stars in astrology?

You can notify the Rational Skepticism Project if you want, but I am not going to do it. Because it is not the number of editors for or against that matters. What matters is how many valid arguments are brought. One editor may bring up 6 valid arguments that are not refuted, and on the other side you may have 6 editors all holding on to one and the same argument. The lone editor has the concensus, and all he needs to do is continue to ask the right questions. Over time he will prevail, because fair questions cannot be avoided forever.

I like to stand alone, but what to do if somehow another editor turns up who agrees with me? MakeSense64 (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The article Venus has a section about culture with a reference to the article about Venus in astrology as it is big enough to start up a article about it. There is however no point setting up a separate article about Algol in astrology like that unless the culture section is developed quite a bit more in this article and even then this article would still have the main points summarized in it just like in the Venus article. Standing alone is against the basic principles of how Wikipedia works. The basis of decision making in Wikipedia is WP:CONSENSUS. Warring to achieve aims is wholly wrong and can lead to administrative action. Standing up for a point is good for a while but doing it too long is disruptive even when a person is in the 'right'. In the end there is no other way of deciding what is right in Wikipedia except consensus. Dmcq (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And where did you find the separate article about Venus in astrology? MakeSense64 (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry looking again I see I just followed the Venus (astrology) link to a section in Planets in astrology. I also found a section describing Venus in astrology in the Venus article. Following that example there should be a description of he main aspects in this article and it would be a good idea if there was a section also in the Stars in astrology article. Which is basically what people have said to you before but you seem to have difficulty with. By the way I notice the Venus article doesn't link to the other article even though it describes part of the same subject so I'll add a link there. You brought up the example of Venus, are you going to abide by what your example actually shows or are you going to jump to yet other grounds for persisting with your objections? Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

@Dmcq says: "Following that example there should be a description of he main aspects in this article and it would be a good idea if there was a section also in the Stars in astrology article."

Now you are talking. That's what I have been telling all along, that's what User:Parejkoj proposed and that's what User: Itsmejudith came to tell us yesterday, giving the example of how it was done in the article about the Moon.

All other astronomy articles typically have a brief reference to astrology (usually about one line) , and any extra astrology materials are put in an article dedicated to it, either as a section in a broader astrology article (e.g. Planets in astrology) or as a standalone article (e.g. Moon (astrology). No valid reasons have been brought not to do the same with astrology of Algol.

If astrology of Algol gets covered in another article (e.g. in Stars in astrology), then it can get linked to from within this article.

For now I will restore the astrology reference that was in place. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing is removing information rather than linking to where there is extra information. I have reverted your deletion. Wikipedia is not a place for you to exercise your hangups about deleting everything that is not scientific. Plese try to improve the content and coverage rather than deleting well sourced information. Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

First you agree that Algol that needs a section in Stars in astrology and only a brief description here, and as soon as the page is changed accordingly you are reverting it.

Let me remind you that this information was put in (bold) and then reverted. WP accepts bold-revert, but then it has to go through concensus before the edit gets back in. There has never been consensus about the astrology section that @Zac wanted to add, but I stopped reverting to avoid edit war.

Are you still going to answer the questions that have been left unaddressed? (see my "summing up" and following comments) MakeSense64 (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me try a solution out, and if anyone doesn't like it revert or not as you please, then (briefly) say why here. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done now. Please comment. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't approve because the passage has already been cut enough to ensure that what remains is robust and sensible and relevant. It is all pertinant information and the removal of it has taken away the much of the value of the passage. Before your cut, this demonstrated how the astrological meaning was tied to Algol's observed astronomical behaviour. For example, the remaining comment "Ancient references to Algol as 'the Winking Demon' or 'the blinking eye of the Gorgon', suggest that its variability was observed long before it is known to have been astronomically recorded" is now pointless - this point has been made already but not in the context of how that inconstancy gave the star a reputation for disruption to the philosophical ideal of astronomical constancy. And if we are to include reference of how the star is considered the most unfortunate star in the sky, then it is sensible to demonstrate this clearly by reference to how a very famous historical astrologer considered proximity to it by conjunction to damage the influence of a transiting planet.

This discussion section was begun by Makesense64 with the header comment "trying to find a way forward". As we have seen, his proposed solution is to stick rigidly to his argument that astrological references must be cut to oblivion without compromise to what is sensible. The policy dispute has been raised, and he chose to ignore it. He can raise it elsewhere if he wishes; he chooses not to. At this point there is no reason to reduce the content further than has already been agreed, and because the other (dubious) page does not then include more details; there is no point directing the reader there for non-existent further details.Zac Δ talk 13:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Since there is nothing unreliable about the content; since it is well sourced and relevant to the information on this page; it should not be cut again. The only appropriate way to forward an argument that the content does not belong on this page is to develop the policy discussion which I have already instigated. The arguments have not found favour or approval; hence further cuts without good reason are merely destructive editing. There are other pages to be worked on; which are crying out for more attention than this. Zac Δ talk 13:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I can't agree that shortening a section here and moving material to a daughter article is "merely destructive editing". Actually, the sources are not all that reliable. Did you want to examine them one by one? Ideally we are looking for academic sources on mythology/ancient history/history of ideas for that section. Other than that section, this is a science article, the content should reflect that, scientific sources should be used. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see Itsmejudith edit's are very aggressively reverted, also on the Stars in astrology article, as if that article has a sticker on it saying: "Thou shallt not improve this article".

As for reliable sources with regards to astrology and other PSCI, this is a good read: WP:CRUSH. It's also quite relevant to what seems to be going on here. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind me, I'm OK about being reverted on this. We just need more eyes, that's all. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You've gone very little Itsmejudith - I hope you are OK and that this was nothing to do with the aggressiveness of my edits (it wasn't my intention to be curt - it's all this talk about blinking demonic eyes, and now you say we need more eyes; the eyes are maybe getting to me now :)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 16:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the reliability of the sources cited, there is an obvious problem with the first part of the third paragraph of the astrology section starting with 'In ancient times Algol was referred to as 'the Winking Demon' or 'the blinking eye of the Gorgon', suggesting that its variability was observed long before [etc.]' as this is not Allen what actually says - he in fact was very sceptical about claims that the supposed name 'Winking Demon' (he never used the term 'blinking eye of the Gorgon') indicated ancient knowledge of its variability. In fact (as you can easily check yourself by entering the appropriate search words in Google Books) the term 'Winking Demon' in combination with Algol is first used in 1882. Similarly, 'Blinking Demon' and 'Blinking eye' (in combination with Algol) first appear in 1896 and in 1941.AstroLynx (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, my take on the sources is this. Allen 1899, not scholarly even at the time, now discredited, unreliable for etymologies of stars, star lore, mythology, astrology, astronomy, everything. Ptolemy, primary source, fine to cite alongside a reference interpreting Ptolemy. Houlding, possibly reliable for what astrologers think. Eberlin and Hoffman, as for Houlding. Lilly, primary source. Tyson, unreliable. I think we can do better than this for references about what contemporary astrologers believe. For ancient, medieval, early modern history, etymology and mythology, we need to find much better sources if we are to include anything at all. I hope we will find some sources as I wouldn't like to see the cultural significance disappear completely from the encyclopedia. (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Itsmejudith, I'm trying to return to the points I had to leave yesterday. Disregarding the point in question here, to say that Allen's work was "not scholarly even at the time" is not correct. The problem is that he gave a mass of information and didn't give his sources, but that was the style of scholarship in his day. One point I'd ask you to bear in mind is that the Allen references were present on this page and passed without comment before I made my edit, which is not dependent upon the single Allen ref and when I've made my discussion comments I'll revise the text so that controversy is eliminated. But please consider that there are Allen references all over Wikipedia. Though you are not to be aware of this, it is a regular occurrence that whenever I contribute sources that are perfectly acceptable elsewhere on WP, suddenly they become completely unacceptable for astrological references. On other articles Makesense64's highly critical and uncompromising attitude has required every single reference to be made subject to endless debate, going on for days and sometimes weeks, even to the point of peer-reviewed papers being considered questionable if they give coverage of an astrological issue (through the suggestion that this then makes them subject to giving coverage to a 'pseudoscience' issue). So I hope we can keep a sense of proportion here, and I'll do my best to accommodate every reasonable point, even if it shifts me significantly from where I stand now and the view I personally hold. Zac Δ talk 16:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

'Tyson' as primary source could stay but the way it is now cited hides the fact that it is a re-edition (in modern English) of a mid 17th-century English translation of Agrippa of Nettesheim's De Occulta Philosophia. AstroLynx (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected this reference. This was an old reference BTW, part of the page from before my addition of content Zac Δ talk 14:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi AstroLynx. Spurred by your post, I looked at Google books as you suggested and here is an interesting text that covers the point. But of course the derivation of the name is not restricted entirely to the translation of the Arabic official name, because there are ancient folklore references and traditional myths which support the variability argument too - for example the Arabian myth which likens the light of Algol to a lamp that causes changes as it darkens (covered in the Cielo report in the external links). Most stars had a variety of folk terminology attached to them and we don't find these unless we look beyond astronomical tables. Anyway, it's clearly a point of interest and perhaps needs some development or at least a reference to the alternate view you hold - and this book by Stephen Wilk certainly deserves a reference. But note the point he makes a little later "Is it possible that the ancient astronomers who were capable of making such subtle measurements could miss something as obvious as the blinking on and off of Algol and Mira?". If you want to suggest an amendment to the coverage of that particular point feel free. Or I can look at that tomorrow - I won't edit or comment again now until tomorrow afternoon because I don't want to make more than one contribution per day to this in future. Regards Zac Δ talk 16:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the Cielo link no longer exists - can you supply details about 'the Arabian myth which likens the light of Algol to a lamp that causes changes as it darkens'? [this will be my last posting of today too] AstroLynx (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I will answer this point at the end of the thread, because I don't want you to miss my reply Zac Δ talk 17:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the book you link to through Google, Stephen R. Wilk, Medusa: Solving the Mystery of the Gorgon, is from Oxford University Press. A really excellent source for the meaning of Algol in Greek mythology. Please feel free to add more from it, a little here, and more on pages that are about myth and culture as opposed to objects in outer space. Wilk explains why Allen is unreliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There may be a lot of interesting details and little facts and folklore about the cultural meanings around a Star like Algol, but if they never made it into a reliable source then we should not report on it. An encyclopdia is not supposed to bring every little detail. If this article were to bring everything that has been said and written about Algol astronomically, then it would be very long.

Myth and astrology of Algol goes into other articles through disambiguation, and here we can make a brief mention in a section about cultural significance, giving internal links to the disambiguation pages. That has nothing to do with my personal preferences, that's how it is done in all WP articles about stars.

A quick look through the 15 Behenian fixed stars shows us what concensus was reached by other editors of star articles before us. Typically the cultural section is kept short.

For the brief mention in a cultural significance section , we should not use questionable sources like dedicated websites, we better take the best quality source we have about it, most likely a scholarly book. If Wilk is such a source, then all remaining problems on this page can be solved very easily.

For me that is the logical way forward. If some editors continue to think that this article about Algol should be handled differently, then they are welcome to bring their very good reasons why. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd have probably left a little more than Itsmejudith but yes I'd definitely move things like possible reasons for its reputation to the stars in astrology article if that article is developed. I'd like to see that other article developed properly as it sounds like a notable and interesting subject. Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The criterion I'd use is the general one about topics that something definitely about the topic should be associated with the topic. Basically that stars should be treated the same as biographies. This does not mean that all or even much of the stuff associated with Algol in a book like Fixed Stars and Constellations in Astrology by Vivian E Robson should be stuck in the Algol article. Most of it if notable at all is of more relevance to stars in general in astrology or just as one of a list of things with other stars in astrology. The bios of film actors lists their movies and may note major bits they did in them but they don't go into detail whereas an article about the movie might say much more about their acting in the film. Dmcq (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think biographies are quite different from most other articles, in that they don't use disambiguation as much (or at all). We don't see separate articles about the childhood of Obama, the education of Obama, the career of Obama, the religion of Obama. Everything about a given person is kept to one article using sections and internal links to any items that are big enough to have their own article.

Other articles use disambiguation more frequently, especially when the topic falls under different (pseudo)scientific fields. For stars or planets we typically have a 'Star (mythology)', a 'Star (astronomy), and a 'Star (astrology) article, keeping the different scopes WP:SCOPE separate. If astronomy is considered the primary topic, then we don't have 'Star (astronomy)', but just 'Star'.

But in the case of Chiron for example you will find that mythology is the primary topic, and the astronomy of Chiron is here 2060 Chiron, while the astrology of it is here Chiron (astrology).

So it is obvious that disambiguation is used very commonly for stars. The different disambiguation articles often point to each other, but only make a brief mention about materials that are covered more extensively in another article. This is just practical common sense. The astrology of a star does not need to be covered extensively in more than one article on WP. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, what you are calling "disambiguation" is perhaps more often in Wikipedia called splitting of information into "daughter articles". It's used very commonly for stars, as you say. It's quite often used for biographies but can also cause problems. Typically for a pop star the discography would form a separate article. We are currently discussing, for example, which biographies should have a "funeral of" daughter article. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The way to gain confidence in an idea is not to seek examples which confirm ones ideas but to check for problems. 2060 Chiron was named after Chiron recently and definitely was not associated in times past with astrology or mythology. It is not like Algol which was noted in times past or Venus or the Moon or suchlike. If anything that you have had to get something with a 2060 ahead of it tends to imply the opposite of what the confirmatory example is supposed to show. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think seeking other examples of how articles were done in similar cases is an excellent idea. I have invited editors to find and bring up examples in which an article about a star is done in the way they are proposing here for Algol. That would give their proposal more legs, but nothing has been brought so far. Everywhere in WP we see that astrology and astronomy are kept apart in different articles, and give brief mention with an internal link to the other article where it is appropriate.

I brought the example of Chiron because it shows that the primary topic is not always astronomy. You can see the same for Mercury, where you have to go to Mercury (planet) to find the astronomy daughter article. Notice how that is different from Venus, which leads to the astronomy article immediately. The astronomy of Chiron being in 2060 Chiron has to do with WP naming convention for asteroids, which should always start with the designation number.

The problem we are having here is something I would label a 'scope-war'. As I mentioned in my earlier 'summing up' attempt, this article starts by stating: "This article is about the star..." This creates a potential problem because 'star' is ambiguous. Is it 'star (astronomy)', 'star (astrology)' or 'star (both)'?

In a case like here, where an Algol (astrology) article did and does not exist, it was not entirely unreasonable for some editors to think that it is 'star (both)'. So to solve the question we had to look deeper in the WP guidelines.

I think it would be much better if this article (and other articles about 'bodies' that may get used in astrology) are started with "Scope:astronomy" rather than "This article is about the star...". Then this entire discussion would have been avoided. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Bezza and 'variability' sources

To AstroLynx re the Guiseppe Bezza article – the link is still showing on the main page as the last in the external links (fortunately not yet removed despite an earlier proposal that it should be). The direct link is: http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.articoli.algol/eng.algol.html Dr Guiseppe Bezza is a very highly regarded historian and scholar of this subject BTW who has an excellent knowledge of ancient languages and the transmission of traditional astrological principles. Note what he says about the derivation of the word Al-ghûl:

The word derives from ghâla, "to enrapture", "to put someone to death" and this verb means, in his third form (mughâwala), "to take various forms".

So it seems that the principle of variation could be embedded even within the main name of the star (Algol); and the myth he records certainly seems to present a recognition of light that is diminished on a regular basis:

Every time when the young beloved saw that al-Gol, her master was coming back from hunting step by step she covered the lantern with more and more veils until it seemed out. The lack of light warned then her lover about the danger: Orcus was there! However when he went back haunting the veils were raised one by one and gradually the lantern returned to shine again. Then Perseus rushed to Naura's arms and love deified the cave again.

Although Giuseppe Bezza's credentials appear to be flawless, what we have here is an English translation of an Italian translation from a Spanish work.

I would first like to know the date of the original source for this story. We are all perhaps too familiar with the so-called Dogon lore on Sirius (with claims that its binary nature and presence of a dark compact companion were known long before modern astronomers discovered this) which is now commonly explained as early 20th-century additions to a much older (and astronomically less spectacular) corpus of local traditions on this star.

Regarding the etymology of the Arabic name, see the article in the Encyclopedia of Islam, vol 2, pp. 1078-1079 (online here) where it is claimed to mean 'shapeshifter', 'deceiver' or 'indicating fickleness'. The article also contains an interesting (and verifiable) astronomical reference to Perseus in the works of al-Masudi. AstroLynx (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at your contribution history and noted how much you have contributed editorially to the star pages in the past, I am sincerely interested in your view on whether the content (upon revision of unreliable points) is appropriate for inclusion on this page. If so, to what degree? Do you think it needs to be cut substantially and then recreated in its present form on a new page? I think you have earned the right to have your opinion taken seriously. I did intend to go over the text and references again today, but had many interruptions and ran out of time. I’ll go over it critically tomorrow and then I’ll be able to incorporate any views or suggestions you want to make, with an understanding of whether contributing editors who have helped to build these pages would argue for the whole section to be off-loaded elsewhere. Regards Zac Δ talk 17:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say the derivation was okay here but, using the biography analogy, the story is more like a film Algol starred in. Dmcq (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting this at the bottom rather than interleaving it. Zac, about two writers. Allen: you might like to try and show it was a scholarly text at the time, although it may not matter that much because Wilk explains exactly how it is unreliable in relation to Algol. Bezza: can we find out more about him? I see there is a book that is widely cited and almost impossible to obtain; some of it is on the cielo website. Does/did Bezza have a university position as a historian? When were the books originally written? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I can answer the point on Bezza quickly. This is from 'Notes on Contributors' given in 'The Winding Courses of the Stars: Essays in Ancient Astrology', Culture and Cosmos vol 11 no 1 and 2, (2007), p. 309:

Giuseppe Bezza teaches the history of science and technology at Ravenna (University of Bologna). He has written a number of essays on the history of astrology. He is the author of Commento al primo libro della Tetrabiblos di Claudio Tolemeo (Milan, 1991), Arcana Mundi. Antologia del pensiero astrologico classico (Milan, 1995) and Précis d’historiographie de l’astrologie: Babylone, Égypte, Grèce (Turnhout, 2003).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 22:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well it looks as if Bezza is a reliable source for the history of astrology. If Wilk contradicts him, then that is a discussion within scholarship and both sides should be presented. However, this translated excerpt on the cielo website isn't reliable. We don't know what document of Bezza's it was taken from, and the quality of translation is so poor as to make the text incomprehensible in places. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have created an edit break since we are no longer summarising the previous discussion.

I didn't find any parts of the article incomprehensible but then I'm used to reading this kind of material. Certainly I am happy to email Bezza and ask if he can supply information to clarify his sources. I agree with AstroLynx that it would be more than helpful to obtain the date of the original source for this story. AstroLynx I am struggling to find the references in the links you gave. They sound very useful – can you give me the chapter references if not the page references?

The Encyclopaedia of Islam reference is admittedly a bit hard to find as all 13 volumes (with some supplementary material) are all linked (without properly identifying the individual volumes) on the same webpage. If you ever want to have a good set of reference books on Islamic matters, it is probably best to download all 13 volumes as long as it is possible (there are indeed copyright issues here and the link may be deleted in the future). The reference to Perseus (whose rising is said to generate ghouls) in al-Masudi's The Meadows of Gold is in vol. 3, pp. 316-317, in the 9-volume edition (with French translation) by Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille. AstroLynx (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Presumably it will be OK to leave the content as it is for a little while whilst I look into this? If I don't receive a reply within the week then I'll act without it. I’d rather not rush this unnecessarily and in any case the point connects to material that doesn't involve the passage I wrote so it won't harm to get a few facts straight before editing any of the page content further based on disputed reliability of sources. As it stands the information leads to sources, although we all agree that the use of Allen as a reference to the 'blinking demon' is poor quality, since he mentions this with disbelief himself, so it is definitely in need of some kind of rectification.

I’ll prepare an email to Bezza, hope he responds, and report again in a few days time Zac Δ talk 14:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Reliable sources by him would be any scholarly books or articles written by him, with or without co-authors, as opposed to scholarly editing and translation of ancient texts. Introductions by him to ancient texts are probably RS but the texts themselves are primary sources. Any books or articles written for a popular audience might be more problematic. If we use Bezza's work, we cite the Italian or French text directly, with full bibliographic details (publisher, date of publication, page numbers). There are lots of editors here who can translate from Italian, and I myself can read French. That translation was really bad, you should only work into your own first language. I will look at EoI as well, but is that not also a primary source? I take it the article to be considered is "Algol". Itsmejudith (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your link to EoI isn't very helpful to me. I find myself on a page with numerous possible downloads and no indication of which one I need. When searching through Google for Encyclopedia of Islam Algol, I find this entry:

ALGOL is the ancient name of the star β in that part of the constellation of Perseus which is called "head of Medusa", known among us for its variations in intensity and, consequently, in apparent size. The name "head of Medusa" was translated by the Arabs into Ra's al-ghul (head of the female demon), the latter part of the name being afterwards attributed to the star β, in the form "Algol". Cf. Ideler, Unters. über den Urspr. u. d. Bedeut. den Sterrnamen, p.88

(E. Mahler).

This is very out date, but probably OK sourcing for what it says. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, my ref to EI2 (your EoI) was to the article 'Ghul' (vol. 2, pp. 1078-1079). As I explained yesterday it is unfortunate that the Internet Archive link is not very helpful in identifying the individual volumes but if you take the trouble to download all volumes (do this while you still can) you will have one of best modern reference works on Islamic matters. The Algol article you found is from the first edition (EI1, vol. 1, p. 277). In EI2 there is no entry on Algol except for a link (EI2, vol. 1, p. 379) to the general literature cited in the entry 'al-Nudjum' (EI2, vol. 8, pp. 97-108).

Ideler's work (the primary source for Arabic star names used by Allen in his Star-Names) was based on a 13th-century cosmographical work by Zakariya al-Qazwini, which in turn was largely based on al-Sufi's uranography. Zakariya al-Qazwini's work is available in a German translation (here) while al-Sufi's work is available in a French translation (here). AstroLynx (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, will follow that up. Just a reminder, we should be working with recent secondary sources, not directly with primary sources, although it is useful background to know which primary sources have been available to the recent historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

For info, I found Christian Ludwig Ideler's book Untersuchungen in full text at Google Books. [2]. To understand it fully you need to be literate in German, Latin, Greek and Arabic. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Verifiability policy says that reference to primary sources is appropriate in some cases, and this would be one where it is appropropriate I would think. In general terms, its best to just refer to what Wikipedia says itself about "What counts as a reliable source", which outlines the guidelines I'll be following.Zac Δ talk 10:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Astrolynx – after much pulling of hair I eventually located the Encyclopedia of Islam, vol 2, pp. 1078-1079. Vol II can be read online on this link. I also located (and translated to my own satisfaction) the reference in Al-Masud’s Meadows of Gold. It was valuable for me to find those specific references, the latter helping to clarify that the rising effects are associated with annual heliacal risings rather than diurnal risings.

These are good refs for the notion of the name ghoul being associated with variability. You are right what you say below about variability often being the result of atmospheric changes, etc, but Algol is one of the most noticeably variable stars and its variability is regular, so the implications of variability as a source of the cutlural meanings attached to it are more noteworthy for this star.

I have written to Bezza using an email address I located although I’m not sure it is up to date. Can only hope that he will respond with details on the date of the myth and the original sources; otherwise I’ll drop that point. Thanks for the heads up on the Encyclopaedia of Islam download issue. Zac Δ talk 12:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I found two relatively recent articles (here and here) in which Stephen R. Wilk defends his belief that Greek mythological texts indicate that certain variable stars were known in antiquity in a more concise fashion. I am not convinced by his arguments but you may find them useful. AstroLynx (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for that. We don't need to consider his argument proven but its good information to point to its existence. Zac Δ talk 14:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed off-topic paragraph

I removed the following paragraph of quotes because it is drifting off topic from a discussion of the star, and it is not needed for the remainder of the section:

Literary references to the malevolence of the Gorgon's Head can be found in sources as early as Homer's Iliad "...the Gorgon's head, a ghastly sight, deformed and dreadful, and a sight of woe", and as recently as the works of Oscar Wilde "Like a red rod of flame, stony and steeled, The Gorgon's head its leaden eyeballs rolled, And writhed its snaky horrors through the shield, And gaped aghast with bloodless lips and cold".

Regards, RJH (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No problems with that. Thanks for your contribution. Zac Δ talk 05:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Removed WikiProject Astrology tag

Based on what I learned here [3], and as a member of WikiProject Astrology, I am removing the WikiProject Astrology tag that was put on here recently. Very few astrology articles link here, so this is outside the scope of the Astrology project. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Question to the astronomers here

The discussion on sources above underlines that we need to keep the discussion of the cultural/astrological significance separate from the astronomy. I just have one question that the astronomers could help with: how obvious is the variability of Algol to the naked eye, if observations are systematic. For example, if the ancient Babylonians observed the skies throughout every night - and it is likely that they did -, would they have noticed, could they have missed, the variation in the brightness of Algol? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to ensure I follow you completely, can I ask you to clarify what you mean by the comment "we need to keep the discussion of the cultural/astrological significance separate from the astronomy". Presumably you mean that the information is contained within its own section of the page; is that correct? I am no longer arguing to keep the section here, assuming that argument has run its legs, and noticing that other star pages such as Vega Gienah and Sirius have presented coverage of star information from similarly various perspectives. However, I do intend to edit the passage in a thoughtful style that will be fitting to the other content of this page; hence my request for clarification on that.

With regard to the visible variability. I can confirm that I have observed this through naked eye observation myself; also that the Babylonians did ensure that the sky was observed at all times (day and night), and had dedicated teams of observers who worked in 'watches' for this purpose. Also, their skies were much clearer to observe than ours, and they had a much more attentive naked-eye appreciation of the colours of the stars, which was a matter of great significance to them (for the purpose of deducting astrological meaning). I'm not referring to a specific source here, but this is well established information which can be found in most books which cover the topic of Babylonian astronomy Zac Δ talk 10:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't clear. I really meant, in mainspace. The Algol article should be nearly all from a current astronomical point of view. It should have a short section explaining that the star has had much cultural significance and linking to another article where the cultural significance is set out using all the reliable sources that we have. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In their astrological texts, Babylonian astrologer-astronomers noted the brightness variations of several stars which in the past have been interpreted as evidence that their intrinsic variability was already recognized long before Western astronomers discovered this. However, as most of the thus identified stars are not variable at all (and often these texts refer not to individual stars but to whole constellations) it is clear that the reported brightness variations are due to changes in atmospheric extinction. A discussion of the reliability of such claims can be found in a 1942 paper by N.T. Bobrovnikoff (online here). Bobrovnikoff was unaware of similar Chinese observations, but the astronomical chapters of the earliest dynastical histories contain many similar references to supposed brightness variations of stars (most of which are not variable at all) and even to whole constellations. AstroLynx (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well again - what do you mean by "in mainspace"?

I am preparing an edit which will adjust what is on this star page (not creating another) and will be taking pains to ensure it is robust and fitting. Others can do that if they wish but it hardly makes sense to fiddle with it until all the new source material is gathered and assessed. Please refer to previous discussions and the examples I have just given to establish that you have no authority to state "The Algol article should be nearly all from a current astronomical point of view." I am wary of not adding to controversy and taking all opinions on board except the extreme ones that are not supported by policy; I am taking as my guideline the fair comment made by RJHall, which I have refered to several times. But again, he stated:

"I don't have a problem with having an astrology section in an article about a star, as long as it had some historical significance, is kept in proper context, reliably sourced, and does not either dominate the content, drift too far off topic, or presume that the reader accepts astrology as fact. I.e. it is in line with WP:PSCI, WP:RS, WP:RNPOV and WP:TOPIC"

Now I know his opinion doesn't carry any more weight than yours, mine or anyone else's, but it carries weight with me and has helped to define my approach because it is both reasonable and sensible. BTW, to be classed as 'an astronomer' here are you requiring contributors to be astronomers by profession? Or would you also include someone like me who has had an active and enthusiastic interest in the subject for several decades; and in particular in the study of their appearances as perceived by the naked eye, as well as their cultural impact and traditional astrological meanings? Zac Δ talk 10:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you got that about need to separate them from. I'm no astronomer but I have gone to hear Patrick Moore talk and looked through a few big telescopes. Loads of introductory astronomical books have stuff that comes under cultural significance or astrology in them and I certainly think this article would be doing a disservice to astronomy and to Wikipedia if it just presented bare facts by professional astronomers. Dmcq (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Malefic reputation

The article says: Historically, the star has received a strong association with bloody violence across a wide variety of cultures. Its malefic reputation probably arose out of this variability, which threw a challenge to Aristotle's doctrine of the pure immutability of the heavens, by which celestial harmony was associated with perfect and constant motion. This is cited to Houlding, D., ‘Star Lore of the Constellation Perseus the Hero’, Traditional Astrologer Magazine, issue 4; Spring 1994; published online April 2005.

The magazine is an astrological one which is unlikely to provide any good peer review of whats in but I'm happy enough for the straight attributed bits. There is however no attribution where the article just says 'Most probably, its malefic reputation arose out of this variability, which threw a direct challenge to Aristotle's doctrine of the pure immutability of the heavens, by which celestial harmony was associated with perfect and constant motion'. This is pure speculation on the part of the author and confers no great probability on it at all. I don't believe these musings should be part of this article. Plus I think one should be careful to phrase things a bit more but I wouldn't be happy with it even in other words. Dmcq (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dmcq. When you made your edit you removed the comment that held the reference to the point about the bloody reputation. This was not attributed to the Traditional Magazine but to the book: Ebertin, R., & Hoffman, G., Fixed Stars and their Interpretation, Verlag, 1971, p.24

It is the comment about variability that was attributed to D. Houlding. I have restored that content to make it clear. Why do you assume that an astrological magazine, which has an excellent reputation for its knowledge of the traditional principles of astrology (as does the author) would hold a poor reputation for checking the facts, or lacking meaningful editorial oversight? (Such as would make it a questionable source?)

The WP policy on reliable sources says "Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria."

This publication fits the criteria and the source supports the material presented. In addition it's a very relevant point which has been subject to detailed discussion on this page. There has been a great deal of interest in this point and I have also stated very clearly that I am tying up the information provided in the new sources that have been identified which relate to the points of variability that the comment alludes to. The Algol 'stars in astrology' page does not hold this information. This is the most appropriate place for it, where it connects to the astronomical and cultural significance of the stars variability. Zac Δ talk 21:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well there's other articles that have been definitely peer reviewed that cast doubt on whether the variability was even noticed so the 'probable' in that magazine is simply not generally supported. I really do not think that statement has anywhere near the WP:WEIGHT suitable for inclusion in this article and will be removing it. Notice the 'suggesting' in the first paragraph, you can't follow that with such a specific 'probable'. The suggesting is correct. Dmcq (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'probable' was only added as a compromise, to make allowance for the variability discussion. The original text read: "Its malefic reputation arose out of this variability, which threw a challenge to Aristotle's doctrine of the pure immutability of the heavens, by which celestial harmony was associated with perfect and constant motion (ref for that remark)". That was direct from a published source, which fits the necessary criteria, written by someone who has a good reputation for specialist knowledge on this subject. The responsibility of Wikipedia is not to arbitrate on what may or may not be the truth, but to report what is relevant as has been published by others. Since the issue of variability is pertinent, then the fact that this is reported to underlie the stars widespread unfortunate reputation deserves reference.

Why have you suddenly decided that it is not acceptable to include a reference to the probability of its variability here? The first sentence of the 'Observation history' section states: "The variability of Algol was first recorded in 1667 by Geminiano Montanari, but it is probable that this property was noticed long before this time." The discussion has thrown up many other references that discuss the probability of the variability being known in ancient times, plus the fact that the name 'Algol' presents the meaning of variability. I have spent good time researching the point presented in Wilk's work and the other good sources that Astrolynx took the trouble to locate in reference to this. I have stated that I would wait one week in the hope of getting further information from Bezza about the sources of his myth, and then I would rewrite those comments to present what is known, and what has been reported, in a way that is accurate and appropriate. This would not be to say that the variability was known, because we cannot prove that and it's not our job to try to prove that. But it would show that others who have explored the matter deeply have raised arguments to suggest that it was. Now where are your peer reviewed articles that state for a fact that the variability was definitely not known before it was catalogued by Geminiano Montanari? If these exist then they can be referenced too. And please explain to me why you are concerned about the issue of WP:WEIGHT here but not where the same implication is made elsewhere on the page. Or do you suggest that all references to the probability of its variability be removed, until Wikipedia reports not what others have reported, but just what some Wikipedia editors, for whatever reasons, would prefer to have it report? Zac Δ talk 23:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps as a compromise we could mention that many modern sources claim (mistakenly in my opinion) that Algol's variability was known long before the 17th century but that there is no firm evidence for this. I found a paper by G.A. Davis in a 1957 issue of Sky and Telescope (here) which discusses this popular misconception and also concludes that there is no textual evidence for this claim. Unfortunately, old issues of S&T are not online but I can provide a digital scan for anyone who is interested. AstroLynx (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds a reasonable thing to put in. Papers don't need to be visible online for verifiability but in fact there's other ones online which also deal with this, the section just above 'Question to the astronomers here' has a good one I believe. The thing I'm unhappy with here is sticking in conjectures about that it had anything at all to do with Aristotle and fixed stars on the basis of some waffling in an astrological magazine when there isn't any good evidence it was known to them even if I think some of them probably did know about it. The best that could be done is to attribute the idea to the particular author and that author's thoughts aren't particularly notable. Dmcq (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

One of Wilk's papers linked to above argues, on the basis of mythology, that the ancient Greeks knew of Algol's variability. I would think that could go in, attributed to Wilk. It is later than the 1957 paper. Even if Wilk's argument is accepted, the 1957 paper would also be correct, there is no textual evidence for the claim. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, following these suggestions I have modified the Observational History section. If this is o.k. with you I will later make similar modifications in the other sections at the bottom. AstroLynx (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the edits, what is not legitimate to say historically, is what this page now says, which has projected editors views on the page rather than reporting what the published sources say. Ie we cannot say:

"The variability of Algol was first recorded in 1667 by Geminiano Montanari, but the periodic nature of its brightness variations was not recognized until more than a century later by the British amateur astronomer John Goodricke."

We can only say, in truth:

"The first known recording of the variability of Algol was made in 1667 by Geminiano Montanari, and the periodic nature of its brightness variations was recognized more than a century later by the British amateur astronomer John Goodricke (who also proposed a mechanism for the star's variability), although some have argued that the variability was known beforehand. [Explanation > sources]"

You should most definitely “mention that many modern sources claim (mistakenly in my opinion) that Algol's variability was known long before the 17th century but that there is no firm evidence for this”; whilst leaving your opinion aside for what it is.

Dmcq: if those ‘conjectures’ have been reported (as they have), and they are relevant (as they are) then you definitely should “stick them in”. There are other readers and researchers who will recognize the reliability of that point even if you don't, because it is a well established and well known principle that celestial activity which deviated from the Aristotelian ideal of perfectly constant motion in perfectly regular cycles, free of unnatural deviation in appearance, was historically made subject to unfortunate symbolic association. That is an historical fact, not an unreliable point of conjecture.

What I introduced into this page was a point of reason, which explained why so much superstition and folklore got attached to this star. None of it supported the astrological view; it merely reported it in a way that is of interest to those who are curious enough to want to know about the star. Personally, I think the editing that has gone on here is highly questionable, but it has been blighted by attempts to appease someone who is wholly unreasonable, and achieves such victories regularly because he not only engages in disruption, but appears to delight in it.

Because I am hardly ever spared such unreasonable obstruction, I am abandoning my interest in this page and making this my last comment. Despite my disagreements on the content (and I hope I haven’t been uncivil in my desire to be straightforward) I am grateful to the three of you for being true to your understanding of the principles involved and taking the interest you have – you especially Dmcq for rescuing what you could; and you AstroLynx for being so generous with those sources. I consider I have no option but to leave this for the three of you to do whatever you consider best, because of the actions of an editor who I hope is seen to have done enough disruptive editing now to be warned of being blocked or banned should he do it again.

I won’t be checking this page again because it is disparaging to see content appear, disappear, get hacked around until it is nonsensical, disappear on the grounds that it is nonsensical, reappear, disappear, get cut in another way … and so on. Content shifts on WP but this situation has more variability in it than Algol. Good luck to you and thanks again. Zac Δ talk 15:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well you could put that bit into the stars in astrology article as Deborah Houlding is a noted astrologer but I definitely think even there it should be attributed to her rather than be put in as a general idea. Dmcq (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is what has been suggested by various editors, including me, from the very beginning of this discussion. The article Stars in astrology has always been there to be developed with any astrology about Algol (or other stars), that meets the criteria to be included in WP.

Once again there is complaining about other editors on the Talk page of an article. I can only repeat that complaints about an editor always belong on the User_talk page, or on the noticeboards where complaints can be filed. A good read in this regard is WP:NPA. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not edit other peoples comments to change their meaning. I have restored the changes you made. See WP:TPO. And I'm not objecting to this because of the astrology link, I'm objecting because it had too tenuous a basis so had little weight and was not backed up by good sources. As far as I can see you just wanted to be rid of any mention of anything that wasn't scientific. The topic is the star Algol, it isn't the science of the star Algol to the exclusion of anything else. Dmcq (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Medieval Arabic commanders

Hi, the sentence "Medieval Arabic commanders tried to ensure that no important battle began whilst the light of Algol was weak", which I removed yesterday (and which was reverted today) appears to be derived solely from a 1950 article by a certain dr. Lomer in the German astrological(?) periodical Kosmobiologie. I am unable to verify the source cited by Lomer as this periodical is not unline, nor available in any Dutch library. When I say that this source appears to be unreliable, you may say that I am biased but I have read quite a lot about Arabic star lore and history in the past and I have never come across such a statement. I think that it would be best to delete this statement until someone can provide a verifiable source. As James Randi said: "Unusual claims require unusually good proof". AstroLynx (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you were right. It may be true, but we would need to source it to an expert in the Islamic Middle Ages, and such an expert wouldn't be publishing in a journal called Kosmobiologie. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds a reasonable enough reason to remove to me. I'd got the impression it was only removed because it gave the impression the variability of Algol was know earlier than said (which is also a doubt but not enough if it was well documented). Dmcq (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

O.K., I have removed the dubious claim. As soon as someone can provide a more reliable (and preferably verifiable) source it can go back again. AstroLynx (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Algol AB movie imaged with the CHARA interferometer - labeled.gif

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Algol AB movie imaged with the CHARA interferometer - labeled.gif will be appearing as picture of the day on June 16, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-06-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

An animation of the eclipsing binary star Algol, assembled from 55 images of the CHARA interferometer in the near-infrared H-band, sorted according to orbital phase; because some phases are poorly covered, Algol B appears to jump at some points along its path around Algol A. A third star in the system is outside the frame.

Algol's characteristics have led to a star class and an apparent paradox being named after it.Animation: Dr. Fabien Baron; University of Michigan

Algol etymology

Algol is described as deriving from the Arabic 'ra's al-ghūl : head (ra's) of the ogre (al-ghūl) (see "ghoul").' It makes more sense to me to simply translate it as 'head of the ghoul', since ghoul is a perfectly good English word, and ogres are something different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richierocks (talk • contribs) 05:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a Direct Translation, Obviously

I'm going to amend the section on the names of Algol that reads:

″Beta Persei is the star's Bayer designation. The name Algol derives from Arabic رأس الغول raʾs al-ghūl : head (raʾs) of the ogre (al-ghūl) (see "ghoul"). The English name "Demon Star" is a direct translation of this.″

Obviously, "Demon Star" is not a direct translation of of the Arabic name; the direct translation of the Arabic name is "head of the ogre", as noted in the very same sentence. Mpaniello (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair point Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Algol B

Algol B redirects to this site, but I can find no mention of or definition of Algol B. Please provide.

Rwflammang (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Too confusing

Perhaps it's because of it being three or more stars with similar designations, but I find it all very confusing.

In 1881, the Harvard astronomer Edward Charles Pickering presented evidence that Algol was actually an eclipsing binary.[21] This was confirmed a few years later, in 1889, when the Potsdam astronomer Hermann Carl Vogel found periodic doppler shifts in the spectrum of Algol, inferring variations in the radial velocity of this binary system.[22]

Which two of the stars are we talking about here? Or is one of the two stars in this part of the article actually a binary itself?

Thus Algol became one of the first known spectroscopic binaries.

The images all show clearly separate dots though. Was it a spectroscopic binary at the time, but not any more now that optics have improved? Please clarify.

Joel Stebbins at the University of Illinois Observatory used an early selenium cell photometer to produce the first-ever photoelectric study of a variable star. The light curve revealed the second minimum and the reflection effect between the two stars.[23]

A variable star? I assume it's one of the Algols otherwise I fail to see the relevance, but which?

Some difficulties in explaining the observed spectroscopic features led to the conjecture that a third star may be present in the system; four decades later this conjecture was found to be correct.[24]

So which binary was found to actually be which two stars?

Image: Algol Aa2 orbits Algol Aa1

Maybe it'd be friendly to mention something like ‘the closest two’ because I found myself having to search through the article again at this point. By the way, why is the darker one flubbering so much? Bad optics? Is it a flubbery star? Or is it really a binary itself?

Also the old names are still occasionally found and I think it would improve searchability if the article would at least include the full old names even if it is only to mention what their new names are.

Yes, it is all very confusing and likely to remain so. Different sources treat the components as either spectroscopic or resolved and hence refer to them with different designations. We should perhaps start out with a clear description of the system and then start explaining multiple designations once the reader is clear about how many starts are where. "Flubber"? Lithopsian (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A7m?

So in the Spectral Type part of the third third star in the info box, it says A7m. I naively expect a roman numeral, I, II, III, IV, V, or VI to follow the 7, but I get an m instead, which is not a roman numeral. What happened to the roman numeral? What is the m if it is not a luminosity class? Rwflammang (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The m is not a luminosity class, it is a spectral peculiarity (see the table in stellar classification), specifically an indication of an Am star. I found the article deficient in actually describing the three stars involved, so I added a paragraph trying to do that. Possibly there needs to be more up front. The article goes off into intricate details - which is probably desirable in an article claiming to be "good" - but it fails to establish the groundwork first and so much of the detail is indecipherable. Lithopsian (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, the star is no longer thought to be an Am star! However, I have left a couple of asides to it being considered sp in the past. Lithopsian (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)