Talk:Astrology/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Issue resolved

After discovering a citation requested by other editors and discussing it with Doc , it was agreed to to reinsert the disputed sentence and recall request for 3rd opinions and comment. Ramayan 11:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Issue not resolved. It may be a true statement, and relevant for the article, but it makes no sense at its current position in the opening. I doubt it should even be in the opening, where astrology is discussed in much more general terms. Whatever "vedic astrology" is supposedly replacing hasn't even been mentioned yet! It certainly has no place in the paragraph discussing scientific viewpoints on astrology.--128.100.216.206 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Improvements for the Opening Paragraph

Why is the opening of this article entirely devoted to the perception of astrology as seen by people who aren't astrologers? It's not as though mainstream science doesn't get enough opportunities to devalue astrology. It would be a refreshing change of pace to portray how astrology is defined by the people who actually (gasp) practice it.

pixiequix 09:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I relate to your concern, but the way the lead is now is fair in my opinion. There is a good balance between differing viewpoints. That's not to say the lead is perfect (it could use a little cleanup, e.g., move refs to body text), but it doesn't give any undue weight as I see it. — Sam 12:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A balance between differing viewpoints...how do they differ exactly? There are a couple of uninspired technical opinions, one is vaguely condescending while the other is just directly condescending. All the points of view are decidedly biased, but, oddly enough none are actually biased toward being supportive of the subject they're addressing! pixiequix 10:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy clearly says that, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. IMO, there's no "bias" in the article's introduction. It simply describes how the scientific community considers astrology as a pseudoscience, and entirely conforms to NPOV.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 08:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

While so much attention is being given to the lead, I've got a few ideas for improving it:

• Add a bit about its history and influence; it surprises me no mention of the historical background and influence on culture is present. A sentence or two should do.
• Keep scientific versus pseudoscience debate to a minimum; this is the lead. We're painting with broad strokes in this section, and the truth is astrology's relation to scientific methods is but a small aspect of the topic, so no turning mole hills into mountains, as they say.
• Present a fair account of views: the proponents' views, critical views, any other substantial perspectives
• Move refs to body text; probably one of my biggest long-standing complaints about this section is that the refs are tacked on everywhere they can be it seems. It makes the text less attractive and reduces readability. I've found other contentious articles to handle this problem well: claims are in both the lead and in the body text, but the body text receives the ref. It's a much cleaner approach. — Sam 12:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time, didn't the majority believe the world was flat? Doesn't "science" mean common knowledge for the common? Historically, haven't most cutting edge researchers been considered crack pots? It appears those who can't make a contribution to science pretend they're making a contribution by harassing Astrologers. Since Jungian psychologists and the research of financial astrology validates Astrology - it's the Astrology debunkers who clutter these pages who are the psuedscientists here. 67.0.231.136 04:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sam, I think you're definitely on the right track for shaping this article into a respectful piece that everyone can enjoy. Great suggestions. pixiequix 01:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to Sam

• The history and influence isn't essential in defining the subject, so IMO, it should be in the body of the text. Although, I guess that introducing a sentence or two, if it's well sourced and fits in with the rest of the lead shouldn't be a problem.
• It's not a question of "scientific" versus "pseudoscientific", it's about conforming to wikipedia's NPOV policy. Right now, only 2 sentences are dedicated to the opinion of the scientific community, and i think it's good enough for the lead.
• No. A fair account does not mean equal validity to all views. From the wikipedia policy page[1],

"The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories."

• I disagree with moving the refs to the body text. From WP:REF,

"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source". So, it's important the refs are in the lead for the claims.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 07:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say its history and traditions are defining subjects. I'm not suggesting an entire paragraph or anything, just a sentence or two. As far as refs go: yes, it's likely to be challenged, but if its sourced once in the body text, why would it need to be sourced again in the lead? The bits about pseudoscience, for example, could easily be integrated and sourced in the Astrology and science section (if such wording is not already there, that is). There is similar sentiment on the featured article critique: "The lead doesn't provide the broad sweep that is required. Compare it with the ToC", and "Awkward prose, dictionaries make bad references, the lead shouldn't have footnotes since everything stated there should be elaborated and supported by the body". Just some things to consider. — Sam 13:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is starting to look a lot better, it's making great progress. Although there's one thing that still stands out as being somewhat biased or NPOV, and that's the sentence that reads:

"Despite the lack of scientific evidence, belief in astrology remains widespread."

What this statement makes clear is that the only "correct" perspective for the reader to hold is one that's been proven correct by scientific evidence. This is simply not true. It also narrows the possible scope of the article before it even begins. And I feel that sentence in particular lends a distinct tone of superior smugness, as though it's subtly suggesting, "You're stupid if astrology is something you enjoy."

Can something be done about this? Thanks.

pixiequix 12:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. The use of "despite" trips up the tone of the sentence, implying that unless something is validated by science, it is not valid. I will try to rework the text if no one has any objections. — Sam 13:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the change back to the old wording. Like I said before, "despite lack of scientific evidence" implies to the reader that science is one universal standard of truth and if something has failed some applied empirical methodology it's rubbish. That's a scientific, rationalist POV on multiple accounts. Such wording would be acceptable if speaking on the belief in astrology among scientific circles, for example, but for the general population the text should not make such statements with an implied, but present nonetheless, bias. — Sam 12:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

vedic not suitable for opening paragraph

I removed the reference to vedic astrology from the opening. It may be a true statement, and relevant for the article, but it makes no sense at its current position in the opening. I doubt it should even be in the opening, where astrology is discussed in much more general terms. Whatever "vedic astrology" is supposedly replacing hasn't even been mentioned yet! It certainly has no place in the paragraph discussing scientific viewpoints on astrology. Please put it back, but at a more suitable place!!! --128.100.216.206 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion and agreement on the introductory paragraph as written with reference to Vedic astrology. Ramayan 23:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? It looks more like two people disagreeing to me, and the discussion is nowhere near being extensive - I've had discussions over such things with dozens of editors that have lasted for months with multiple archives of the discussion. Nevertheless, there are now more editors here, and you don't have a consensus. I haven't had a chance to look at the source, but am removing the sentence because it is currently just tacked on as a non sequitur to the end of a paragraph. If you don't want me to revert its readdition again, please integrate it into the opening in such a way that it will not be entirely off-topic from its context. We can then consider the suitability of the sourcing and inclusion, to ensure that it is a reliable source for the statement, which will need to be verifiable, to ensure that having it in the introduction does not give undue weight to a minor topic or viewpoint, and to ensure that it has a neutral point of view. --Philosophus ^T 07:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph is intended to reflect major developments in astrology, not to reflect only the view of the scientific community. This evolution of a field like astrology is a major one, not minor. The fact that Vedic astrology is an ancient and original branch of astrology that uses the visible zodiac is also a key difference that gives it special importance. The Wikipedia is not a dictionary for only westerners, but for the whole world. It should therefore be of added importance, when signs of cultural globalisation are being witnessed. To meet concerns, the sentence is modified to improve flow. By the way, the reliability of the source is backed up by numerous other facts. Just because people may not agree with a certain development, does not mean they have the right to deny its existence. Ramayan 07:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph about the views of the scientific community, however, is supposed to reflect the views of the scientific community - your response doesn't respond to my concerns at all. This has nothing to do with the sentence itself, it has to do with the location. I would suggest moving it to the Traditions section, as the topic isn't mentioned anywhere except the intro right now, which isn't acceptable, and no other specific part of astrology is mentioned in the intro. Then revise the intro to make it more generic, so that it doesn't assume a particular viewpoint. Don't leave it the way it is, and then suddenly add a note to the end. --Philosophus ^T 08:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, it appears that the source doesn't in fact justify the claim about increasing popularity. Why not just add information about Vedic astrology, instead of just having non-verifiable claims? --Philosophus ^T 08:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on the scientific sceptics to demonstrate that this statement is not well sourced. If it is removed again, the whole introductory paragraph will need to be rewritten for a fair and balanced presentation.Ramayan 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the onus is on the person adding the material to show that it is well sourced; that is non-negotiable Wikipedia policy, and cannot be changed even by consensus - see WP:V. Rewriting the opening would be a better idea than tacking on an extra statement; but in rewriting, it would be best to either mention all traditions or none, not just one as your current version does. --Philosophus ^T 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted Ramayan's revision of the lead because it's undue weight all around. The introduction, in my eyes, is meant to provide an overview of what's discussed in the text. A short, concise bit about astrology's relation to science here is warranted because the view that astrology isn't a science is a substantial one. That said, it should not be blown out of proportion. Don't debate in the lead. Leave the details in the body text. Regarding the bit about Vedic astrology's increasing popularity, I agree with Philosophus. It's a non-sequitur; it doesn't fit in with the context, nor is it particularly relevant. — Sam 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I won't violate policy (3RR), while Ramayan will, so his version gets in... --Philosophus ^T 00:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted Ramayans changes to the lead paragraph - details on what branch of astrology seems to be on the rise right now is not opening paragraph material. I am more than willing to discuss this, but from what I see above Ramayan does not really try to argue why this one claim should be in the opening paragraph. I won't argue the veracity of it, since this is better left to atrologers, but I just cannot see how it fits here (ie. I agree with Sams last summation above). I will revert this change until presented with arguments that at least ty to convince me otherwise, and if Ramayan persists in violating the 3R rule, I will support action against him. Lundse 09:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an "open comment" to Ramayan:

Please stop this edit war and start arguing your points instead. Let us know why you think this is not a detail, let us know why what kind of astrology is currently gaining acceptance is headline news.

And please, please, please let me know how you can begin to think of what I am doing here as vandalism. I have argued the case, I have made clear why I performed the edit, told people if, how and why I agreed or disagreed with them here on the talk page. I am asking you to reconsider your accusation of vandalism, do you truly believe that I did this to lessen the quality of the article, or might I have had some reason to believe it would actually improve it (hint: I wrote some stuff here on the talk page).

And others, please chime on on this debate/edit war. Lundse 21:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness I must disagree with Ramayan (and Budfin) here. Before placing that sentence there, please establish a consensus to that effect. I don't want to seem heavy handed, but please keep in mind WP:3RR, our blocking policy, and the fact that you have reverted without change or constructive discussion about 4 times. AdamBiswanger1 22:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify why I'm essentially siding with Philosophus and Lundse. The reason is that Ramayan, Budfin et al are insisting that something should go into the opening paragraph, and there are a number of people who object to this, so naturally I say let's take the sentence as a proposal and only implement it if there is a consensus that says it belongs there. A law only takes effect when it passes the legislature, not when it is proposed. AdamBiswanger1 23:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Move criticism of astrology into own section or article

As is standard practice, I suggest the criticism of astrology be moved out of the opening paragraph into own section, and prefereably into its own article. It is a sepearte field of inquiry and generally based on lack of knowledge of astrology and with an aim to discredit it due to inherent axiomatic bias (POV). It does not do astrology justice to have the article highlight it in the opening paragraph.Ramayan 06:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Astrology is highly contentious and this needs to be identified in the first paragraph. Gillyweed 07:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The suggestion is POV'ed against science and verifiability itself. The scientific status (especially of something calling itself -ology) is extremely relevant for the opening paragraph - not that we should not have a section and a seperate article, also, of course. Lundse 09:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Likely those with some interest in astrology for its own sake have long since lost interest in the Wikipedia article. It is clearly in the stranglehold of a handful of sceptical contributors. I for one will cease to follow it. People should just relax on this matter. It is enough to keep in mind that astrology in the real world is completely unaffected by what such an article says. Budfin 11:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, I have been here for a while and there are always people with an interest in astrology coming by - thank god. I (and other non-astrologers) don't know any real specifics about astrology and we should have those in the article!

But, we should also present it in a neutral manner, which the people who have been involved with it for ages are not necessarily the best at doing. Now, whether you agree with it or not, the scientific view of astrology is that it is not a phenomenon - there simply is no data to support that it has any ability to predict events, tell anyone about their personality, etc. etc. This is not a small detail, but rather important - especially since some adherents sometimes do present astrology as able to make such predictions and/or as being a science (and, lets face it, it does end with -ology).

Your edit does not seem all that connected to what you are telling us here, do you have any reasons for wanting the detail about vedic astrology included? Lundse 11:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea no question here. The criticism should stay. AdamBiswanger1 23:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy clearly says that, "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." So, it's essential that the opinions of the scientific community is presented in the introduction, especially because astrology is considered to be a science by some proponents. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 08:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is just a trick to get rid of the so called 'criticism', which is actually an attempt to treat the subject in a fair and educational manner.--80.56.36.253 15:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Astrology As A Language

Allow me to be very direct for a moment here.

An opinion that's widely shared between western astrologers who are worth their salt, is that astrology is a symbolic language. From the viewpoint of the universe as a macrocosm, and human life as its microcosm, astrology is most accurately used and defined as an abstract symbolic language used to offer insight into the possible meaning of our existence. [2] [3]

I understand that Wikipedia is essentially run by the new generation of gatekeeper skeptics, but I believe they should gracefully step aside and allow those who practice this ancient discipline to represent themselves. It's the most logical course of affairs to allow those who know the topic to write about it. And when it becomes necessary to add the obligatory objections and criticisms, there would be no shortage of availability. pixiequix 01:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The scientific fact is that astrology has no predictive power whatsoever, as it has failed empirical tests in numerous controlled studies. If you read the introduction, you'll find that proponents of astrology define it as a science, and others claim that it has the ability to predict or influence our routine lives directly. Therefore, any treatement of the subject of astrology should include the viewpoint of the scientific community, if it has to conform to the rules of WP:NPOV. Content on the history and influence, or how it's interpreted as a symbolic language should be no problem, as long as the statenents conform to the rules of wikipedia.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 06:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, the conformity cops? And besides, you seem to be missing a large portion of the point I'm trying to make. Which is that scientific facts are of little or no concern to the practice of astrology itself. Just because main stream science seems to have a vendetta with astrologers who insist that their work is completely scientific, does not mean that it's the opinion of the majority of astrologers.

As an active student of astrology myself, I can say with certainty that only a small minority of astrologers view it as strictly science. The rest of us, which is definitely the majority, know that we couldn't cast a chart without cetain scientific variables. But that in the modern age of computers, the science involved is the tiniest fraction of the actual practice. This is why no astrologer can rightly say that science has no involvement whatsoever, because it does, but many of us are so sick and tired of being bullied, that we fail to mention that any science involved also happens to be one of the smallest details involved in our skilled and demanding practice!

So, here's my question: How does a subject with so little to do with science remain under the jurisdiction of pseudoscientific subjects? And why does the opinion according to the scientific community have anything to do with defining or discussing its practice, let alone free reign over the content of an entire article?

pixiequix 08:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re your questions. The scientific view is relevant because: some astrologers call it a science, it generally "behaves" like a pseudoscience, it claims to have predictive power (like a scientific theory), is ends in -ology...

That said, astrology as symbolic language sounds interesting. If this is indeed a common way of thinking about it (from believers and practitioners) then we should certainly devote some proportional chunk of text to this (if it can be sourced). Astrology as such a language should not be criticized for not being a science, of course - but maybe a few linguists, historians, etc. might have something to say about it (I am not lining up the next line of attack, I am merely saying no subject is free of its detractors).

But in closing, astrology's predicitons and claims to being a science, as it were, should be answered by the science community and the majority viewpoint represented here in the article. Astrology's claim to being a symbolic language, historically important, tied up with various religions, etc, etc. should not be "attacked" by science - it should be sourced and discussed with people in relevant fields. Lundse 07:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Traditions reorganization

I think the previous way the traditions were handled was much cleaner than the new approach. Further, not all of the previously termed "Esoteric" traditions are Medieval or "early modern" in their history. And what exactly does Renaissance magic got to do with anything? These edits were justified in saying they should be chronologically ordered, but they already were. Please provide some further reasoning. — Sam 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I admit my change was rather hurried and I apologize for this. I have no objection to keeping a separate discussion of "esoteric traditions". However, all the things listed in the "esoteric" section seemed to refer to medieval to early modern western astrology, and a historical treatment of that era was missing. My concern is that the historical development of these things become apparent, instead of "esoteric" stuff somehow floating around as if they were timeless. The solution to this is simple, keep a "history" section including a "medieval/renaissance" subsection, and still give "esoteric traditions" a separate summary. Renaissance magic has everything to do with this, since the classification of astronomy among the "magical arts" was a hotly debated topic at the time. dab (𒁳) 20:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the historical information to parentheses in the interest of text aesthetics. I am also renaming the section title to "Esoteric" as it was before, as lumping all of these topics into one single time period is bound to have some inaccuracies. Alchemy, for example,, existed before the Middle Ages (dated all the way back to 5,000 BCE according to the alchemy article). Divinatory tarot is dated to after this period. "Esoteric" is the best descriptor for these topics as a whole. — Sam 02:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Esoteric astrology is a valid separate branch of astrology, it even has its own unique system of rulerships. I think it's strange that there would be a link to Renaissance Magic also, especially since the relationship between the traditional and esoteric branches of astrology is somewhat contentious! To find more information about the esoteric school, subjects like Alice Bailey and Theosophy are good places to start.
pixiequix 14:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Esoteric astrology" is a tradition within itself, yes, but this section is concerned with the intermingling of astrology and other esoteric disciplines like tarot, alchemy, and so on. — Sam 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Astrological factors

As noted in the talk page header, Category:Astrological factors is being considered for deletion. Comments are welcome at the nomination page. — Sam 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was to delete. Those interested in discussion can add their comments to Wikiproject Astrology's talk page. — Sam 03:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have brought up a discussion on the WikiProject talk page. Comments are welcome. — Sam 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your astrology link --Lundse

With this astrology program I will like to connect Astronomy and Astrology to gether, besides for better understanding a Horocope chart in 3 Solar System. Lots of people do not understant a horoscope chart. This program also gives 3 dimensional horoscope chart. Who realy intrested with astrology ı think like to see it in 3 dimensional horoscope. If you think this is useless, then do not give a link. It took me a lot of time to do it. And my site is not commercial. --88.241.66.1 19:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand this is probably very important to you, and if other astrologers think that this program is interesting (ie. notable) then I am all for keeping the link. But I do not think you should add a link to your own site yourself - lets hear from the astrologers around here, they are better equipt to evaluate this than me.

And sorry for mistaking your site for a commercial one, BTW. It was the celebrity links on the right that confused me...

Lundse 20:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Software shouldn't be linked on a page like this. The external link is free advertising for the developer (regardless of whether it's for or not for profit) which an encyclopedia should not do. — Sam 20:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Massive astrology errors

Wasn't there a revelation sometime in the late 1990s that astrologers had been using the wrong calendar or something? What is the deal with this, and why is it not in the article? I remember this made big headlines back then. -Rolypolyman 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the wrong zodiac? There is an ongoing argument against tropical astrologies (those used in the West) that it is invalid because it's based on a zodiac that no longer corresponds to the actual star positions. Perhaps that suddenly grabbed the press's attention? Or is it something else? — Sam 04:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone should have studied Classical Greek harder!

Astrology (from Greek: αστήρ, αστέρος (astér, astéros)

is wrong. The correct form is "αστήρ, αστρός (astér, astrós)", period.

signed: KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.28.18 05:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user recently changed it. I've reverted it to the correct version. Thanks for pointing it out. — Sam 06:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions

The recent additions regarding astrology and science need to be reviewed for neutrality and undue weight. As it stands I feel there is far too much of a leaning towards a scientific POV. I'd appreciate hearing other appraisals of the text. Samuel Grant 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to have a certain amount of resilience to any facts or opinions that don't adhere to scientific materialism. Not that it makes much sense to evaluate a metaphysical subject from the POV of empiricism, but that doesn't seem to matter.

All of that aside, I totally agree with you. pixiequix 10:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the section is WAY out of balance. One or two paragraphs EACH will suffice. Aquirata 15:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Subsequent to a consensus on this issue, longstanding for over three weeks now, I have removed the excess paragraphs reflecting scientific POV from this section. However, the second paragraph still needs trimming as it is roughly twice the length of the first (or the first could be beefed up). Any suggestions? Aquirata 17:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The two experiments are fairly well known and relevant to the subject of the article. Thsy appear to have reliable sources. How about condensing them if they seem too lengthy, but retaining the essence of what they showed? I agree that a blow by blow account of every experiment may be too detailed. Also, if there is a citation at the end of a body of text, it is not appropriate to require the citation to be repeated multiple times within the passage, so I removed one of the fact tags. I left the other one because the sentence after the ref is not clearly attributed to the ref. I have restored the deleted text, but have no objection to editing it to improve the article. I do not feel that its inclusion makes the article POV. Its deletion tends in that direction, though. Edison 18:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please hold onto your horses. First reverting the article and then checking the Talk page will not lead to good practices on the page. The section is out of balance in terms of comparative lengths arguing each way. If you agree, please work on compressing the scientific arguments or detailing the astrology arguments. If you disagree, you will have to show why you feel the scientific arguments deserve more space. Aquirata 18:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to work on boiling down the sections in dispute, but I have a problem with the complete deletion of sourced material which is informative and relevant to the subject. Overall, in this talk page, I do not agree that the consensus has not been to remove criticism to a separate article, or to delete sourced scientific work which casts astrology in a bad light. Note that I characterized your deletion as a "good faith edit." I am interested in the views of others who have been contributing to the article and to this talk page. I certainly checked the talk page before starting in on restoring the deleted material which I noted in "recent changes patrol," and at that time there had been no additions to this section since August 19. I looked at a couple of references in the process of doing my edit. Then I posted my comment here while you were reverting to your version on the main page. Let's slow down a little and try to edit collaboratively to get an article everyone can live with. Edison 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with your suggestion. I would propose that our first task is to see what the consensus is on this section. According to the above discussion, there needs to be some balancing of views here. There is plenty of positive evidence in support of astrology that is not being presented. On the other hand, every insignificant and faulty 'scientific' attempt to discredit astrology was being quoted before. As is, the section is still out of balance. Do you agree with this view? Aquirata 13:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been thinking about these two studies. A TV show host and a magician (who has a skeptical point of view on many paranormal things) did similar experiments and found that college students generally accept a horoscope of someone else to say some accurate things about them, noting the things that fit and ignoring the things that don't fit. This is put forward as a "scientific disproof" of astrology. I have not yet tracked down a copy of the book by Stossel to see how good the methodology is in the experiment he reports, or the original publication by Randi. Now lets turn it around: Suppose that a different TV host and a different magician (perhaps one who was a believer in many things paranormal) had done experiments that showed that horoscopes individually created did fit people as judged somehow by ratings by people who knew them. The scientific community (and the Wikipedia community) would probably reject such results as not being reliable, unless they were published in a respectible peer reviewed scientific journal. (See the long history of criticism of ESP research by Dr. Rhine at Duke University). This is an argument which could be used against the inclusion or at least the previous extended statements about the 2 studies. A defense of the studies might be that scientists reviewed the methods and found them basically sound, or that they were cited in scientific journals. The deleted material also had some vaguely referenced or iunreferenced claim that a bunch of studies had replicated the results, but's let's see the specifics. The same standards should be applied regardless of which way a study bears on the subject in question. Just a thought. Edison 16:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sentence in lead

"Despite the lack of scientific evidence, belief in astrology remains widespread." is not neutral and should be removed. "Despite the lack of scientific evidence" conveys to the reader that astrology has been falsified by empirical methods every time they have been attempted, which is untrue. The issue of scientific proof is extremely controversial anyway, with research by both those against and for astrology containing errors, too small sampling, problems in their reasoning, etc. Not to spark a debate over that particular issue itself, but it makes this topic all the more demanding of a neutral point of view, which is absolutely "non-negotiable" in any case (quoted from WP:NPOV).

The second part of the sentence is sourced and informative, but without its biased counterpart I cannot think of where to put it in the article where it would hold relevancy in and of itself. Samuel Grant 21:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It is an important, widely-held viewpoint that astrology does not have scientific evidence, and not including it in the lead would be POV in itself. However, I think that it should be attributed to be neutral. Reinis^talk 21:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is not so much about peoples' "viewpoints" as it is facts. The sentence implies that there has been no empirical application to astrology that has not falsified it, which is blatantly contradictory to the text further down when it comes to Michel Gauquelin and the Mars Effect. The core of my issue with this sentence is not whether astrology has or has not been validated by science, but rather the unfair, presupposing tone the sentence takes. The NPOV policy is to ensure that readers get a balanced look at conflicting opinions so that they can make up their own minds. The text is spoon-feeding the reader an outcome that it has already decided, which is contra this policy. I'd also like to know exactly what your edit summary is supposed to be implying. Samuel Grant 22:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It can be sourced to the same source as used right before it, which illustrates the failure of astrology to pass any empirical testing. I don't know if two citations to the same source are really needed that close together, but I'll go ahead and add it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the viewpoint should be attributed to reliable scientific authorities to avoid WP:NPOV issues, as it's done in similar articles. Wikipedia is not interested in facts, but in an impartial reportage of points of view. Reinis^talk 22:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, then there should be no issue with having a partial, contradictory statement removed. Samuel Grant 23:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it should just be fixed. Reinis^talk 23:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Fixed" how? The entire premise of the sentence is biased. It should be removed. Samuel Grant 02:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's consider for a moment what other encyclopedias say about astrology in their leads. Encarta:

Astrology, the study of the positions and movements of astronomical bodies—particularly the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars—in the belief that they correspond to events on Earth.

Astrologers believe that the position of astronomical bodies at the exact moment of a person’s birth and the subsequent movements of the bodies reflect that person’s character and, therefore, his or her destiny. Scientists have long rejected the principles of astrology, but millions of people continue to believe in or practice it.

Encyclopedia Britannica:

Type of divination that involves the forecasting of earthly and human events through the observation and interpretation of the fixed stars, the Sun, the Moon, and the planets. Devotees believe that an understanding of the influence of the planets and stars on earthly affairs allows them to both predict and affect the destinies of individuals, groups, and nations. Though often regarded as a science throughout its history, astrology is widely considered today to be diametrically opposed to the findings and theories of modern Western science.

The Columbia Encyclopedia:

Form of divination based on the theory that the movements of the celestial bodies—the stars, the planets, the sun, and the moon—influence human affairs and determine the course of events.

What EB says about the Gauquelin attempts:

In countries such as India, where only a small intellectual elite has been trained in Western physics, astrology manages to retain here and there its position among the sciences. Its continued legitimacy is demonstrated by the fact that some Indian universities offer advanced degrees in astrology.

In the West, however, Newtonian physics and Enlightenment rationalism largely eradicated the widespread belief in astrology, yet Western astrology is far from dead, as demonstrated by the strong popular following it gained in the 1960s. There were even attempts to reestablish a firm theoretical basis for it, notably by the French psychologist Michel Gauquelin in his The Scientific Basis of Astrology (1964), though with results that are at best inconclusive.

These encyclopedias are themselves fit to be used as reliable sources in Wikipedia, and they support the understanding that astrology doesn't have any good scientific evidence, and that its principles have been undermined by modern science, and so does the article content. Couple this with the fact that astrology makes exceptional claims, and I think it's clear that from a scientific perspective it doesn't have any credibility, and not representing that people believe in it despite this wouldn't be neutral. Therefore, the sentence should be attributed and left there. Reinis^talk 11:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Case in point, the dictionary definitions of it aren't very flattering in this regard either. Reinis^talk 11:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point entirely. It is not whether astrology has or has not been validated by scientific methods (and I explicitly stated I would prefer not hash out that debate anyway). The question here is neutrality, which at its core ensures that readers are allowed to think on their own. This sentence strongly conveys (at least to me) that astrology's premise of an earth-sky correlation has been consistently and 100% falsified by scientific methods which is simply untrue. The sentence, however true it may be, is a violation of the NPOV policy in that it is spoon-feeding the reader an outcome of a dispute which it has already decided. Do you see my reasoning at all? There is sufficient voicing of the general scientific community anyway: not a mere sentence before it clearly gives voice to that particular view. Samuel Grant 21:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's neutral because it's summarizing a significant point from the article and has background, namely, that it is the position of the scientific community that the evidence for astrology is inadequate. The Gauquelin attempts don't even make for scant evidence because of the extraordinariness of the claims, and because these claims have been much weakened by modern science. You also seem to be arguing against the previous version of the sentence, which said that astrology had a "complete lack" of evidence. Now it's just "lack", and your reasoning about what this supposedly conveys is groundless. You would have a case if it said "lack of any evidence" or "no evidence", but now it just says that astrology has a lack of it. Reinis^talk 22:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed summarizing: summarizing the outcome of a dispute that the text has decided for the reader. It seems to me you're merely pushing your own point of view which you fail to see as you're thinking from a strictly positivist mindset. You argue that astrology's premise is falsifiable, and not only that but it has also been falsified. Well, that's a matter of interpretation and is not so simple. For one thing the scientific community has not been clamoring to do research on the topic for obvious reasons. What empirical work that has been done has more often than not had questionable motives, reasoning, and implementation. The fact of the matter is there is a severe ignorance of astrology within mainstream academia (this is particularly evident in the multitude of astrology debunking rhetoric published by otherwise reliable, highly-esteemed sources that argue on the sole basis of sun sign astrology, completely ignorant of the fact that sun sign predictions are a 20th century spinoff and have little to do with astrology as traditionally practiced.) The result is that the few qualified scientists who have been involved in this topic often have a poor understanding of how astrologers come to the conclusions they do, its developmental history, its premise, and so on, and the methods in which they go about testing it suffer because of it. Whether or not these research endeavors can be taken as indisputable proof of astrology's lack of validity is disputable. You have dismissed the Mars Effect research in saying that it means, as you so eloquently put it, "diddly squat". It is not your right to make that decision, however, nor do you have any right to be pushing for a definitive, open-and-closed case of astrology's validity when the NPOV policy prohibits it. Samuel Grant 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be terse. What are you on about? It doesn't say "astrology is invalid", or "astrology has been falsified." It's a fair summary that astrology lacks evidence in the opinion of the scientific community. You should just be happy that the article is already distorted in favor of obscurantism. Reinis^talk 08:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For the second time, I'd like to ask you to stop making rude comments. What I'm "on about" is trying to get a little compensatory background into this discussion, as it appears to me your understanding of the topic is rather lacking.

• You can change the syntax, adjectives, etc. around all you want, but the gist of the statement remains: Despite lack of scientific evidence, belief in astrology is widespread, which says to the reader "Amazingly, people still believe in this stuff even though it's been totally falsified every single time a scientific attempt has been made to judge its validity." There is more to the sentence's meaning than the face-value of its words. Subtleties and the reader's assumptions derived from the wording must be taken into account. That's not obscurantism, it's giving a fair account of conflicting views.
• "It's a fair summary that astrology lacks evidence in the opinion of the scientific community." And that is the crucial distinction that you fail to understand. If the statement is not attributed to a group, then it is assumed it is a universal fact, undisputed by anyone. It is the scientific community's findings that astrology lacks scientific evidence, so I'd like to ask once again for the article to cease furthering that particular view at the cost of ignoring another. Samuel Grant 02:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Astrology does lack scientific evidence. That's not a point of view, it's a fact. That sentence doesn't say "it's false" or "it's wrong" or "DON'T BELIEVE IT!!!!!!!!". Those are POV. Stating a simple fact as a fact is not POV. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Regarding the contended sentence, I think that one of the primary issues is the choice of words.

The definition of the word "despite" is "Contemptuous defiance or disregard." [4] In this context, the perceived authority that's being disregarded or defied is scientific evidence. This implied POV sends a subtle, but clear, message to the reader that there's no real truth without empirical scientific evidence. And while science has its place in society, it is not the absolute and final authority on reality or truth.

Also, to a certain extent, the word "despite" could be considered a pejorative, or a weasel word.

pixiequix 10:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the small paragraph that contained the disputed sentence. I think it's much more straight forward, and gives equal consideration to the differing points of view in a neutral language.

I didn't incorporate the sentiment expressed in the disputed sentence because I believe that if an explanation was given for the scientific POV of astrology, then an explanation would need to be given for every other POV as well. And that would add considerable drag to an already lengthy opening.

If it's reverted or rewritten, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind the change, to see if there's a possibility for compromise.

Thank you.

pixiequix 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the change, because I think it's biased and also removed the word "despite". The statement as it stands now, is perfectly neutral and sourced.

The reason the scientific opinion is necessary in the introduction is to conform to wikipedia policy. Wikipedia NPOV says, Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 08:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You cling to that single paragraph of Wikipedia policy as if it were your own personal dogma, and as though it were the only standard for a Wikipedia editor to follow. Why don't you go and edit a topic that you care passionately about, and not continue to obstruct the editing of topics you're passionately against?

My revision of that small paragraph was perfectly neutral and non-biased, and you know it. You changed it out of spite and to suit your own personal bigotry. It's obvious you've got no actual concern for the topic or those who might read about it.

pixiequix 06:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that your revision was neutral or non-biased. Also, the reason I'm stating the Wikipedia policy is because your edits did not conform to it.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 10:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed Critical appraisal of traditional astrology

The paragraph is full of unverifed, unsourced statements that did not conform to WP:V. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 08:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV (Undue Weight) in overview section

• ´The NPOV tag has been placed on the Overview section. There is undue weight in the description. The scientific case against astrology is oversold and needs to be toned down for better balance. An unjustified bias against astrology is also present in several sentences. Rumbird (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed. There's no such "bias". The scientific opinion is clearly stated as such. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 10:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Restored. Thats the problem, the scientific view is too emphatically stated! More discussion/changes are needed to resolve this long standing conflict over the biased description, the excessive weight given to the scientific view/oppinion. Budfin (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think you miss the point. There's no separate thing called a "scientific point of view". Such a description is part of the NPOV policy. Describing astrology as a pseudoscience (ie, the majority view) is in fact essential to covering the subject properly as per the official policy (WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE). I suggest you read the wikipedia policy on pseudoscience again. Especially, the following.

Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory;

Do you still have any problems with NPOV, or can I remove the tag? Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 13:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is still a problem with the tone and balance of this section, and not simply because of the denigrating P-word you mention, which undoubtedly originated in the science community. Here is a thought experiment for you. Would the proud African - American or Chinese communities in the US take kindly to it if white people began to call them pseudo-white? I don´t think so. Neither would I or you (I think). This is because the pseudo-word implies something is less than an "original", "true" or "best" which it is being compared to. The word pseudoscience is a straw-man of the science community to classify other fields of knowledge which it does not understand or believe in as lesser. More importantly, is that the only standard by which astrology should be judged? I don´t think so. Astrology needs to be presented on its merits, through the experience of the many people who know and use it. They are not just a fringe crowd or a bunch of undereducated people or silly people enjoying the newspaper column, but in many instances people with Masters and Doctorate degrees making a difference in the lives of others. It is denigrating to them and their livelihood to call them pseudo.

In any event, in a democracy we must consider the views in the total popluation and not just those of elite groups. Given that there is considerable uncertainty about where the majority lies between those who believe in astrology and those who do not, we should be careful to have an emphasis that strikes a fair balance between opposing viewpoints/beliefs however arrived at. Most importantly, we should be respectful of the views of others even if we do not agree with them.

Can you agree to move forward to find some compromise that is tolerable to both viewpoints? Budfin (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good example of the "some say the earth is flat, others say it is round" school of NPOV. Perhaps we should compromise and say the Earth is shaped like a calzone... Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The debate would possibly be closer to the rift over evolutionism and creationism. It is tricky to strike the right balance. Both sides are convinced of the merit of their arguments.

That said, Pizza, which is shaped like a flat earth, is far more popular than calzone, which is like space folded upon itself. Go figure. Budfin (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But only the theory of evolution accurately reflects the consensus of the scientific community, and therefore is the majority view point as per wikipedia policy. I really don't understand what you want to change Budfin. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. If you're unhappy with the fact that credible and verifiable sources label astrology as a pseudoscience, then you could try publishing articles in peer-reviewed science journals to show that astrology actually has some predictive value. I don't think your arguments about a lack of NPOV hold any merit, and I'm removing the tag. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 04:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We have been through this time and again: it is a pseudo-science, we have great sources for that, it is the majority view of relevant experts and nobody gets to decide what merits they are judged by (that would be NPOV). The overview/introduction should mention what astrology is - it does, even alongside the proponent's view, in a fair manner. And we are not out to write what is "tolerable" to anyone, we are out to write the truth and we use guidelines of eg. verifiability to do so. Lundse (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In view of the hurried removal of the NPOV tag - Undue weight - of the overview section, by Vorpal Blade and Lundse, edits have now been made to the section to ensure that both viewpoints are properly stated. The changes made reflect the concerns of astrologers, to right the balance in the description. The changes are reasonable. Rumbird (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Overall not bad, the intro reads a bit more smoothly without changing any key facts. The only potential issue is that you've changed the details of what astrology is viewed as by astrologers. This was purposefully kept quite broad because so many astrologers put out completely different claims about what astrology was. At the moment I fear it may give rather undue weight to your particular view (for instance many astrologers consider astrology to be acausal). Jefffire (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the point about how the majority of astrologers essentially define it, here is one relevant quote: “Astrology shows the cosmic source and background for the working of forces in any field of endeavor...it shows the basic language of cosmic energy.” David Frawley, The Astrology of the Seers. Passage Press, Salt Lake City, UT, 1990. I could dig up a ton of these quotes in my library, if absolutely necessary. Rumbird (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome to do so. But until you can provide a reference that can authoritatively speak for the clear majority of astrologers then you shouldn't change the wording. You should not try to force your personal opinions of astrology onto the rest of practitions through the article. Jefffire (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Jefffire, the sentence:

"The majority of Astrologers essentially define astrology as a symbolic language of cosmic influences on human life"?

is the central posit of astrology. Astrology is first and last about the impact of the stars on human life and how this influence is read (as in a language based on an interpretation of the movement of the stars). Whether it be a science or art is a secondary consideration, and refers more to the method of reading this language. Importantly, the method is not the language itself. I state in good faith, based on extensive experience and knowledge, that the majority of astrologers define astrology in the way described.Rumbird (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has slapped me with a 3RR warning. You science types really band together to save the world from other points of view. No one listens to logic (see my above message). Is this all that Wikipedia has to offer in terms of developing a fair presentation? The biggest clique wins? I´m sorry, but I think the NPOV tag has to come back. Rumbird (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone noticed my comment above, so I will move it down here:

Saying that astrology is based on literal causal influences from the sky is sketchy, because it does give undue weight to one particular view, which I tend to think is in the minority at this point in time. Additionally, saying that it is a 'symbolic language' of 'cosmic influences' is a contradictory statement that doesn't make any sense. --Chris Brennan (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I´m sorry, and sincerely I don´t mean to offend you, but either you don´t know what you are talking about or you simply can´t conceive of the basic astrology idea, like so many science types, because the link between the planets and human life, whatever it is, is not measurable by conventional science. Even then, astrology is the oldest science, because humanity has from the dawn of man, studied the real phenomena of planetary movement, and based on the observed cycles has drawn hypotheses about their influences on human life. Decoding the ever changing cosmos has resulted in a language of these influences, astrology, the language of the stars. Rumbird (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Really astute assessment genius. Maybe I just have a problem with the fact that historically astrologers have been divided over whether or not astrology works as a result of celestial bodies acting as acausal 'signs' or 'portents', or rather it works due to some sort of direct causal mechanism that literally causes events to happen. It is the old question of whether or not the stars act as signs or causes. The sentence in question conflates the two issues into one confused statement that doesn't make any sense. Keep up the great work here though. You are doing a bang-up job with dumbing down the article. --Chris Brennan (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. There are two key hypothesis on astrology. There have been astrologers thinking astrology is a "language" of

• PORTENTS: that the planets act as portents for human life
• CAUSAL INFLUENCES: that the planets have causal influences on human life

In both cases we are talking about astrology being based on SYMBOLISM and hence it is correct to talk about astrology being a symbolic language.

In order to deflate the issues I suggest the first sentence be rephrased as follows:

Historically, astrologers have defined astrology as a symbolic language, based either on portents or direct cosmic influences on human life[3][4][5]. Accordingly, they view it either as a science[6] or an art form[7]. Will this work.Rumbird (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The central point is that you have not provided a reference which can authoritatively speak for either the majority of astrologers, or the astrologers of history. If you wish to make a direct factual claim about what astrology was historically viewed as, then you need to use a reference which has a very high standard of historical authority. Jefffire (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As the new proposal replaces "The majority of" with "Historically," this issue of reference for the claim about the views of the majority of astrologers has become superfluous. The whole point that Chris Brennan has raised is that historically practitioners of astrology have held it to be a study of "portents". I say historically, because in my experience the majority of modern astrologers consider astrology to be a "causal influence". In my earlier sentence proposal, I was referring to the views of modern day astrologers in relation to the present day scientific community.

There is another nuance concerning the arts and science issue, The distinction is perhaps less clear than my proposal above suggests. While those considering astroloyg as a study of portents (e.g. no causal relationship), they may be inclined to consider astrology as an art form. By comparison, those considering astrology as a study of direct (albeit unknown) causal influence, would be likely to consider astrology a as science. However, there are likely also a number of astrologers who do not follow hard and fast rules of interpretation and who use "intuition" and "judgement" in the overall reading. For them, astrology could be both a science and an art even if they basically consider it a science. Rumbird (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are sincere in your views about the historical views of astrology, but I would like a historical source to authoritatively reference it. May I suggest a source such as a well respected mainstream history book, rather than the more fringe ones you are currently referencing? Jefffire (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Pingree and Rochberg repeatedly make a distinction between Mesopotamian 'astral omens' and Hellenistic 'astrology' proper because they argue that the original Mesopotamian system was entirely divinatory or 'sign' based, while Hellenistic astrology has an element of causal determinism to it. I'm not sure how valid their distinction is as a whole per se, because it basically implies that some sort of causal rationale is inherent in the basic definition of 'astrology' proper in any tradition, but it is a mainstream academic distinction that appears to be commonly made by those authorities at this point. So, there are some sources if you want to do the work of tracking them down Rumbird. Jeffire is right that the current ones that you are citing are not adequate. --Chris Brennan (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotes of modern astrologers definition of astrology

Below are seven quotes from respected but very different astrologers that reveal an implicit consensus among them as to what astrology is and is not. The difficulty with astrology is that most of its authors fall under the definition of "fringe". While it is true that some authors have developed quite a following, such as Charles E. O. Carter and Alan Leo in London, to my knowledge it has not had the result of creating a formal statement of consensus. The quotes by E. Parker and Margaret Hone below show also that astrologers have been fighting an uphill battle with regard to prejudices and attacks from the science communities and political establishment, literally pushing them undergound, which makes consensus harder to develop. However, through a perusal of many disparate texts, a common modern view emerges of astrologers from around the world, even if there are notable differences in emphasis, that astrology is indeed a language of symbols, to interpret the influences from the cosmos on human life. It is both a science and art, but as Margaret Hone explains, the nuances and complexity of astrology make it's propositions hard to prove in the most rigorous scientific fashion. Finally, some of the quotes also bring out the meta aspect of astrology, that it deals with the inner reality of the human experience, based on the spirit and its relation with God. This cardinal axiomatic difference between astrology and the "nihilist materialism" of science is perhaps the most glaring cause for the attacks by the "scientists" of the Age of Enlightenment on astrology. It is a fight between two radically different world views, or paradigms. Enjoy! Rumbird (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote 1:

"Whether astrology is a science or not is a question which can only be discussed when we know what is meant by science. For many of the dogmas that today go officially by that name will hardly seem such to a thinking person, seeing that - considering their continual modifications and changes - they seem to result from groping rather than knowledge.

No one who takes the pains to compare them can deny that there is a relation between Astrology and the science of today.

When for instance we examine the most primitive plant and animal forms, the so-called radiolareæ, diatomæ etc. (cf. Haeckel "Kunstformen der Natur" and also the Chladnaic figures, formed in fine sand along magnetic lines of power under definite vibrations, does it seem as if the latter had come to life in the former? Snow crystals too, sections of flowers themselves, trees, ferns - even the parts of our own body (lungs, hearts, organs of hearing, etc) show this wonderful correspondence.

Might not this indicate that these plant and animal forms have their origin under definite vibrations, built up of definite materials?

Would it really be impossible to prove that those vibrations come to us through the celestial bodies as nuclei in Cosmic vibrations - seeing that so much has been found (the 'Od' of Reichenbach, and other similar substances) that proves in fact that something emanates from the celestial bodies."

Can it be maintained much longer that matter should exist apart from spirit which sends out its vibrations to set the matter moving, when on one hand we learn that our muscles work according to the command from the centre of the mind conveyed to them by nerves and on the other hand believe that all things are made by the Word that was with God and was God. - E. Parker, Amerspoort, July 1927

E. Parker, Astrology and its practical application, L.N. Fowler & Co. Ltd. Essex, UK, 1970, translated from Dutch Rumbird (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, there is an unconventional theory that comes to mind in relation to the above speculation, it is the yogic Theory of Microvitum - the "mysterious emanation of the cosmic factor". Rumbird (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote 2:

Margaret E. Hone, B.A., D.F. Astrol.S was a writer and teacher of astrology in the UK after WW II. She cited that due to the legality of astrology in Great Britain during the middle of the 20th century owing to the "Witchcraft Act of 1735" and the "Vagrancy Act of 1829", including those who practiced astrology as 'charlatans, rouges and vagabonds', implying that fortunetelling is illegal

• research of individuals had been pushed underground, preventing the formation of a "solid body of oppinion."
• there was a need to avoid certain language that could be held up to an absolute standard
• there was a need to impose examinations on astrologers to seperate the proficient from the 'quacks',
• advised astrologers to answer the question "How can such far-off planets influence the actions of ourselves?" with some ambiguity and to say that he "believes in no such thing, but that he observes that certain traits of character and certain types of events appear to correlate with certain planetary relationships. He must drop the word 'influence', which implies direct action, but at the same time he must point out that an astrologer uses many words colloquially, knowing full well what they mean to him."

"Astrology is not a SCIENCE, in the modern meaning of the term, which implies that knowledge is built up through proving theories by the repetition of experiments which have the same results, from which certain laws may be formed. The 'results' of astrology are often not 'the same' in outwardly assessable meaning, but to one used to its symbolism, are 'the same' in their nature. Science proves by statistics. While broad principles of astrology may be proved in this way, the more the student learns, the more he will realise that statistics may be misleading in the assessment of an intircate interlacing of planetary cycles, which are continually changing in relation to each other, and at varying rates of speed."

She proposed the following definition of astrology: "ASTROLOGY IS A UNIQUE SYSTEM OF INTERPRETATION OF THE CORRELATION OF PLANETARY ACTION IN HUMAN EXPERIENCE." For the reasons mentioned above she suggested that astrologers speak of 'correlation', not 'causation', even if she was implicitly assuming the salient presence of the latter. She rejected astrology being considered based on intution: "Astrology is NOT an innate ABILITY, such as clairvoyance or psychometry or telepathy".

She cited a quote by Carl Jung, the psychologist, as being insightful: "Whatever is born, or done, in this moment of time, has the qualities of this moment in time". Margaret E. Hone, The Modern Textbook of Astrology, Fowler, UK, 1951. Rumbird (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote 3:

"Astrology is a language by which the inner and the outer, the noumenal and the phenomenal, the spiritual and the material, can converse together." Michael Baigent, Nicholas Campion and Charles Harvey, Mundane Astrology, Thorsons, Great Britain, 1984 (second revised edition, 1992). Rumbird (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote 4:

"The birthchart shows our potentials and tendencies. One of our astrological teachers once said: "Man is not what he is because he was born when he was. He was born when he was because he was potentially what he is." It is not because you were born at a certain place or time that you react to influences, but the influences of that moment and that place in space show your potentials that can be actualized in the future." Isabel M. Hickey, Astrology - A Cosmic Science, CRCS Publications, USA, 1992. Rumbird (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote 5:

"Astrology is an art of interpreting the reputed esoteric influence of stars/planets on human affairs. It is called divine science and it enables one to peep into the mysterious future... The Hindu system of Astrology is based on the premise that the natal position of planets is dependant on the past karma of the human beings and gives complete picture of the life of the person concerned." V. K. Choudhry, MBA, System's Approach to Interpreting the Horoscope, Sagar Publications, Delhi, Revised and enlarged edition, 2006. Quote taken from authors website on 12-09-2007. Rumbird (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote 6:

The well known German astrologer and physician, Reinhold Ebertin, wanted to transform astrology into a scientific endeavor which he termed "cosmobiology.

"Cosmobiology is a scientific discipline concerned with the possible correlations between cosmos and organic life and the effects of cosmic rythms and stellar motions on man, with all his potentials and dispositions, his character, and the possible turn of fate; it also researches these correlations and effects as mirrored by the earth's plant and animal life as a whole. In this endeavor, cosmobiology utilizes modern-day methods of scientific research, such as statistics, analaysis, and computer programming. It is of prime importance, however, in view of the effort expanded, not to overlook the macrocosmic and microcosmic interrelations incapable of measurement." Reinhold Ebertin, The Combination of Stellar Influences, American Federation of Astrologers, Tempe, AZ, USA, 1972, translated from German. Rumbird (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote 7:

"Astrology is without a doubt the original science, the oldest of the systems of knowledge devised by human beings. It was the most important of the sciences of human culture until the advent of the modern science. Astrology was the basis for the first cosmologies, through which the ancients comprehended the structure and movement of the universe. It was the science of fate and destiny, used for understanding events on earth, which were seen as originating in the heavens. Astrology was not only the foremost of the outer sciences which deal with the nature of the physical universe, it was one of the most important of the inner or spiritual sciences which deal with the mind and sould." David Frawley, Astrology of the Seers, Passage Press, USA, 1990. Rumbird (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

These are indeed fascinating insights. However, you said yourself that there really isn't a formal consensus on what astrology actually is, and this is my key concern. Overall I still believe it is a lot fairer to the diversity of astrological opinion to give the differing definitions, rather than settling on one view. Jefffire (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

While it is perhaps so that there is no formal document informing of the consensus of the astrology communitiy as to what it is and is not, a survey of the diverse statements on the subject, even across continents, decades and systems, reveals a clear commonality of oppinion. Most astrologers TODAY view astrology in some sense as a study of deterministic or casual influence emanating from the cosmos and affecting life on earth. They also seem to think that it is hard to test astrological theses in a controlled setting simply because the fact that as the planets travel over time "one can never step in the same river twice". Even if the Sun enters Capricorn around mid January (in the sidereal zodiac), like it did last year, this year all the other planets will be in a different place than they were this time last year! That said, most astrologers operate like scientists, in that with experience they tend to see what works and does not work.

In my view, the real dawn of astrology awaits. It will come when scientists of the future will embrace astrology with an open mind and test it with a comprehensive understanding of what it is and is not. Sorry to say, the tests of astrology conducted by scientists so far have been nothing short of quackery. One day we will look back on the mentality of 20th century scientists and shake our heads at the self-imposed blinders of the materialist religion. BTW, no offense meant, just a statement of my view on the matter. Rumbird (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

* Yawn... * --Chris Brennan (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert war in the Research section

The information is relevant in this section, with a NPOV it can stay. This section was depending too heavily on the work of Michel Gauquelin. Linking to the work of more researchers will only improve its value as a reference in this subject. To the guy that erased it because it doesn't have credibility: IT DOESN'T MATTER. Wikipedia is not about truth. Read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight: the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. Tarnas' work satisfies this criteria, to the point of having his own Wikipedia article. And it's relevant to the subject discussed. For me, that's enough to have the link. As long as it's written in such a way that it doesn't endorses, nor denies the validity of his claims. Diego (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the research section, perhaps someone could make mention of the fact that Michel Gauquelin's research continues to this day? There's 50+ years worth of documented statistical research in the Gauquelin archives. I'd make the addition myself, but I have no patience for the petty revert wars that erupt every time someone makes an edit which is at all supportive of astrology.

pixiequix (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• I added it for you, but I made no mention of how much statistical Data he's collected.User:ProductofSociety

• Diego and pixiequix, it can´t be excluded that the science enthusiasts actively trying to suppress astrology, by their ceasless effort to edit and re-edit the content to cast astrology in as bad a light as possible, are less scientific and actually more religious in their motivation. It is starting to look to me as if the poor devils are just on some misguided mission for God to prevent belief in astrology. What else could explain their devotion to this subject matter? This is ironic as astrology has been shown to been an active part of ancient Judaism[[5]]. The Old Testament only frowned on divination and soothsaying (not real astrology). At the birth of Jesus the three magi (astrologers) following the Star of Bethlehem visited him to pay their respects to the savior. See interesting documentary [[6]]. Rumbird (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Rumbird, make no mistake. I'm a science enthusiast myself, and I'm in no way in a crusade or mission for or against astrology. Don't make those rude generalizations, they make you look foolish. I just want this article to fairly offer a global and comprehensive overview of the subject (including both the arguments to support it as well as those that show it as invalid to make reliable predictions), so as to be able to educate myself about it and form my own judgement, thank you very much. Diego (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

An open letter on the ongoing state of the article

I have frequented this article for much of the nearly three years I have been on Wikipedia. In that time I have tried my best to improve this article, as the subject is one that I have a deep curiosity of and, at least, an adequate respect for. Yet astrology as a multi-thousand year old system, as an extremely multifaceted topic, as a group of traditions that has done more than its fair share of influencing culture and academia throughout history, seems to get only one concern here: does it work?

While the same arguments get endlessly rehashed and the same edit wars ensue over and over again concerning its validity, vital information about its history, development, transmission, etc. get ignored. One would think with all the endless fuss the text about its validity would at the very least accurately and faithfully portray the situation, yet that segment is pitiful as well. Instead of editors who genuinely want to improve the article, I see a constant trickle of pompous apostles of science who haven't a clue about astrology other than what popular scientific opinion informs them. But, you must be saying to yourself, this is a wiki! Anyone can come along and balance the over-represented point of view. Yes, that is the concept, but in practice it is not always so, for the representatives of other points of view have to be present in the first place. All constructive members except for a very few have all been run off by ignorant, rude editors simply out to push a point of view they have hardly begun to understand anyway, leaving the remainder to fill up another 13 pages worth of incessant quibbling and the article to stagnate in mediocrity.

I have made a plea before to stop putting so much undue focus on one topic, to quit the endless bickering and demeaning, to finally get some attention elsewhere, yet my request appears to have fallen on deaf ears. I look at important sections about this topic's history and practice and I see unverified claims. I see a constant onslaught of rabid members of the Church of Science out to belittle a topic they haven't a clue about. I see an article in a rather lackluster state, and few hopes of any editors to come along and help improve it.

I'm permanently removing this article from my watchlist. Those of you who I have butted heads with in the past may think as you wish of me, but it is the education and freedom of thought of the uninformed masses you are hurting. Samuel Grant 07:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your heroic efforts Samuel Grant with this article. They are not wasted on those of us who follow the work at a distance. I agree 100% with your comments. When all is said and done, Wikipedia can at best reflect the state of knowledge, never contain it. That is the good news. The best we can aspire to with such efforts is to keep the reflection of this entire body of knowledge clear, comprehensive and balanced. In that, as in all things, the wise must have patience with the actions of the ignorant and the fearful. At the same time, the article is a public good and others of your calibre will hopefully get involved so that the enlightened efforts transcend those of other less well informed efforts and the reading public can be well informed. Have a good and well deserved break from your work with this article.Budfin 12:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The question of validity is a major part of this subject, and hence the section will always be a flash-point. Wikipedia's weighting guidelines are such that mainstream sources with a good scientific reputation will always receive greater preference that niche or disreputable sources, and this is the way things should be for us to build a reliable article. Jefffire 13:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not saying validity isn't a big issue. What's concerning is the immovable fixation on it and the neglect of everything else besides it. With a history as long and varied as this topic's, such information isn't just a nice icing on the cake, it's vital, and appallingly, it is ignored. Where there was hope of editors here to help within these segments, that was quickly extinguished once they saw what kind of convoluted mess trying to do anything with this article becomes on the count of overzealous science nuts often rude without provocation. All I want is an article that accurately, faithfully — and above all — fairly presents a controversial topic. Instead representatives of a point of view muscle their way en masse to make all sorts of changes they don't understand anyway. The Age of Reason, indeed!

The rose-colored glasses are off. This site and its community are not without its flaws. I am not going to waste my time and energy on a losing battle. Samuel Grant 02:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully and sadly, the self-professed proponents of science are behaving like ideological bullies with regard to this topic! Jefffire, is the "flash point" not simply code for the oppression of age-old inner wisdom by uninformed object reason of those beholden to the popular philosophy of the Age of materialism? The relatively new means to acquire and verify knowledge, the scientific method, has become an instrument in the hands of the unknowing to subvert real knowledge itself. Rumbird 08:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to put it that way. But it's not possible to build an encyclopedia of this nature on "real knowledge" when everyone has a different definition of that. Jefffire 09:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn´t the whole point here, as Samuel Grant is saying, that too much emphasis is given to the disprovers of astrology - who at best have only curosry knowledge of the subject - and not enough to the whole body of knowledge, including its historic and multicultural dimension. Again, I agree completely with that assessment. Let´s change the approach accordingly for the benefit of an open minded and well informed readership. Budfin 13:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to expand the history and culture sections then go right ahead, more detail is always welcome. Jefffire 13:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but it's introductory sentences like these that leave a soure taste in the mouth: "Although there is no scientific evidence supporting astrology that is accepted by mainstream science, belief in astrology is widespread in the general public." This is a POV laden statement that ignores other forms of evidence, notably the affirming experience of practitioners. Budfin 13:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't possible to build an encyclopedia on personal experiences as those are different for every person and can't be verified. Jefffire 15:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I can now sense Samuel Grant´s frustration in engaging you and likeminded persons in a discussion on this matter. You only seem to talk to people. A balanced discussion amongst parties is necessary if the aim to reach some form of consensus. Budfin 15:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your meaning. Whom do I talk to, if not with other people? What exactly do you propose for the betterment of the article? Jefffire 15:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, it is a matter of not talking to people but having a discussion with people with the explicit aim of reaching a consensus on contentious issues. A good start would be to discuss ways to remove the POV in the sentence in the introduction mentioned above. Budfin 16:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I use the words "talk" and "discussion" interchangeably in this context, so your comments don't really apply. Anyway, under the current guidelines of Wikipedia we cannot include personal experience as citable sources for a subject. I appreciate that you feel this is unfair, but it is very much regarded as a necessity for the encyclopedic tone and authority that is striven for. Since that is very much part of the foundations that we are working on, the only option is to work within that. Jefffire 17:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am afraid Jefffire is purposefully not understanding the concerns of other editors and applying a limited set of available options in resolving the problematic. That is not a real effort at compromise. Perhaps the way forward is for someone to take a shot at rewriting the POV sentence. I can give it a first shot here:

"Mainstream science has found no evidence to support astrology. Despite this, the number of people engaged in the writing, lecturing and consulting in astrology is quite large and belief in astrology remains widespread in the general public."

For a list of Professional astrologers/ astrology associations: [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] Rumbird 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. With regards to your proposed rewrite, I would not regard the number of such professionals as being "quite large". What's the definition of "quite large"? 100? 1000? This is exactly the kind of vague language which must be avoided. Jefffire (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but then also please remember to show a good faith effort. It is not acceptable that some people play obstructionist games when dealing with those seeking to make what they consider fair changes. Samuel Grant was evidently worn out by that kind of behavior. I will not accept such behavior. BTW, there are tens of thousands of practicing astrologers around the world. How would you describe that number? Rumbird (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The number of astrologers practicing astrology and any anecdotal evidence is irrelevant to the scientific validity of the subject. I'm going to repeat myself again, because people seem to miss the point. In pseudosciences like astrology, the wikipedia policy says that,

'Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories.'

This is exactly what the paragraph in the introduction and the line 'Although there is no scientific evidence supporting astrology that is accepted by mainstream science, belief in astrology is widespread in the general public.' says. Your proposed change gives an undue representation to the minority (ie, astrologers). I also disagree with the claim that there is a POV in the introduction. As others have stated, editors are free to improve the article and content to the history and culture sections. This is entirely distinct from the scientific validity of the subject, which is also an important part of astrology and where there is a clear scientific consensus. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 04:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vorpal blade I do not agree with your statement that broad guidelines preclude changes to sentences, especially if they concern fields considered pseudo science by a majority of scientists. Let's be clear that the information about the scientists and their findings is prominently displayed in the sentence, even if the poor things know precious little about astrology other than what their laboratory physics informs them. This same group also knows very little about consciousness and its wider ramifications, other than what their oscilloscopes show them about brainwaves<grin>. Like astrology, consciousness can hardly be measured with the apparatus and the present state of scientific knowledge. It doesn´t help that the scientists don´t care to learn astrology and gain experience of it. However, astrologers know astrology at the experiental level, hence mentioning them in the sentence is entirely reasonable. Moreover, in view of comments by Jefffire the wording is revised as a compromise. Rumbird (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mainstream science has found no evidence to support astrology. Despite this, thousands of astrologers around the world are engaged in the writing, lecturing and consulting based on their knowledge and experience of astrology and belief in it remains widespread in the general public."

Rumbird, you don't need to know anything about astrology to see that its predictions fail empirical testing when controlled double blind tests are performed. What the minority group believes about astrology has no relevance at all when talking about the scientific validity of the subject. I disagree with your "compromise" revision, because it gives undue representation to a minority. However, it'd be nice to hear what the consensus is on this revision from other editors. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 07:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vorpal blade, it represents a serious methodological problem if it is as you say that ignorance is bliss when it comes to double blind tests of astrological predictions. I have serious doubts about such tests because the scientists

1) testing astrology for validity don´t know the first thing about it

2) think it's possible to control for important unknown variables

3) think that double blind tests of astrology prove something

Here are the reasons why I think the scientists involved are misguided.

First, many regular university scientists have probably formed a view on the theoretical merits of astrology based on their lack of knowledge of a reasonable causal mechanism, that is reasonable in their epistemological framework, concerning the cosmic influences on human life. This absence of knowledge constitutes in their mind a falsification of the theory. This creates a huge bias in their minds from the outset and probably convinces them that there is no need to study the subject; only to warn people about it. Related to this, it should be pointed out that this group of activist anti-astrology scientists are themselves likely a minority in the mainstream scientific community! However, because they have spoken out, it is taken as representing all scientists. Is that fair? Let´s consider a group of vocal scientists who don´t believe in God. Should their view be taken as representative of the views of all scientists concerning the existence of God? I don´t think so. So isn´t this a clear case of over-reach by you activist anti-astrology buffs? I think so.

Second, any astrologer worth his salt knows that astrology has evolved over millennia as a gradual attempt of students of the stars and human affairs to decipher the true language of the planets. Many languages or systems have developed over time to explain these influences: Indian, Chinese, Arabic, Western, Aztec etc. Even, for any one particular system, the rules of prediction, if they exist, are seldom uniformly applied. This is a serious problem for the tester if they know nothing of the language. Morover, how will they know if the astrologer they are testing is an A student or a F student of the language? How can they know? They wouldn´t know a good astrologer from a bad one. Thirdly, how will they know if they are testing an advanced language or some primitive gruntwork? In other words, ignorance may be bliss, but it won´t give you the best answer.

Nagarajaprasad (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Nagaraja Prasad:- Now, Vorpal blade, I believe you shouldn't have mixed God and Astrology.BELIEF IN GOD AND ASTROLOGY ARE MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY. Let me explain this simple fact: 1. Question: What is God? Answer: In part, we understand God to be an all powerful, all pervading supreme spirit who controls our birth, death and whatever happens between birth and death, at the least. So one prays god to fulfill one’s wishes. The wish may be to get more wealth, more happiness, a sweet wife, a caring husband or good health. Of course the list is endless. But what is certain is when one who prays God; one also believes that God has the power to influence the events in one’s life. One therefore prays God to change the events to his/ her advantage and hopes God will heed to one’s prayers. 2. Question: What is Astrology? Answer: In short, Astrology predicts future events. One does this by careful study of influence of Cosmos on life on Earth (It is rather amusing that of billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and planets, only a few cosmic elements affect the events in one’s life). Or one may choose Palmistry, and correlate the myriad lines on palm to prophesize. Whatever be the method, one can predict future only if the future events are frozen in time. If future is not frozen, and if one has a way to shape future events, then nobody can prophesize. For, nobody would know how events unfold. Take for example my death. An astrologer can predict my age at death only if my death is frozen in time. Say, my death is frozen in time at 75 years. Only then, can an astrologer say that I will die at 75. If I have a way to change 75, to 65 or 85, nobody can predict my death. Only when events are actualized would we be certain of what has happened.

One wants God to heed to one’s wishes and shape future events to his/ her advantage. I don’t want to die at 75! So one believes future events can be changed, and is not frozen in time. And again, one goes to an astrologer to know ones future. Now, the astrologer can’t tell your future. Not if you believe in God. That is plain logic.

Now, I hope all believers will give up on Astrology. And an agnostic would any way doubt both the Astrologer and God.

So what´s next? Those supporting a more balanced overview of the astrology chapter in Wikipedia, now is the time to speak out! After that we can move ahead and correct the NPOV-undue weight issue involving the excessive anti-astrology claims. Rumbird (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to start a revolution, we can only reflect the scientific consensus. If you feel the scientific community is grossly mistaken then your option is to try and change that in the real world, then change the article - not the other way around. Jefffire (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys just obfuscate and obstruct when your editorial use of the information presented is questioned. Undue weight is given to the anti-astrology point of view. This so-called "consensus" of the "mainstream scientific community" based on scientific evidence is a con. There is no majority of scientists. The science is sloppy. This is nothing more than whipped up intellectual flatulence served up in a snake oil bottle by some riled up "scientists" and then sold as an 'elexir of truth. What does it heal? The godawful truth about astrology? Problem is boys, I and many others just aren't buying it. I am slapping the NPOV tag on this article.Rumbird (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That's flat out wrong. Both individual scientists and scientific organizations have labeled astrology as a pseudoscience. You can look at the references in the article for details. There are also studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals which conclude that astrology doesn't work. Your individual opinion is irrelevant against verifiable, credible sources which state exactly what scientists think of astrology. If you've got a problem with that, it can't be helped. It's wikipedia policy. That's how it runs. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 10:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Where there was hope of editors here to help within these segments, that was quickly extinguished once they saw what kind of convoluted mess trying to do anything with this article becomes on the count of overzealous science nuts often rude without provocation."

I couldn't agree more. It's a pathetic state of affairs.
I'm sorry to see you go Sam, but I totally understand.

pixiequix (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppetry on the astrology page

So, if it isn't already clear to everyone involved, it appears that one of the astrologers who has recently contested one of the opening paragraphs on the page is engaging in creating sock puppets in order to 'win' the revert war and sidestep the 3RR rule. Since User:Rumbird was the guy who originally seems to have started the edit war on that paragraph, and he was already warned once recently for violating the 3RR rule, he is the prime suspect, although it seems that User:Budfin is getting in on it now as well, so he could also be the culprit. Whoever it is, I think that it is ridiculous and disgraceful. Actually it is more embarrassing than anything else, because I'm an astrologer as well, and this is the type of stuff that makes the rest of us look bad- or, worse I should say. The current sock puppets appear to be User:Ali the Munificent, User:Random-chess, and User:SciFiApostle. Their edit histories make this apparent. If anyone knows any high level admins could you please ask them to do an IP check and ban this guy? --Chris Brennan (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• OK, busted. But I wasn´t trying to hide my footprint either - it is impossible. Moreover, it isn´t exactly a high crime to forget a password or to use an alternate identity, is it? Many here apparently do it. The main point is that the para is just unacceptable the way the science buffs have done it and I wanted to create more discussion about it. By doing the reverts I held their feet to the fire, if ever so briefly. The point has been made and I will stop the reverts. Ali the Munificent (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it is a banable offense to create alternate accounts simply for the sake of stacking the cards in your favor in an edit war. It isn't just the so-called 'science buffs' who you are engaging in the revert war against. You have reverted other astrologers as well. So, at this point you really are just pushing your own POV on everyone else, skeptics and astrologers alike, in a way that is not constructive at all. You aren't the first though. Every few months the astrology articles on Wikipedia get hit by the same sort of nonsense by some astrologer who thinks that they are being persecuted, or who thinks that their opinion is right no matter what anyone else either inside or outside of their community thinks. What you none of you guys seem to realize or care about though is that you are doing more harm to the subject that you supposedly advocate than good. --Chris Brennan (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take note of Wikipedia:Sock#Alternate account identification. It would be very helpful for you to clearly identify each of the accounts you have used as being alternates of whatever is your main account. --MediaMangler (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Joseph John Dewey, born in 1945

This is simply to supply the full name of this person - and to avoid a mix-up with John Dewey. --rpd (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Core Beliefs suggestion

The graphic illustrating the astrological symbols for the plants still lists Pluto as a planet. Does anyone have a more updated graphic illustrating the symbols sans Pluto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.203.130 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

About Pluto – afaik, astrologers haven't discarded it as signficant body, although in astronomy its planetary status was changed. For that matter, the moon signifies as does the sun and neither are planets. Is there any update on this? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Julia is right. Astrologers still treat Pluto as a 'planet' in the same broad way that the Sun and Moon are treated as 'planets'. The current astronomical status of Pluto has little relevance here, as the distinction is considered to be more or less arbitrary by the astrological community. Unless we plan on updating the main Wikipedia pages on all of the planets to include some astrological information, which is currently kept separate at this point, then we should keep the two domains of study separate from each other in this area as well. --Chris Brennan (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Research methods

Can we find a way to edit in how some astrologers find the research methods of the scientists questionable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.228.86 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive a poor newby, but I couldn't resist trying to get in on the action, even though I barely have a clue about your protocols. After reading the section on "Research" in the astrology article, I am dubious about the claim that Gauquelin's hypothesis about the "Mars Effect" has actually been "refuted". Is this in the new journalistic sense I've run across lately, where "refute" is used as a synonym for "disagree with"? Do the references cited actually refute Gauquelin's work? From what I know, reference #52 should not be included as support. Please see the article by Dennis Rawlins in Fate, (34, October, 1981). This whole effort by CSICOP was a fiasco, and a black eye to science. In fact, this failed attempt to rig the results against astrology deserve some mention in this article, since it shows that science is a human enterprise. Worse still was the attempt the organization made to cover up the initial fraud. I have not yet been able to find the other two references cited to support this "refutation". Any responses? Kevinl.8creamynougat (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am trying another way to post a comment on this page. Please bear with this poor newby. The claim in the "Research" section that Gauquelin's hypothesis of the "Mars effect" has been refuted seems quite dubious to me, given one of the source listed, with no further comment ["Since its original publication... which refute it...."]. I refer to reference note #52, the 1977 article in The Humanist. This paper has been thoroughly discredited as science, and so has the subsequent conspiracy to cover up the original errors and misguided claims. See the long article sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins in Fate (34, October, 1981). I have not yet had a chance to read the other two articles, but I now wonder if anyone else has either, or if it is enough that they attack astrology. Science is never served by bad science, no matter how seeming deserving its targets seem to be. Quite the contrary, when scientists misuse the status of science, they undermine the belief of the public, i.e., non-scientists.(Kevinl.8creamynougat (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Dennis Rawlins article has been addressed and refuted by Philiph J Klass. See the aptly titled article, crybaby [10]. 59.92.59.31 (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Gauquelin was not an astrologer, has not become one, and he never will. As for the self-entitled "skeptic", all of them are just raw materialists and narrow-minded petits-bourgeoises. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Biblical references

I was quite surprised to see no mention of Biblical references to astrology here, as I'm sure that these would be of interest to many people. Has there been a past consensus to exclude these? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to know the reason for the absence of biblical reference. If there was any at all discussions previously also. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hermeticism??

What's the deal with this novelty? I don't think most astrologers are hermetics. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Doubtful etymology

I suggest that the entire segment "(From Greek: etc)" must be removed and remain absent until it can be written by someone who knows for example the meaning of "nominative" and "genitive", or the differences between Ancient Greek and Modern Greek. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Etymological references should always be in the nominative. Wouldn't have taken too much to fix that, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.175.182.25 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed --- or at least I think so. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

definition of astrology: phrasing and implication

This has gone back and forth a few times between several people, including me, so I thought this might be the best place to discuss it. I'm new, so please forgive me if I'm in the wrong place.

The dispute is between the following two sentence versions in the article intro:

  "Astrology is often defined as the study of the supposed influences of the cosmos on life on earth."

and

  "Astrology is often defined as the study of influences of the cosmos on life on earth."

I -- and apparently some others further down in the edit history -- favor the latter, and still others favor the former, on the grounds that such influences have never been proved and that there is no consensus that they exist at all.

I do not dispute this (and apparently neither do my predecessors). Such influences have, indeed, never been proved to the general satisfaction of the scientific community. This doesn't matter, however, because this statement is a description of a definition, and is not an assertion affirming the existence of any underlying reality.

To illustrate what I mean, as I tried perhaps too briefly to do in my edit-comment: I believe the following to be an acceptable example of a neutral, objective statement:

  "Theology is often defined as the study of God."

Of course it is. This is, objectively, a logically and factually true statement, because it describes a definition of theology. This statement makes no assertion at all about the actual existence of God (the object of the study).

Likewise, "Astrology is often defined as the study of influences of the cosmos on life on earth" is a description of a definition, and is not logically or connotatively equivalent to implying that such influences actually exist; the sentence isn't about such influences at all, in fact, but only about defining "astrology."

That's the argument from one angle.

The argument from another angle is that with the addition of "...the supposed...", the statement is actually made false. Astrology in its own context is never defined as the study of "supposed" influences. In fact, one can't actually study "supposed influences." It's defined as the study of "influences." One can study something -- empirically or otherwise -- without knowing in advance whether or not it even exists: physicists do it all the time. Hence the definition doesn't imply the existence or nonexistence of such influences; it merely describes a process of study, and the subject to which that process is applied. Valravn (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the current phrasing is that it assumes that the cosmos influences life on earth. This is simply NOT TRUE. This is different from the definition of theology, in the sense that the "study of god" is a neutral statement. It includes both the study of god's existence or non-existence. However, a statement like "Astrology is often defined as the study of influences of the cosmos on life on earth" is not neutral, and clearly makes a claim which is false, according to the majority(scientific) view. How about rephrasing it to,

"Astrology is often defined as the study and practice of the hypothesis that the cosmos influences life on earth", or something along those lines ?220.227.207.12 (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My whole point is that the current phrasing actually *doesn't* logically assume the existence of these influences. Also, the term "theology" doesn't generally apply to the study of [G|g]od[s]' non-existence; theology proper is pursued within a religious context, and this context does make assumptions about the existence of such a being or beings. (See the wiki article.) Its definition as "the study of God" is nevertheless neutral on the implication of a deity's existence.

If we universally applied your standard that anything whose existence hasn't been empirically proved can't be included in the definition of an area of intellectual pursuit, we'd have to refer to ethics as "the study of supposed moral frameworks" or to mathematics as "the study of the supposed logical relationships between numbers and amongst other abstract structures;" these statements are all making value judgements about the content of study. In particular, they're delivering the connotation that the content doesn't exist. The current majority (scientific) view is that no convincing evidence has been presented that would indicate any causal or correlative link between the position of heavenly bodies and events on Earth or in the individual human psyche. That's not the same as saying such influences don't exist, by the way: scientists generally never make conclusive negative statements, no matter how intuitively obvious they may seem, because (except in some purely mathematical contexts) negatives can't be proved.

All that being said, I never intended to get into an argument about the existence or nonexistence of celestial influences; just wanted to try and sell you on the idea that the definition isn't making the assertion you say it's making. I'm almost happy with your compromise edit; my biggest fundamental problem was the word "supposed." My only remaining minor issue is your use of the word "cosmos" - it isn't a plural word, and it doesn't have a "location" per se. Let me know what you think of my tweak. Valravn (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with your edit. I still think you didn't understand my objection. The field of ethics can indeed be defined as the study of "moral frameworks", as it deals with behavior based on actual morals which are empirically observable in human interactions. Similarly, mathematics deals with logical relationships which are clearly follow from the fundamental axioms.

Astrology however, has no such observable component. To put it bluntly, its predictions have no basis in reality. It's immensely improbable that the tenets of astrology are true. Therefore, to make a positive assertion that the stars influence our lives violates NPOV. For instance, if I change the thelogoy introduction to "theology is defined as the study of how god influences our lives", I'd have the same objections.

Anyway, I'm happy with the way it stands now.220.227.207.32 (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hermetism template

Is there someone who can give a convincing reason why the Hermetism template should be on this astrology article? If no explanation is forthcoming, I may soon remove that template. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any reason for the template, and it only applies to a small fraction of the traditions discussed in the article. I took the liberty of removing it. --Chris Brennan (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion

Those who have edited in related areas within WP might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Interstellar travel

Here is a question: Suppose one day our civilization expands to encompass multiple star systems, or equally, that one day we encounter an alien civilization. The question then is, what validity could astrology have, since it inherently assumes the configuration of our own star system?

Suppose humans establish a colony on a planet orbiting another star. Does our astrology still apply to them, or do we need to devise some new astrology, based on the planets that exist in their star system? Does every star system have its own system of astrology? Is there some formula we can use to construct the astrological interpretation of an arbitrary star system, or are such interpretations purely arbitrary? Suppose we were to adopt such an interpretation -- what if we encountered an alien civilization which had devised a system of astrological interpretations which could not be made to conform to our generic model?

Let us suppose I am born in this star system. I therefore have a natal chart. The assumption being, that my continued presence in this star system, causes the positions of the planets at the time of my birth to have a continued influence. Now, suppose I then move, by means of interstellar travel, to another star system. Am I then governed by that star system's planets or by the planets of the original star system? Do I need to redraw a natal chart by the new star system, or do I keep my original natal chart?

More troubling for adherents of astrology -- since the theories of relativity deny the existence of simultaneity, I cannot necessarily identify times between distant locations, e.g. multiple star systems. So, if I was born at time X in star system A, I cannot necessarily find a unique corresponding time Y in star system B, such that X and Y are simultaneous. Equally, if right now is time X in star system A, I cannot necessarily find a unique corresponding time Y in star system B, such that X and Y are simultaneous. The result is, that, it appears, astrological influences cannot pass between systems.

And, while I am on an interstellar spaceship, between the two systems -- how does astrology govern my life then?

In terms of the future evolution of our civilization, interstellar travel is probably a long way off -- and the question of when and/or if verifiable contact with extraterrestrial civilizations will occur is essentially unanswerable. But lunar or Martian colonies are probably much closer. If I am on a lunar or Martian colony, how does astrology effect my life? It would seem obvious that, if there is any validity to astrology at all, that Earth-bound astrology cannot apply while on the moon or Mars or in space. And yet, if it cannot apply, what should apply in its stead? When the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon, or were in transit to or from it, what astrological influences applied to them? --SJK (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're starting from a false assumption, however this isn't a forum for astrologers in space :) Verbal chat 10:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What false assumption? And I am not an astrologer, nor am, dwelling upon the surface of this planet, any more in space than you or most other people are. Yet, I suppose, sometimes in order to challenge others' beliefs, you must start from an assumption of accepting them. Reductio ad absurdum, as it were...

One further consideration -- among systems of divination, astrology alone seems to have problems with space travel. Consider e.g. numerology, or cartomancy (e.g. Tarot cards). Whatever different problems these systems may have, their applicability across different locations in the universe is not obviously an issue, unlike astrology. --SJK (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

SJK, this talk page is only for discussion related to the writing of the article, and is not an astrology discussion forum. If you want to discuss your ideas with others who share your interests, you might consider joining one of these Yahoo groups [11]. (3750 astrology groups are listed, although many are probably inactive.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous pronoun

Was this correct, or does "them" refer to the astrologers themselves? Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte's removal of "claim"

Cosmic Latte reverted my edit citing WP:WTA. I proceeded to read that page (it has been years) and found how its undue weight given to negative uses of claim made it inaccurate. I rewrote the section, and have submitted that change to the WP:WTA talk page (and #IRC) for review. Note that Verbal also made a similar edit, which Cosmic Latte also reverted.-Stevertigo 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If we go with the most positive definition of "claim" that you suggest--the attribution of "statements of varying veracity, substance, and relevance"--then we could just as well apply it to scientists as to non-scientists: "Scientists claim that empirical observation and experimental methods reveal true and useful knowledge about the universe. Non-scientists claim that there are limits to the value of observation and experimentation, and that subjective experience is the source of the most important knowledge." If we want every other article to open with a statement about "claims," then fine. No one has a monopoly on truth, so I guess everything is, in the final analysis, little better than a claim. Alternatively, we could avoid this potentially "loaded" word as much as possible--after all, the reader can't always tell whether the writer meant it in a derisive sense or not--and let various viewpoints speak for themselves. Here we have, "Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs in which knowledge about the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details aids in understanding, interpreting, and organizing information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters." The key words are "systems, traditions, and beliefs." According to these systems, traditions, and beliefs, knowledge about celestial positions does indeed aid in understanding and interpretation. "Claim" is entirely superfluous. Astrological interpretation is based on knowledge about celestial phenomena. If interpretation weren't so derived, then astrology would not exist! If someone writes a love song, they do not generally waste time "claiming" that their knowledge of love aids them in songwriting; they simply produce the fruits of this interplay between love, knowledge, and songwriting. So it is with astrologers: Their principal job is not to go around lobbying for astrology and making "claims" about its nature; their job is to practice astrology, which does involve the use of their celestial knowledge in making interpretations and reaching understanding. Their knowledge and, consequently, the interpretations and understandings that they reach, may be vastly different than those of scientists, but that is why the article has an "Astrology and science" section. It is inappropriate and POV to imply from the very outset that scientists are somehow one step ahead of astrologers when it comes to cosmological wisdom. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Another thing is, the article already makes clear that astrological interpretations hinge on "a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs." These interpretations are therefore valid only relative to these epistemological constructs. So, to insert claims about "claims" is to say essentially the following: "According to astrology [i.e., 'a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs'], astrologers claim," which equates to "According to astrology, according to astrologers," which ultimately amounts to "According to astrology, according to astrology." Not only would a clause about "claims" be superfluous and potentially disparaging; it would be downright redundant. Moreover, when one goes to extra (e.g., redundant) lengths to make even a potentially disparaging statement, one's motivations (read: POV) may become apparent. As an aside, I find it unfortunate that the word "claim" has acquired negative connotations. To claim something is to assume ownership of--and, therefore, one would hope, responsibility for--something. But apparently one can now claim an idea as mindlessly as one might claim the hot new item at the department store. Oh well. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Compromise: Avoid making even the slightest implication that anyone is making (unfounded?) "claims" by using a less "charged" means of attribution, such as the phrase, "according to." Simple as that. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

According to adherents

And this is an unnecessary flourish. While not explicitly false (yes, astrology's adherents do believe this), its presence is implying something, and to me it suggests that non-adherents might believe something other than what is being asserted in the article. I fail to see, however, what the alternative to that proposition, as exactly worded, might be. The wording that I am advocating is the following: "Astrology...is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs, according to which knowledge about the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details aids in the understanding, interpretation, and organization of information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters." Not even the most hard-core skeptic would deny that, according to this "group of systems, traditions, and beliefs," celestial knowledge aids in psycho-social understanding and interpretation. For the sake of comparison, if I say, "According to a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, the universe was created in six 24-hour days," I don't think I'm saying anything too controversial. The fact that I, personally, do not subscribe to such an interpretation might motivate me to attribute it to an outgroup: to "them," "the other guy," or, if I'm feeling formal, "adherents." But if I follow through with this and say, "According to a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, claim the adherents of such an interpretation, the universe was created in six 24-hour days," then at best I'm suggesting, not that there are alternative interpretations to the literal interpretation of Genesis, but rather that there are alternative understandings of what it means to have a literal interpretation of Genesis. So if we call astrology a system of beliefs, and then qualify that with a phrase like "according to adherents," we're suggesting (if we are indeed editing without bias toward alternatives to astrology as a whole) that there is an internal debate about what astrological beliefs entail. Put differently, saying that "astrology is a system of beliefs according to which X and Y are true" is enough to allow for the existence of those who do not share those beliefs; but saying that "astrology is a system of beliefs in which adherents believe X and Y" makes room for the possibility that astrology is a system of beliefs in which someone else believes Z and A. There is no discussion in the article about such an internal debate, in which someone actually contests the lead's attribution of a celestial-terrestrial link to the astrological "group of systems, traditions, and beliefs." So there's no need to define astrology in terms of its (e.g., conflicting) adherents or in terms of any other people. It is a concept, an abstraction, relative to which X and Y are true. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

TLDR. I think you're an adherent of astrology, and as such are unqualified to make unqualified assertions about neutrality. That's just a guess, based on my observation of your apparent inability to be reasonable and find compromise with two editors (I and Verbal) acting in good faith. But I'm not the judge here. Let's talk to the good folks on WP:AN3 and maybe IRC, too. I have a feeling this isn't your first run-in with NPOV. -Stevertigo 19:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Way to WP:AGF. FYI, I have an academic background in science from a mainstream American university. You will have a very hard time pinning an agendum on someone who both A) works to reduce bias toward scientific approaches and B) comes to the defense of User:ScienceApologist. But good luck all the same. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi CL, I know you're a good editor but this isn't working. We've put up alternatives and you keep taking them down, but some form of attribution of these beliefs is, I believe, required. I hope we can come to an agreement. All the best, Verbal chat 20:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My main issue at this point is that it seems difficult to make attributions in the lead sentence without saying something to the effect of, "astrology is a system of beliefs in which believers believe..." One might toss around synonyms, substituting "adherents" for "believers" or "claim" for "believe"; but when it's made clear from the beginning that astrology is a system of beliefs, it should go without saying that those who subscribe to this system of beliefs are the ones who maintain that these beliefs are true. I don't think I would object if the attribution introduced new information (e.g., "according to its 500,000 adherents"--a statistic I just made up, attesting again to my lack of expertise in astrology); my problem lies with the reiteration of already-implicit information, which raises the question of why this information is being reiterated and could therefore lead to the assumption that the editors are somehow trying to editorialize (e.g., does "according to [them]" mean "not according to us"?). But if the purpose of the reiteration is clear (e.g., to introduce the fact that X many people subscribe to the beliefs), then the aura of POV can be avoided. Anyway, I'll be going to bed momentarily, so if I don't respond for a while, that's why. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well now its three to one in favor of adding some "unnecessary flourish" to the lede: me, verbal (both added "are claimed to") verbal (more involved version), and Nunh-huh, who asserted something more simple, "which hold that" which is fine, but not as clear as "are claimed to." "Hold" is a word that simply means "claim," but "uncessecarily" (and obviously) avoids it. Astrologists do "claim" that astrology does such and such, don't they? They haven't proven such, have they? Since its not a matter of proof, its a matter of claim - its really that simple. -Stevertigo 00:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Maintain" would be yet another alternative to "hold" or "claim". -Nunh-huh 02:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo: As for "three to one," I can count, believe it or not. But this isn't a WP:VOTE, so let's stick to the arguments, shall we? On that note, of course astrologers have not "proven" their arguments. Proof is not their aim; subjective validation is their aim. Scientists, too, do not aim to "prove" anything; they strive to provide objective evidence in support of, and even against, various hypotheses and theories, all the while realizing that (if they follow Karl Popper), insofar as their assertions remain scientific, they can be falsified at any time. Astrology, as a form of hermeneutic investigation, hinges on subjective evidence, whereas science, as a form of empirical investigation, seeks objective evidence. In either case, evidence either does or does not provide support of pertinent theories. "Proof" is best reserved for mathematics. "Science" and "objectivity" are not synonyms for "truth"; they are just vehicles among other vehicles through which truth can be pursued. There are plenty of synonyms, however, for "adherents," "claim," etc., but I have yet to hear an argument for why any of them should be used in a manner that is ultimately redundant. I think I put it well above: "When it's made clear from the beginning that astrology is a system of beliefs, it should go without saying that those who subscribe to this system of beliefs are the ones who maintain that these beliefs are true." Of course it is astrology's adherents who adhere to astrology's tenets. What I don't understand is why this redundant point needs to be made. As I also said, however, it could be entirely reasonable to attribute astrology's adherence in a non-redundant fashion, e.g., by pointing out how many adherents it has. Obviously "a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs" has adherents and non-adherents. Do we really need to be told that it is the adherents, rather than the non-adherents, who adhere to these systems, traditions, and beliefs? I think not. But we could gain something by learning how many people qualify as adherents, or by learning some other new fact about them. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed Nunh-huh's revision and am completely fine with it. It's direct, succinct, non-redundant, and reasonably neutral. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, when one has a content dispute with an editor who is not blatantly trolling, it is often best to WP:AGF and keep one's WP:COOL. Rather than introducing oneself to this editor by referring to him in the third-person and becoming confrontational before slandering him hither and thither, one might consider engaging with him in a civil manner on a talk page or, failing that, seeking community input at WP:RFC or at a relevant WP:WIKIPROJECT. Just a thought. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the current phrasing too. I think we can all learn something from this - for me it's not to edit while actually too tired to talk, and that it's better to suggest compromises on the talk page rather than trying them out all the time. Personally I prefer shorter comments with discussion rather than some of the long comments we've had here, which can actually have a negative effect (I didn't have the time to write a long reply, but didn't want to seem to be dismissive). Best, Verbal chat 17:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Work in progress

I'm glad were all being communicative and discussing it. I also appreciate Cosmic's willingness to listen to us, and abandoning his tactic of labelling any qualifying language as "unnecessary flourish." We're past the hard part. I agree that Nunh-huh's version is much better, and may be a good compromise:

"[Astrology.. beliefs] which hold that the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details can provide useful information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters..."

But this version, while fulfilling 90% of the requirement for qualifying attribution, is not ideal for three specific reasons: 1) The word "hold" is not the clearest term, and other words would work better: "claims to", "maintains that," "asserts that," and "hold's that" are the ones that come to mind. Any others? (PS: "According to adherents" appears to be quite necessary). Among my concerns is how "hold" translates quite ambiguously, (we can test it at http://translate.google.com ) while "claim", "states" and "asserts" do not. Let's put that issue aside for now.

The second issue is 2) the usage of "can" may not be accurate, as astrologists may not be qualifying about astrology itself, their skills in astrology, and the results of a particular consultation. In otherwords, I'm asserting the correctness of the statement: 'astrology is a system of beliefs that [attributive qualifier] does [in fact] provide useful information about...' Is this not true about astrology, that astrologists assert its validity? Is this not true even when a particular astrologer may be qualify their practice and particular sessions with a disclaimer?

The third issue 3) deals with the object of the assertion: "[Astrology.. "can provide"] useful information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters..." A major aspect missing here is the precognitive dimension of astrology —astrologers claim to give "useful information" about not just "terrestrial matters" (eughk!) but 'extra-terrestrial' matters such as the future; future relationships, future job prospects, future directions in life, etc.

Anyway, enough for now. Those are my concerns. -Stevertigo 20:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You've extracted portions of the sentence in question to form a statement that is incorrect, but it isn't what the sentence actually says. It's like a movie review in which a critic's quote "I would have loved to disembowel the director of this movie and roast his liver over a slow flame" is transformed into "I...loved...this movie" and used as an advertising blurb. The sentence quite specifically does not say "Astrology...can provide" but rather (paraphrasing) "Astrology is a belief that planetary positions can provide' or "Astrology says it can provide" = "Astrologers say they can provide".

Some brief further comments:

[1] I pointed out some alternatives to "hold" above. Generally "claims" is used to cast doubt on a belief, and is considered non-neutral and bad form when alternatives are available. I have no problem with any of your other alternatives, except that "holds that" should have no apostrophe.

[2] I think translation problems are for the translators and shouldn't dictate original content.

[3] "Can" when parsed properly says nothing about what astrology can do, only about what astrologers hold it can do.

[4] it is not adherents of astrology who say that astrology asserts it can provide information: everyone agrees astrologers assert they can provide information.

[5] the future is most assuredly terrestrial, unless you're predicting the future of the moon. So don't use "extra-terrestrial" but by all means add "the future", and change the "and" to "or", as some astrologers will deny one or the other of the things in the list. - Nunh-huh 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Note that defining the context of the future as a great part of astrological consultation (80% maybe), means that the usage of claims to is all but absolutely required. If astrology is in fact about people who [assert] competence in prognostication, fortune-telling, precognition, and omniscience, (and the people who believe them to one degree or another), then the article's concept is not so much about whether or not they can do any of these things (requires testing), but that they claim to have such competence (in prognostication, fortune-telling, precognition, and omniscience, etc.). -Stevertigo 11:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And so the article states. "Claims to" isn't needed; the idea is already explicit in the sentence without those words. - Nunh-huh 12:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any citations for this babble??

"From the classical period through the scientific revolution, astrological training played a critical role in advancing astronomical, mathematical, medical and psychological knowledge. Astrological influences included the observation and long-term tracking of celestial objects. It was astrologers who provided the first systematic documentation of the movements of the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars. The differentiation between astronomy and astrology varied from place to place; they were indistinguishable in ancient Babylonia and medieval Europe, but separated to an extent in the Hellenistic world."

"separated to an extent in the Hellenistic world"? where did you get this from? Citation, please. I'm afraid this is stretching it to a considerable degree. To me, there seems to be modern anachronistic thinking in this statement. I'm wondering if you mean that Ptolemy isolated the divination elements into Tetrabiblos? That's the only example I can think of that you might be referring to, and what evidence is there that he did that for any other reason than because it was a separate topic? Ptolemy was of a very scientific temperament (and I use this in the modern sense) and he really held his nose when confronted with what he considered "numerology"--meaning the so-called "lots." But when it came to astronomical observation and speculation, he himself apparently did not make a clear distinction, except as an intellectual category. Nothing else can be proved. Without the religious and divinatory impulse, people would have been much less impelled to record the position of the objects in the sky. In Ptolemy's world, there was no separation between the philosophical (encompassing the religious) and the scientific, although undoubtedly among the intellectuals one finds individuals whose predilections were mathematical or engineering ore astronomical or scientific or religious. -Nadine Harris NaySay (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a critical article at all, I'm surprised there aren't premium horoscope phone number appearing under each section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.212.196 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But a lot of it is true- much of early astronomy was only researched in the first place for astrological purposes.216.252.84.20 (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

But the opposite is even more true: much of the current astrology was formed from a degeneration of scientific astronomic theories, that had reached a very high scientific level in the Hellenistic period, and that came lost during the subsequent centuries of decline. This is very well demonstrated in Lucio Russo's book, "The forgotten Revolution" --79.38.22.37 (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

But the opposite is even more true: much of the current astrology was formed from a degeneration of scientific astronomic theories, that had reached a very high scientific level in the Hellenistic period, and that came lost during the subsequent centuries of decline. You really have no idea of what you're talking about. Astrology never has had a thing to do with "scientific astronomic theories", and for the ancient civilizations, the astronomic knowledge would be considered useless outside of its astrologic applications. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.226.185.104 (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The section makes some very big claims, for which no supporting evidence is provided. Furthermore the use of the term "astrology" to describe pre-modern study is highly ambiguous. Even if "systematic documentation of the movements of the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars" was done for mystical reasons, it doesn't imply that the work had anything to do with astrology as currently practised. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds more like you just have an axe to grind against astrology, period. Truth is early on astrology was a driving force behind astronomy, indeed served to give real astronomical study a jumpstart. Truth hurts, deal with it. No one is saying "astrology is your new god and is always correct!" But th truth can not be denied that astrology jumpstarted astronomy. Sorry. Jersey John (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You use the word "truth" three times, and yet you provide no references to back up these "truths". Stop making projection-laden accusations of tendentious editing, and start providing respectable sources to support your claims. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)