Talk:Astrology/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Popper ref

I haven't personally checked ref 74 which substantiates the opening comment of the Modern scientific appraisal section - but the definition of 'pseudoscience' is something I've been interested in exploring for a few years, and I'm not aware of anyone quoting that comment as an authorative reference for the argument. Ref 73, I believe, should be removed. It lacks any sense of authority or credibility. The Dawkins ref only gives Dawkins opinion in an informal format, and the second part of the ref goes to a website which has no critical assesment or quality control. Using the Dawkins ref to support the views of Dawkins is fine, but it does not qualify a comment as strong as 'Astrology is a pseudoscience'.

On the other hand, IRWolfie has just put some very good content on the page to explain the views of Popper, who tends to be regarded as the authority for astrology's pseudoscience status. So can we please replace poor-quality weak references of dubious reliability with good quality refrences where we can easily do that - and have the pseudoscience statement refrenced to Popper, or some other source of equal validity and weight? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've switched the source with the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. I may use the Dawkins source at a later point. I am not sure why you consider [1] by Andrew Fraknoi unreliable. Noting that astrology is a pseudoscience isn't particularly controversial and does not require WP:EXCEPTIONAL to be met. As many sources as desired exist but I don't want a cite overkill, I may get some high quality sources and combine them anyway into a single reference, thus avoiding WP:OVERCITE. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just heads up that I found an indepth scholarly source on astrology in Chaucer, good history pf ideas stuff, where the author dissociated herself in no uncertain terms from present-day astrology. I want to access it again for Chaucer, and that shows it is not only natural scientists but also social scientists that regard astrology as pseudoscience. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for switching the Dawkins ref.

Re the ref to the Skeptics Resource List. Even if you or I don't think the point is particularly controversial, look back through the talk page archives and consider how many years of editing time have been wasted in arguments about this word and the policies over whether we may or must make reference to it on this page. The only way to put an end to the emotive reaction is to make sure that the content related to that Pse-point is as intelligently written and robustly referenced as possible. Having mutliple references is fine; though I prefer to see all mutliple refs linked into one because, as you say, cite overkill looks bad. But each ref should be able to justify the point on its own right - like if all the controversy in the world rested on that ref, would it justify our statement as a fact, by itself, in the way that Popper's does? Then we've just fixed the big Pse-problem here (don't you think?).

On the other hand the benefit of good quality referencing is all wiped away if we show no sense of discrimination and intellectual integrity by additionally referencing our crucial comment to 'A skeptic's Resource List' - the very name of which smacks of being agenda-driven. That site has no signature of academic respectability or critical assesment, so it's an unecesssary ref that takes away more than it adds. A reader who is favourable to the subject is likely to feel that the only reason it has been included, when the point has been sufficiently made, is so that someone here can 'dump on their subject'.

So even though policy doesn't dictate that 'exceptional' needs to be met; I think we should choose to raise the bar ourselves and ensure that, where and when we can, our references are as strong and non-controversial as they can be. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Judith, what significance is that? Can we not end the desire to want to reference all and any author who makes a crititicsm, regardless of how inconsequential that author's view has been on world opinion.?

I said it was just a headsup. When you see the quality of the Chaucer commentary you will be as overawed as I was - but there is a whole load of stuff on Chaucer. Look, scholars call astrology pseudoscience. They really do. You can call it professional closure if you like. You can start reading Feyerabend, but the time investment may not pay off. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I really know that. What makes you think I don't? Even Robbins, who translated Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, referred to it as a pseudoscience in his 1947 translation. Honestly, this is not a shocker and there's no reason for us to treat it as one. Neither should we assume (or imply) that anyone who refers to it as a pseudoscience must therefore be filled with contempt for the subject, because that's far from the case. And yes Feyerabend is a very good source. Why do you assume I should start reading his work? I'm pretty sure I was the one who added the link to his paper as a reference last year. It was definitely on here and I have no idea why or when it was taken off-- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfashionable. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah - beware the fashions of the times. Nothing lasts forever does it? Still think he is a source worth including as a reference -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Another report deemed to be a 'classic' for this issue: - Paul R. Thagard, 'Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience', PSA, vol 1. University of Chicago Press, 1978.

Mundane Astrology

Note this discussion about Zac's reinstatement of an article that was merged to Astrology/History of Astrology, following an AfD: Talk:Mundane_astrology#Posting_discussion_regarding_the_return_to_redirect. I have suggested the content be merged here. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Per my talk on that page, I endorse IRWolfie's suggestion, with the further suggestion that after the merger, the content (as re-created by Zac) be promptly considered for spinning off as a new Mundane Astrology article. My impression is that the new article has enough content to stand on its own, but of course other editors will want to take a look.--Other Choices (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Falsifiability

I just noticed that the Popper section currently contradicts the others. It says that astrology is unfalsifiable, but we also describe experiments that have falsified astrology (e.g. in the second sentence). We should clarify (or perhaps Popper did) that at least some of astrology's claims are falsifiable, and that when people have tested them they have indeed been falsified. The idea that the positions of the planets etc have specific effects on humans is testable - it becomes a pseudoscience when, after you have tested it and found it false, you ignore the evidence or invent rationalizations. I would say that it is the claim plus the rationalizations that makes something unfalsifiable for the person who accepts the rationalizations - because they will find some way to reject the falsification. (Or if the claim becomes sufficiently vague/imprecise to not be meaningfully testable, etc - which are the statements that are unfalsifiable a priori). Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry, the only experiment that was supposed to have applied proper scientific methods was Carlson's, and that was later reappraised and found to be flawed in its design (with the reversed results finding in favour of astrologers claims - in case you're interested).

The fact is that astrology as a principle remains unfalsifiable. The only thing that was supposed to have been falsified by Carlson was the reliability of the practice of astrology, as dependent on the those - what was it, 18? - astrologers being representative of all astrological practice. (Of course, when I say "the only thing" I'm disregarding Ertel's claim that the results of the experiment were falsified too).

Editorially we have to take a stance on Carlson. As someone who doesn't believe WP should be telling half-truths I think that Carlson's experiment should be dropped from the page as non-notable, or it should include some indication that it's reliability has been questioned by independent review. Alternatively, (if you prefer half-truths) then we report on the case of Carlson, and that the reason for its notability (the only reason really) was that it (supposedly) contradicted the unfalsifiable theory. Then we can make reference to other authoritative accounts of why astrology is still deemed to be a pseudoscience despite of this. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer lies in Thaggard - I gave the details and link in the above section. Thaggard explains why astrology cannot be condemned as pseudoscientific on the grounds of falisifiability afterall, and builds on Popper's work to propose a new definition of what properly constitutes a pseudoscience. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the validity or notability of the Carlson experiment, or the status of astrology as a pseudoscience. Are you saying that as a principle it is impossible to test whether the positions of the planets affect humans? Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

When you say the Carlson study was not notable do you base that on the fact that it was published by one of the most reputable scientific journals in the world and has been cited 51 times by other published articles or do you base it on the fact that it happens to be one of many tests that demonstrate your fancy to be farcical? Also, can you link us to the reputable peer reviewed journal that published a rebuttal to Carlson that found in the favor of the astrologers? Thanks, the only rebuttal I know of was published in a sham journal that, IIRC, Jimbo Wales once had to explain to you was based on crackpot BS. Sædon^talk 01:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Saedon - you can look into the past as well as the future. You never stop amazing me. I remember this, and remember being struck by his genious of being able to re-analyse and completely reverse his position so quickly (after confessing to not know much about it). I just can't understand why, after years of open-minded exploration of this issue, I didn't understand that it was resolved there and then. Could it be that I'm more persuaded by the authority of Professor Emeritus Dr Suitbert Ertel who investigated with no axe to grind?

Carlson's paper was published 30 years ago when even Nature didn't have the criteria checking reputation it has now. There is no way in the world that young Carlson's experiment would stand up to modern statistical analysis, as Ertel demonstrated - or considered suitable in that journal now. Ertel's reputation made him to be a reliable source. The fact it, it was re-appraised and overturned in its findings by those who investigated it according to modern scientific methods. That's a notable point of controversy if we are going to report on it. As to my own opinion, I don't think that Carlson's findings, or Ertel's reappraisal carries any significance. A handful of astrologers were put under artificial conditions, and I don't hold the view that astrology is a purely objective practice. So actually, it's all a red herring, but I do so hate it when half-truths are told. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 02:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you get this garbage info about Nature but I'm assuming it's the same place you get your physics. Nature has been a respected publisher since its inception in the 19th century and had a rigorous review process in the 80s. The fact that you would attempt to discredit Nature while believing that something like SciEx is worth mentioning is quite telling on your part - it's beyond ridiculous. Further, Nature, like all real journals, retracts articles retrospectively if it is found that there are substantiated criticisms. So while Ertel may have moved you - an astrologer - he failed to actually convince other scientists of his position (i.e. people actually educated in statistics and analysis). I don't think I'll have to go far out on a limb here to assume that you've never actually studied statistics, and you have clearly shown that you do not have the expertise to comment on said analysis - it just happens to fit your pseudoscientific POV.

So your long-winded response to my simple request for you to point me to a reliable source that criticizes Carlson can be summed up as "I don't have one." Sædon^talk 21:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, you cannot logically say that astrology is unfalsifiable and also say that Carlson's experimental results (when "reinterpreted") may have supported astrology. If something is unfalsifiable, there can be no evidence for or against it. This is part of the nature of evidence. Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is correct - it raises a logical contradiction, which is why I gave my advise on how it can be resolved. In your earlier post you asked "Are you saying that as a principle it is impossible to test whether the positions of the planets affect humans?" So to clarify, no - I'm saying that the principle of astrology is not able to be falsified - certain elements of its theory and practice can be put to the test, but even if disputed these cannot falsify its principle. Thaggard is a good ref to read - the Zarka paper (ref 76 in the article) touches on the issue too. Popper Feyerabend and Thaggard are well known sources of discussion for the argument. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 02:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@Arc de Ciel, regarding the question of whether the positions of the planets "affect" humans, this is a point where scientists and other critics of astrology typically misunderstand or misrepresent modern astrology, which doesn't claim a causal connection. Such a view is generally incomprehensible to people whose understanding of reality is limited by empiricism. Of course for the article, this is irrelevant until somebody comes up with a reliable source that deals with this issue; but perhaps you will agree that it is helpful for editors on this page to be aware of the issue.--Other Choices (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources that discuss it, then that probably indicates that it is not worth discussing.

Please could editors stick to discussing the article and quit proselytising. Formerip (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but not probably on that basis alone. Unless the policies change, controversial and even disreputable theories, which no reliable sources endorse, can be discussed on the basis of notability. It's not proselytising to attempt to explain how this relates (or rather doesn't relate) to the astrological principle. Philosophers of science managed to figure this out, and they still determined astrology to be a pseudoscience - they did that by understanding and analysing the astrological argument, not by being ignorant of it. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@Other Choices: That's perfectly correct. If it hasn't been mentioned in reliable sources, it doesn't get mentioned in WP. You're catching on quick! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Better to be correct than quick. Your summary is not definite, but applies only where notability cannot be established. Please respond to the points above, or adhere to the policy requirement of WP:TALKNO and WP:BLPTALK, from which I quote -

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. ...The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages.

It would be helpful if you would demonstrate the willingness to adhere to WP policy, if you want to make posts here concerning it. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

aw hell, Zac, let the little stuff slide. That way you'll have more cred among outside editors when there's a big issue to deal with. [note to self: delete this post soon.]--Other Choices (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's that little thing I have, about the editorial policy of this page not being one I'd feel ashamed to be a part of. So until DV corrects or verifies what appears to be wholly unjustifiable negative insinuations against named living persons, in response to the complaint we've had about them and in line with WP policy, then I'm not willing to be a contributor to this page, and quite frankly couldn't give a fig about my cred amongst outside editors. I suggest you don't delete your post - it's a testimony to how editors here have become conditioned into thinking that its not OK to refer to the views of another editor as 'arrogant' but it's perfectly OK to entertain long passages of off-topic insulting insinuations when they concern the professional reputations of those involved in the study of this subject. I'll take this page off my watchlist for now. Let me know via my talk page if he, or anyone else, does shows any inclination to adhere to policy, by removing, deleting or oversighting the innapropriate remarks-- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to argue the point, but... it wouldn't surprise me if Sagittarius is prominent in your horoscope. Sometimes rigid adherence to high-minded principles simply isn't practical. I'll let you know if the general atmosphere on this talk page improves.--Other Choices (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Sædon^talk 02:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I will forgo replying to Zac and OC and ask my original question again (which has nothing to do with the validity or notability of the Carlson experiment). Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@Arc de Ciel, I offered an answer of sorts to your question on my talk page.

@Formerip, you and I don't know that there aren't any reliable sources with an accurate summary of what modern western astrologers actually believe. I hope you will agree that any such sources should be mentioned in the article.

--Other Choices (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify what question remains unanswered? The only one I understood was the one I replied to above (see last post in this diff. As you can see, my answer has nothing to do with the validity of Carlson either. Carlson is just a red-herring in the greater scheme of things. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Carlson's work has not been invalidated by any subsequent scholarship that I can see. I am discounting Ertel because I think he didn't publish his results. Correct me if I'm wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

To correct you Judith, Suitbert Ertel published his results in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is not deemed a reliable source for determining mainstream opinion. The methods and weighting approaches taken by Carlson were also refuted by psychologist Hans Eysenck and published in the Astrological Association's Journal. The reputations of both of these investigators are well established. We reference Eysenck as a critic of astrology, in ref 84 of the main article, and again in ref 85. His work is used to support the principle that belief in the accuracy of astrological reports "could be psychologically explained as a matter of cognitive bias.[84]. See our section on 'Cognitive bias'.

The problems with the earlier reports of the Carlson criticsms is that content did not adhere to WP:WEIGHT, but instead presented the findings of the reappraisal as if it had established a new mainstream position. That approach was obviously wrong. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

But none of this counts as "published". Publishing, for academics means academic publishing. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Carlson, eventually I'm going to suggest adding a little sentence something like, "The results of the Carlson experiment have been challenged in astrology and other fringe journals," with a reference citing Eysenck and Ertel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 11:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You would still need a reliable source substantially and seriously discussing the challenge and establishing the fact that it is considered significant within the scholarly community. Sourcing it to Eysenck and Ertel would violate WP:NOR. Even if such a source could be found, you would be obigated to give the mainstream reaction to Eysenck and Ertel's work per WP:WEIGHT.

As for them being recognized experts in their respective fields, it doesn't count for much if they are presenting a minority view. As a matter of fact, it works against them, as they had every opportunity to publish their work in real journals. The fact that they didn't is very strong evidence that the work was of insufficient quality to be accepted, and was therefore either rejected or not submitted because the were sure it was going to be rejected.

Scholars have a very powerful incentive to get their work published in real scholarly journals, where their work will be read and cited by other scholars in real scholarly journals. The most "objective" yardstick of a scientist's reputation is how many times they have been cited in real scholarly journals. It's always a major factor in professional advancement, especially tenure review or habilitation, and a very big factor in getting funding. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears the only reason you hold it with such authority is because it agrees with your POV I will reshow my earlier post: Your basis for an "authoritative" criticism of Carlson's test is by the same individual who is also a defender of the flawed Mar's effect which didn't adjust for the multiple comparisons and (which also failed independent verification where Gauquelin tried to get them to add/remove entries!). I also can not find any evidence that Suitbert is a statistical expert: In fact he appears to have done things that no statistician would do, including picking what to look at after the fact (remember those points raised by Zarka?). Note that Nature peer reviews the commentary section (Carlson states the review included a notable psychologist) as well. Suitbert's paper had no significant peer review since it was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration: A journal which does a poor job of sorting the wheat from the chaff. In fact some of Suitbert's claims on the study seem to be just plain wrong. See [2]. If you hold the journal of scientific exploration with such regard see this paper "JH McGrew et al, A scientific inquiry into the validity of astrology Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1990", which also found evidence against astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

For the most part astrologers make vague statements which are not falsifiable. When specific astrologers do make specific predictions in rigorous conditions they are shown to be at an ability no greater than that expected by chance. When the predictions thus fail they change the goal posts or make spurious claims as to why it failed. That is, the specific predictions can falsified, but there is no experiment that will cause astrologers to abandon their belief system, thus it is astrology as a whole which is not falsifiable and so it is not science. Note that astrologers hold on to their beliefs seemingly from Confirmation bias, they latch on to poor studies published in unreliable sources which agree with their biases. Also, bear in mind that there is no universal agreement amongst astrologers as to what astrology can predict Astrology#Lack_of_clarity, some stick to generic vague statements that are meaningless, while others agree to make specific predictions for the tests. I find a belief system that thinks there is "a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world" but can't make any predictions from that connection pointless but that is neither here nor there. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. :-) I think something like this is what is missing in the section. Arc de Ciel (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie, I'm not sure if your comment about "holding it with such authority" was in answer to me or to Zac. For my part, I haven't seen Eysenck or Ertel. I'll share my own views on Carlson in response to your post on my talk page, as time permits.

@DV, I wasn't planning on getting into the Carlson debate so soon, but the moment seems to have crept up on me, so...

(1) I don't think mention of Eysenck and Ertel violates WP:OR, as long as the proposed language clearly indicates that the sources in question aren't mainstream science. Both sources have an editorial review process, which meets the basic wikipedia criterion for reliable sources.

(2) WP:PARITY states that "views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on [a fringe topic] solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review." It seems to me that the views of adherents of astrology regarding the Carlson experiment should be given a brief mention in the astrology article (with an appropriate citation, of course), per WP:NPOV.

(3) Of course mainstream reaction to Eysenck and Ertel would also be in order. This could be easily achieved by amending my proposed sentence to read something like: "The Carlson experiment has been criticized in astrology and other fringe journals, but this criticism has been dismissed as groundless by the scientific community." (with references to the debunking of Eysenck and Ertel.) This way the readers of the article are made aware of the controversy, and will know where to look if they are interested in exploring the matter further.

--Other Choices (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is zero chance of us using a crap publication to criticize Nature - I'm surprised DV even entertained the thought and I have a feeling that if anything he was being hypothetical. I posted a link above to a conversation that Zac started with Jimbo on his talk page about these very sources - you should read through it.

You are misreading WP:PARITY; the point of that policy is to allow us to use less than stellar sources on subjects that don't have mainstream coverage in order to prohibit WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE views from being asserted uncontested. It is not an excuse to use bad sourcing to criticize mainstream, accepted science. Rather, the quote you used would allow us to use crap sourcing as a WP:PRIMARY representation of what certain groups think about themselves.

Lately this talk page has started to look like it did before the last round of astrology bannings. You and Zac need to give the arbcom pseudoscience ruling a better read and seriously start adhering to our policies on pseudoscience. The educated, mainstream academic world has rejected astrology for decades now and WP is not the place to push your fringe POVs. Sædon^talk 02:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Yes, it violates OR, because you need a reliable independent sources stating the Ertel and Eysenck's critiques are seriously considered in real-world scholarly discussions on the topic. We don't care what happens in-universe, unless it is discussed and commented upon by the real0world scholarly community. Also, both sources fail WP:RS by a mile. Neither can be considred a scholarly journal in any sense of the word. They have no credible academic editorial or peer review process. And to counter a an article in Nature, you need a real-world academic publication of similar credibility in the scientific community.

1) You're misquoting and cherry-picking WP:PARITY and come to a false conclusion. There is no period after the words "peer review". Notice the parts you left out:

"Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review, other considerations for notability should be considered as well.

Notability is the issue here. Who (outside of the fringe community) says Ertle and Eysenck's opinions are notable and part of the real-world scholarly discussion on Carlson's paper? In which independent reliable sources do they say this?

Like Saedon said, this is largely an hypothetical discussion, because of [[WP:WEIGHT]}. Nature and fringe astrological journals are so disparate in terms of scientific credibility that there is no justification for even briefly mentioning the latter unless they have been substantially discussed and commented on in real scientific publications. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@Arc de Ciel, I will attempt to clarify things when further working on the section. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Poorly referenced sections

The sections Astrology#Core_principles, Astrology#World_traditions and Astrology#History appear to be very poorly referenced and constructed with an over-reliance on primary and unreliable sources, and some synthesis thrown in too. I think their current poor state lets the article down the most. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph of the Core Principles and the first paragraph of the History especially stand out. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be wary of removing any of the content that fails verification because I suspect we won't be left with much of an article, note that there are appropriate tags such as: {{failed verification}}{{verify-inline}}{{cn}}{{syn}} etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

True. I've added the phrasing from the History of Astrology article, which contains the failed-verification source but does not seem as problematic. Arc de Ciel (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

An historian of science's report that the info given in the criticisms section of this article is "seriously wrong"

Two 'criticism' issues are obviously non-relevant and based on poor selection of content drawn from unreliable sources. See, for example, this report by Rebekah Higgitt, Curator of History of Science and Technology at the National Maritime Museum and the Royal Observatory, Greenwich:

“Astrology is rubbish”, but…

It clarifies that:

1. it is not astrologers who don't understand the issues of precession; but those who try to 'debunk' astrologers on this basis
2. Tyson's quote - which we give on this page - is historically incorrect and based on his own ignorance of the real facts

Since this page is supposed to offer content suitable for encyclopedic reference this unreliable/inaccurate content should be removed. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a blog. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I offered it as a source that will help editors here understand the concepts they are grappling with. We have a well respected historian of science here, clarifying which points of criticism are relevant and which are not, with explanations why. It also demonstrates what any informed reader will make with regard to the value and reliability of the main page content -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I liked Rebecca Higgit's post very much, and she is an expert writing in her blog, so arguably RS, although the recent spat in the UK needn't be given a whole lot of weight. Everything Higgit says has already been raised here. Scroll down to see Ken McRitchie canvassing for wiki edits. Not very edifying. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I think I get it. Astrology may be internally consistent but is still nonsense, since there's no evidence or even prior plausibility. It's an important distinction. TippyGoomba (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that even internal consistency is implied. The point is that there are good, rational reasons why astrology does not adhere to the principles of science, and why today's astrology is not considered to have any sort of scientific validity. This page should get rid of the poorly substantiated content which highlights the silly criticisms, known to be unfounded, and give its focus to the well grounded, intelligent reasons, based on good quality sources that make this page of interest to the public, researchers and scholars. Whether their interest is in understanding why astrology is "nonsense" in scientific terms, or why astrologers still value the subject even though scientists hold that opinion, the reader should be able to get to the relevant information here. Given the years of attention and thousands of edits that have been made to this page, why is it still full of content that does disservice to astrologers and rational skeptics alike? Every editor needs to stand back and question what the objective is - do we want a good page that gives its focus to the best of the arguments from all sides, or do we allow this page to be used to push personal agendas, whichever side they are coming from?

I think the fact that there is now about as much word count given to criticisms as the whole of the etymology, core principles, world traditions and history put together says something fairly obvious about a lack of balance and focus. It's also worrying that many of the criticisms are totally one-sided without inclusion of counter arguments -- Zac Δ ^talk! 20:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No doubt it's very worrying to the people that actually believe this nonsense. Too bad for them they can't get their "counter arguments" in anything but fringe journals. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, with regard to the counter arguments - I mean the reasons why astrologers don't find this worrying. I.e, why astrology continues to gain such a lot of interest, and why astrologers are not persuaded to 'give up their foolishness' regardless of what the scientists say, or however much the critics suggest they should be pittied for believing such nonsense. Remember that this is a 'top importance' article for the Wiki:Project Religion, and of high importance to the occult, and alternative views projects. Also the rational skepticism project. All these projects should have their interests properly reported. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out about your comment, "do we want a good page that gives its focus to the best of the arguments from all sides, or do we allow this page to be used to push personal agendas..." - There are no valid arguments from "all sides" about the validity of astrology. Just like there are no valid arguments from "all sides" about the validity of evolution. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, astrology is not a science (as you know) but a subject that involves matters of divination and belief (divination meaning holding divine communication). You might say that there are no valid arguments from "all sides" about the validity of Christianity, but as you will see, the article explains what Christians believe. Those rules apply here too. You can only suggest that this subject has no validity in scientific terms. You cannot say that it has no validity outside of scientific terms, a point that the most credible sources are careful to make -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a whole subsection on that: Astrology#Cognitive_bias. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a whole subsection on a scientific proposal that their belief is down to an assumption of affect based on cognitive bias; this does not present the astrological argument for why astrologers believe there is something persuasive about astrology, whatever the 'measured' effect. It doesn't move beyond the issue of sun signs, or outside of natal studies either.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing gets reported without independent reliable sources. Just because you consider it "religion" or "occult" or "alternative view" does not mean that WP:RS does not hold. Review WP:ARBPS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You are the last person to talk about what gets reported without independent reliable sources. I suggest you redact/delete/remove the deliberately insulting and potentially defamatory remarks you have made on this page against living persons, in your edits here, here, and especially here, and here. Until you do, your reminders of WP policy are nothing more than a joke. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your attempt to avoid the substance behind DV's post by bringing up non sequitur BLP violations is transparent ad hominem. If you think he's violated WP:BLP then take him to a noticeboard or drop it because it just comes off as WP:HARASSMENT otherwise; this is at least the third time I've seen you bring this up for no reason at all when you refuse to actually do anything about it. And when you start using phrases like "potentially defamatory" it comes off as a borderline legal threat meant to chill discussion, see WP:NLT. Sædon^talk 23:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me make this clear to you Saedon so you know where I’m at. For as long as a policy-violating editor allows those comments to remain - purely for the purpose of issuing insulting remarks about living persons - I will remind him that he should give consideration to the content that he reports without independent reliable sources before suggesting that I need to check the policies that relate to that. It is not a one-off occasion, he has done this repeatedly. So if you want to take this to a noticeboard then do. I would rather be blocked or banned myself than continue to contribute to something that is ridiculed with hypocrisy and double standards. Of course he could very easily remove/delete/redact those remarks. His refusal to do so means that everytime he comments on this page, he stands by what he wrote before -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It likely means that he doesn't agree that it's a policy violation (nor do I; BLP doesn't prohibit an editor expressing his opinion on someone and calling someone a crank is obviously an expression of opinion. Can I be blocked for calling GWB a terrible president?). It's been a while, you've called attention to it on more than one occasion and no admin has blocked him or asked that he remove it (and many watch this page). None the less it's irrelevant, what DV said above is either true or not regardless of any previous infraction - real or imagined. Constantly bringing it up is indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset. I've asked an admin whether your behavior here as of late is WP:DE enough to warrant an WP:AE filing under WP:ARBPS and will file if I get the green light to do so. I guess we'll see what happens within a few days. Sædon^talk 00:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Zac has been asked on at least two occasions to not use this choice of words (I'm not even sure defamation is much of an issue in the US per United States defamation law). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Who cares what the law has to say - I chose that word carefully as a matter of principle: defamatory: 'injurious to someone's name or reputation' (to 'de-fame' someone). The remarks are certainly defamtory, the word 'potentially' is the one that wasn't necessary. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please point out what Tyson said that was incorrect. Also, we already discuss the precession issue in the article, noting that some forms of astrology compensate for it. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The content in the precession section is entirely flawed and that whole section should go for being nothing more than redundant, innapplicable criticism. Start with this remark in the 'Precession' criticism section:

The tropical zodiac avoids the issue with precession.

The tropical zodiac does not avoid the issue of precession. It addresses it.

From that you have written:

Sole usage of the tropical zodiac is inconsistent with references made, by the same astrologers, to the Age of Aquarius which is dependent on when the vernal point enters the constellation of Aquarius

No it isn't. First of all, use of the tropical zodiac for the measurement of planetary arrangements and fixed stars does not in any way prevent astrologers from drawing a meaning from alignments between planets are constellations or stars - so what does this phrase "Sole usage of the tropical zodiac" mean ?

Secondly, the use of the tropical zodiac addresses the issue of precession, which creates the phenomenom of the vernal point sliding through the constellations. That is the entire point of the principle of astrological ages - it is not inconsistent with it, it is the reason for it. This criticism relies on falsely implying that astrologers who use the tropical zodiac only recognise the signs as if the observable constellations don't actually exist. It is garbage. The zodiac signs are a measurement system by which the planets stars and constellations are located. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the connection with this to Tyson. If you want to make a different point I can address it by changing the content etc, but make a different section so everything isn't jumbled. Tyson didn't talk about precession. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with Tyson is that he might know his own subject but he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to this one. I suggest you read the content of the article we have sourced his remarks to, and note the comment that precedes our quoted remarks:

Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist who heads the Hayden Planetarium in New York, noted astrology was discredited 600 years ago with the birth of modern science. "To teach it as though you are contributing to the fundamental knowledge of an informed electorate is astonishing in this, the 21st century," he said.

Then read the Rebekah Higgitt report where she says that to imply that astrology was discredited 600 years ago "is seriously wrong on the history". She blasts other reporters for making that suggestion. Where do they get it from? This comment of Tysons. Why should his comment or the school's response be a matter of interest for this page anyway? So there is a school of astrology - so what? ?

I wouldn't speculate too far since those aren't Tyson's own words on the matter, but the news reporters. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

On this point by Zac above: "I think the fact that there is now about as much word count given to criticisms as the whole of the etymology, core principles, world traditions and history put together says something fairly obvious about a lack of balance and focus", I think we have the opposite problem. We don't have enough well referenced and clear material about the core principles, history etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we don't have enough well referenced and clear material about the core principles and history of astrology. The obvious remedy is to use Tester's and Whitfield's histories of astrology. I have a copy of Whitfield on order, but I'm in Asia so no idea when it's going to show up. Regarding Zac's complaint about the article's inclusion of inaccurate criticism of astrology by scientists, I agree that some of the sources currently used (and the strident way that they are presented, using wikipedia's voice to cram the view down the reader's throat) just make wikipedia editors look ignorant. However, I realize that they ARE reliable sources and reflect mainstream "scientific" opinion about astrology. Of course, as wikipedia editors it's not the truth that counts, it's what the reliable sources say; but the article as written strongly takes the sides of the scientific debunkers; perhaps the scientific appraisal section should be more neutrally worded.--Other Choices (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:VALID, the opinion of scientists, on the merits of astrology is near universally negative. It would be non-neutral if we tilted things away from all of the sources. My edits themselves are by no means perfect, but discussion on very specific content (not general comments, and without any hostility) will lead to improvement. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought I would put your apparent commitment towards improvement to the text by making two very small edits that obviously improved the report based on a reliable source. But true to past form, you have reverted, just as every attempt I have made to input into main page content has been reverted, without any concern for how it improves the article content. You seem to believe that the article is under your personal ownership and I must ask your permission to make an edit myself. I would like to have your reasons, properly explained, as to why you are not allowing minor amendments that clarify that we are reporting on what authors have said, not tryiong to verify them ourselves. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No one here should be so arrogant as to presume to know the "truth" on a topic which doesn't even have clear boundaries. Some editors here have (in the past obviously) thought that truth is being served by making sure all the coverage of this topic is twisted and biased, and that none of its own logic may be presented. So I agree we should step out of trying to be agents of "truth" and rely on what the reliable sources say. But many of the sources used in the modern scientific appraisal section are not reliable on the details they report on this topic, because they aim to debunk! the subject and only focus on poorly reported, exaggerated criticisms. Then these unreliably reported points are cherry picked from one debunking account to another, so that it is possible put together a section that is wholly unreliable, but said to be reliable because its points have been referenced to material written by physicicsts and astronomers. How more reliable can we be than to use sources from the trusted legitimate sciences? We shouldn't worry that these are the two groups that have most hostility towards this subject and want to see an end to it. Astronomers then wouldn't have to worry about getting called astrologers by mistake, and physicists wouldn't have to have to deal with something that claims to have a metaphysical basis. To give a reliable account on a topic that is not claiming a purely physicial mechanism, and which is not to be confused with astronomy, because its purpose is different, we should be building from the objective reports of philosophers of science and historians of science. They are not pro the subject, but their criticisms have been properly considered and so their conclusions carry weight. We need no more than one account of a statement by a notable physicist and a notable astronomer to demonstrate their dissaproval of the subject. Building half the page's content on why one after another of them doesn't approve of the subject, makes the need to cricise and condemn look desperate. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have spent most of my edits moving away from what specific individuals have said, and only giving the odd quote for emphasis. I do think that the Tyson and Hawking quotes don't contribute much in their present form but they do have exceptional weight from sheer notability. I was considering developing and integrating them into future expansion as currently they just sit disconnected from anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I've moved them for the present. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Move precesssion explanation into the 'world traditions' section, and rename that section 'Divergence of systems'

For reasons I have outlined above, I suggest moving the precession comments into a new section. We could call it 'Divergence of systems' and then use it to explain the problems of precession properly and how this leads to a difference between tropical and sidereal zodiacs. The dilemmas and problems precession creates, and the criticisms that astrology attracts because of this, can then be naturally presented in their proper context, rather than looking like a collection of put downs from sceptics which don't stand up to scrutiny. This would then lead naturally into the approaches taken by different cultures, one major division being the choice of zodiac division that they adopt. So I would suggest that this comes before the material we already have on 'world traditions', and that the subheader 'Divergence of systems' makes a better subheader for that section anyway. In the meantime I will make some edits in the precession section, and tag the comments that need more evaluation. -- Zac Δ talk! 11:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have mentioned above, the tropical zodiac issue isn't what draws the criticism from the sources used in relation to precession. It also highlights the arbitrariness of the tropical zodiac in that it doesn't correspond to the stars, but an arbitrary segmentation unrelated to it. I have renamed the section and will change the focus. I think a section clarifying precession etc and the tropical zodiac can be done independently of this section. That is why I changed the header, astrologers still mess up in taking account of precession when making statements, see the quote. That is why I propose renaming the section. E.g Elizabeth Teissier who claimed that "the sun ends up in the same place in the sky on the same date each year". IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This whole paragraph needs to be either removed (as non-relevant, non-notable), or it should be balanced by reference to more informed reports which point out that precession has been known about and accomadated for since the time of the Greeks. Also, that the accumulated difference in celestial longitude is about 1° every 72 years - since we are talking about astrological measurements. (FYI, astrologers who use 'precession-corrected' return charts factor this difference in, others claim that it's not necessary because the position of the Sun at birth remains the significantly symbolic one).

Georges Charpak and Henri Broch claimed to have "dismantled claims from parapsychology and astrology" in their book Debunked! ESP, Telekinesis, and other Pseudoscience.[88] They argued that astrologers have only a small knowledge of astronomy and that often do not take into account basic features such as the precession of the equinoxes which would change the position of the sun with time; they commented on the example of Elizabeth Teissier who claimed that "the sun ends up in the same place in the sky on the same date each year" as the basis for claims that two people with the same birthday but a number of years apart should be under the same planetary influence. Charpak and Broch noted that "there is a difference of about twenty-two thousand miles between Earth's location on any specific date in two successive years" and that thus they should not be under the same influence according to astrology. Over a 40 years period there would be a difference greater than 780,000 miles.[89]

All this paragraph does is cease an opportunity to report a debunking claim without explaining what the relevant issues are. Cherry picking criticsms without allowing report of the astrological argument that answers those criticsms is not adhering to WP:UNDUE, it's breaking it here, on a page dedicated to the explanation of a fringe subject -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Do to the concerns about the neutrality of this article, and various concerns expressed about its sources from several editors I am returning the tag that admits the article's issues of concern. We are not in a position yet to suggest that this article is free of bias and relies on sources that are free of concern, and we need input from other, previously uninvolved editors here. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Which exact statement is not reliably sourced. WP:RSN also exists as you are aware. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

" You have raised concerns about sources not being reliable yourself", no I didn't. Do not misrepresent what I stated. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Further, you stated above "I thought I would put your apparent commitment towards improvement to the text by making two very small edits that obviously improved the report based on a reliable source. But true to past form, you have reverted". You attributed a statement to Charpack that he did not say. Your other source is not reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please specify what I attributed to Charpak that he didn't say. Norman Davidson's book is a reliable source - initiate discussion on RSN if you think not - note that I have not removed any content, even where I have proposed the sources are not reliable and the synth activity that brings them together creates significant problems.

There are many issues here to address. Please stop changing subheaders in an attempt to mask the problems and stop removing a necessary tag that points out the problems we are having. Is this article to be subject to improvement or not? I need to go out now. I suggest that we start working towards these issues slowly and collaboratively, and make requests for input from other uninvolved editors in the projects connected to this page. I think that should happen straightaway but don't know how to do that. If you or someone else does, can you please initiate the process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs)

Note that the Charpack source is printed in an academic press and Charpack himself is a Noble prize winning physicist, recognized by Nature for this same book. Your addition here is problematic: "Georges Charpak and Henri Broch claimed to have "dismantled claims from parapsychology and astrology"". They did not claim this, Nature did. Further, your addition is from this source which is from a publisher that "sees the world a little different" with its topics on "organics, holistic health, mind body spirit, child development, alternative education, religion, and spirituality" and has books for the perspective of every pseudoscience you wish (including a book claiming mistletoe cures cancer). We'll leave claims that it addresses astronomical issues to astronomical sources as it is self evidently unreliable for that. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

I have requested arbitration enforcement against Zachariel for his persistent disruption of astrology articles. Today's edit war was the last straw. Skinwalker (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not 'edit-warred' today, Skinwalker, and I very much doubt that you have even bothered to read through the discussions that have taken place over the last few days. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

For quick reference...

13:08, 16 July 2012‎ Mann jess (talk | contribs)‎ . . (92,501 bytes) (-67)‎

13:04, 16 July 2012‎ Zachariel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (92,568 bytes) (+67)‎

12:45, 16 July 2012‎ Dominus Vobisdu (talk | contribs)‎ . . (92,501 bytes) (-67)‎

12:43, 16 July 2012‎ Zachariel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (92,568 bytes) (+67)‎

12:36, 16 July 2012‎ IRWolfie- (talk | contribs)‎ . . (92,501 bytes) (-67)‎

12:26, 16 July 2012‎ Zachariel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (92,568 bytes) (+67)‎

TippyGoomba (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Theological criticism

The modern Jewish view should also get some mention in this section, with a wikilink to the article we have about it: Jewish views on astrology
MakeSense64 (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering the other article is an unmitigated disaster, content for this article would probably need to be done from scratch. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the attempt to changing the title of this section from 'Theological criticisms' to 'Theological viewpoints'. It is obviously an attempt to mask the fact that you are systematically removing all sensible and objective information and are only interested in developing a thoroughly biased account of this subject using poor quality, unreliable and uninformed sources - according to your theory that astrological information cannot come from astrological sources, but criticism can come from any crappy source. No doubt you will revert my edit instantly, having bullied all editors off this page except those that have shown their proven bias and hostily. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no call for your continual incivility on this talk page, focus on content not editors. Considering I've removed little from this article beyond the education section I fail to see how I'm "removing all sensible and objective information". If you think the theological section is overly focused on criticism, then get some reliable sources and add more content. Which "poor quality, unreliable and uninformed" are you referring to? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep this brief as I've already stated I wish to have no involvement with the disreputatble editing that is going on here under the name of WP policies. You are abusing WP to suit your own purpose. I've tried to raise logial objections but the bullying tactices ensure they are all a waste of time. No need to repeat - I've made my views clear enough. Just don't be so false as to rename a criticisms section 'viewpoints', to try to cover up for the fact that, really, your editorial interest is in steering the whole article into one long criticism of the subject, and reducing non-critical content, or details of its principles, by trying to pretend the refs are inadequate when they are prefectly reliable refs for non-controversial summaries of the subject. Oh I'm sure you'll leave the Indian and Chinese world view sections alone, and probably the historical material will be safe so long as it is bland and doesn't go into any of the significant philosophical issues. You're already well on the way now that you've removed the connection between Ptolemy's and Kepler's work. And if you can't see how basing your criticisms section on half-informed non-substantiated sources like The Cosmic Perspective is pretty crappy for such weighty issues, then I'm sure nothing I have to say will persuade you otherwise. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using it as a WP:TERTIARY source for broad statements (and as a reference for a quote) as I have done. You appear to expect tertiary sources to look like secondary sources. Tertiary sources aren't expected to get into the nuts and bolts of the issues but provide general statements. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? The Cosmic Perspective is an undergraduate textbook...you know, those things that they use to teach students astronomy. You're saying that college textbooks are "half-informed non-substantiated?" Why, because like all other scientific sources it points out that astrology is silly? Sorry to be the one to break it to you but outside of intro, astrology is never mentioned in astronomy classes again. We won't be using graduate level sources since no one at the graduate level mentions astrology (and if you did you should expect to be ridiculed by your peers and professors). Sædon^talk 19:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a short list of schools that have decided The Cosmic Perspective is informed and substantiated enough to use it to teach their students in lou of using astrology sources: UC Santa Cruz, Georgia State University, University of Washington, Syracuse University, Rice University, Colorado University (a school renowned for their astronomical research), San Diego State University, etc, etc, etc. I could literally probably list another 20 schools if I decided to go past page 1 of google results. So yes, Zac, TCP, if reliable enough for universities is beyond reliable enough for Wikipedia. If you can't see this then you are failing to understand Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Appropriate_sourcesand Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Serious_encyclopedias. Sædon^talk 19:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It is used in universities as a source of information on astronomy, not astrology, a subject to which it gives a miniscule amount of coverage (couple of pages and a couple of straggling remarks in an 800+ page work) and of which the authors clearly know little and are not qualified to be used as authorities. This is self-evident to anyone who knows more than a basic beginner's level knowledge of astrology.

The box on 'sun signs' for example, p.41, gives a ridiculous self-contradictory 'clarification' of what sun-signs are, telling us that the sun signs are actually "based on the the position of the Sun among the stars described by Ptolemy in his book Tetrabiblos". Turn to any reliable source or the book itself (still widely available) - Ptolemy's book states the exact opposite and properly explains that the astrological signs are not based on the Sun's position among the stars, but on the mathematical division of the ecliptic, as defined by its shifting intersection across the equator.

To use an uninformed text like this as a source of encyclopedic information on astrology is as shameless as building encyclopedic information on astronomy from some brief commentary in an astrology cook-book. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You appear to presume that astrology only means your specific astrological beliefs. For example, not all astrologers follow Ptolemy's system (e.g the Hindu and sidereal astrology). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your assumption, not my presumption. They don't use the tropical zodiac which is what Ptolemy describes. This just proves how unreliable and uninformed that source is. It supposedly clarifies a 'common misconception' by stating what the signs are supposed to be according to Ptolemy but it is absolutely wrong, even in its most fundamental point. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the issue, 3.5 of tetrabiblios seems to discuss sun signs: [3]. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

And I can't tell what you are unsure about from your link to a whole chapter of an early victorian translation. You are probably in the wrong place anyway. Try this, from the more authoritative Robbins translation. It says:

...it is reasonable to reckon the beginnings of the signs also* from the equinoxes and solstices, partly because the writers make this quite clear, and particularly because from our previous demonstrations we observe that their natures, powers, and familiarities take their cause from the solstitial and equinoctial starting-places, and from no other source. For if other starting-places are assumed, we shall either be compelled no longer to use the natures of the signs for prognostications or, if we use them, to be in error, since the spaces of the zodiac which implant their powers in the planets would then pass over to others and become alienated.

(*that is, as well as other things that are reckoned from the equinoxes, etc)

Or, for a reliable secondary source see. This is the reason why the criticisms of astrologers not using or understanding precession are mere fabrications of skeptics, based on reference to crap sources like the one we're talking about here. Astrologers well understand what precession is and the issues it raises. They select to use the tropical zodiac or the sidereal zodiac based on different methodology and definition. Those who follow the western tradition follow the logic of Ptolemy. This is what the authors of the Cosmic Perspective refer to when they get it completely wrong.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Cosmic Perspective says Tetrabiblios section 3.5 (presumably book 3 chapter 5 or whatever is appropriate); so it appears you have linked to the wrong book and chapter of Tetrabiblios that is referenced by the Cosmic perspective. Furthermore, the cosmic perspective (pg 41) is not saying that Ptolemy supported sun signs or that Tetrabiblios advocated for sun signs. It is merely saying that sun sign astrology took the information from there, pretty much the same as is what is said in the first paragraph of Sun_signs#Sun_sign_astrology and Sun_sign_astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Book 3, ch 5 has no connection to the issue at all - another demonstration of why the book is utterly uninformed and unreliable for this purpose. I quoted the crucial point the book makes above, which is the (incorrect) assertion that signs are defined, according to Ptolemy, by reference to stars. You seem to want to defend a blatant and uncontroversial mistake, even after saying "I'm not sure I see the issue". Under normal circusmtances I would question why you would want to keep critical content that relies upon references to a an obviously unreliable source, even when you have full knowledge of how falsely it reports the facts of interest to this topic. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a case of WP:IDHT, I'm not going to dignify it with a further response since I've already addressed it above. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No you haven't. This is a matter of concern for the content of this page and I have explained the issue very clearly. If you want to maintain your argument that the source is not unreliable, then please show how their reference to Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos 3.5 supports their assertion:

"The astrological sun signs are based on the positions [sic] of the Sun among the stars described by the Greek scientist Ptolemy in his book Tetrabiblios [sic] [section 3.5], which was written in about A.D. 150"

-- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think you can find support for your odd assertions vis a vis astronomy textbooks then take it to WP:RSN so that a new group of editors can tell you what you've been told here countless times regarding sourcing. Either way I'm done having these stupid argument with you, it's a complete waste of time; like arguing with a creationist. Sædon^talk 21:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok I will spell it out again. The source does not state that Ptolemy believed in sun sign astrology, it states that newspaper astrologers created a simpler astrology based on sun signs as described here [4] (for reasons unknown you sent a link to section 22 of book 1, no 3,5). I will highlight that again, for emphasis it does not say that Ptolemy used a simpler sun sign system or advocated one: not Ptolemy. The source also does not state that Ptolemy described sun signs in this section, what it does states that the sun signs are based on the positions described in the work in that section. See the difference? It states that later newspaper astrologers looked at tetrabiblios and based their sun signs from it. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You have problems with your spelling too. No one is talking about belief in sun-signs (!) I can only imagine you have introduced that suggestion to evade the point.

• Have you read that link you've just given? - please provide any comment from that section that has any relevance to this matter under discussion.

As I have said, the authors have got their facts wrong, and are so ignorant of what they are talking about that they can't even provide a reference to back it up (looks like they just made one up, relying on the fact that if they can't be bother to check the point in Ptolemy's crusty old text, the likes of you and the rest of their readers won't do that either).

• The authors are not talking about belief in sun signs, but what should be the correct definition of what they call the "Sun signs", and how the issue of precession impacts on it.

If you maintain they are talking about belief in sun signs please give any quote from their text that provides any sort of implication that this is a matter that concerns belief rather than definition.

Also note that they are talking about the definition of what the likes of you and their readers will call a sun sign - ie, a zodiac sign. The idea of 'sun signs' is completely alien to the work of Ptolemy or astrologers of that generation and most astrologers don't use that term to describe the zodiac signs, knowing that they are only 'sun signs' when describing the zodiac position of the sun and nothing else. A reliable source would not do this.

• Again, this is what they say:

"The astrological sun signs are based on the positions [sic] of the Sun among the stars described by the Greek scientist Ptolemy in his book Tetrabiblios [sic] [section 3.5], which was written in about A.D. 150"

Are you saying that it is a correct and reliable to define a zodiac sign (or 'sun sign' if you like) as being based on the position of the Sun among the stars - yes or no?

A particular zodiacal sign is defined by what constellations was in a particular segment in Ptolemy's time. Did these not give the astrological signs their names, is this not what they were based on? That the constellations have since moved with respect to the zodiacal sign doesn't change their origins. The source is also careful to say that "When astrology began a few thousand years ago, your sun sign was supposed to represent the constellation in which the sun appeared on your birth date", is this not true when astrology began? What the source also does say is that the zodiac signs are out of line from their namesakes, that this is irrelevant for the tropical zodiac or not appears to be also irrelevant. If anything, the section is trying to clear up the misconception that the sun signs are related to the constellations that are their namesakes. Further, from what I see in Sun sign astrology is a subset of the full astrological beliefs that names them sun signs because they are considering only the sun (the source talks about the newspapers in the sentence or so above). I'm not an expert on astrology, and thus my reasoning may be flawed, but that is why I am deferring to the reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk)

You say: "A particular zodiacal sign is defined by what constellations was in a particular segment in Ptolemy's time?"

No. I will have to make this my last post for the sake of my real life. (I'll make one quick reply to Saedon first) The reason why this point is referred to Ptolemy is that he clarifies that the definition of the signs has nothing to do with the location of the stars or constellations. He clarifies that the positions of the signs move over time, so the constellations that lay behind the signs in his day would not be expected to lay behind them in ours. Tropical signs are based on a purely mathematical 12-fold dvision of the 360 degrees of the ecliptic, starting from the vernal point (intersection of ecliptic and equator). Since it was well known to Ptolemy and his earlier sources that the vernal point moves in respect to the constellations, he is making it clear that a particular sign is not defined by the constellations (of his time, or any other). They share the same names because at the time they were mathematically established those constellations could provide a very rough and approximate to where the sign divisions would be. A matter of convenience for that generation, and only reluctance to alter traditional practice has meant that the names remain the same. Astrologers and astronomers in the past didn't get confused between references to signs and constellations because they knew by context what was being meant. The Rebekah Higgit post explains this, and I suggest following the links she recommends. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly equivalent to what I said. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not. Whilever you (or your sources) try to define a tropical zodiac sign by reference to constellations instead of a 12-fold mathematical division of a 360° circle then you are getting it wrong.

1. The Cosmic Perspective is an unreliable for reference to this matter. For astronomy matters it may be fine but it is not suitable for this subject and leads to the confusion like we are presenting within our content. I have pointed out how the first point it raises has a fundamental error; it also has a grammatical mistake, a spelling mistake and a wrong reference all within the same misleading sentence. I note that you haven't been able to extract any content from the reference it gave that relates to this matter. It would be a waste of your time to try to find one. It isn't there because the source is unreliable.
2. If your point is the same as mine then why does the section on 'Modern scientific appraisal' contain a lengthy subsection on precession, as if this is a matter of discovery by modern scientists rather than being an historical element of astrology that accounts for a divergence of systems? Why does it still say that astrologers "do not take into account basic features such as the precession of the equinoxes"? and that the tropical zodiac "avoids the issue with precession"? Why does it contain rubbish about 'empty boxes'? We may as well say the year has 12 empty boxes called months, which have nothing to do with anything and are devoid of correspondence with the stars. But they are not. There are 12 months because there are 12 moons (lunations) within one solar year - defined from the Sun's return to the vernal point from one year to the next. Astrology is fundamentally about understanding qualities attached to moments of time: and meaning is attached to hours, days, months and years. It is only in the last 400 years that the English calendar stopped being directly defined by the astronomical divisions that determine the zodiacal signs and in many cultures their calendar is still directly established by it. The stars and constellations are then brought into tropical astrology in the analysis of what the 'temper' of any time is.
3. The precession section is flawed from beginning to end, because it is relying on a sensational and unreliable Debunked! book for its source. You've read the report that science historian Rebekah Higgitt has given, about why accounts like this are doing a disservice to astronomers, sceptics and fans of science, and "showing themselves to be completely ignorant of their own history".

Precession is an important topic and ought to be properly discussed by reference to good sources to explain what the issues and arguments are. It creates a significant dilemma for astrologers, and so it is a problematic issue, but not for any of the reasons that are given on our page. The issues are misplaced by being in the modern scientific appraisal section. Whilever they remain in that section they only thing they highlight is how sceptics have used this issue as an inappropriate way and how modern astronomers keep misinforming the public by pretending that western zodiac signs ought to be matched up to constellations-- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Precession should be covered properly, and certainly the difference between Western and Indian approaches should be clear. You know I said I liked the Higgit piece, but it is only one recent opinion. We can't assume it represents the opinion of all historians of science. Astronomers misinform the public, do they? More than astrologers? This is an encyclopedia, or an attempt at one, please don't waste our time. Of course astronomers perform a useful service when they remind people that the zodiac signs don't match to the constellations. Everyone from every scholarly social science, natural science or humanities perspective agrees that astrology must be debunked. They just disagree about how. While historians remind us that "nonsense in 2012" does not equate to "nonsense in 1312", the converse also applies, i.e. "sense in 1312" does not mean "sense in 2012". Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the cosmic perspective isn't in use in the Precession section, so I don't see the relevance of mentioning it; I have no idea why you are concerned with this unused page of a book, that is also not used to talk about precession. Secondly, yes I am aware that the tropical zodiac as used now is not in reference to the constellation (see the start of the second paragraph). Further, read the section on precession, it's not about the historical issues of the tropical zodiac, but about continued misconceptions of astrologers in relation to basic statements they make, I added a quote for emphasis.

The Debunked book acknowledges that the tropical zodiac is not defined in reference to the stars, in fact they make a point of saying this. i.e the source doesn't say that the tropical zodiac is an example that astrologers don't know about precession, but it doesn't mean that all modern astrologers demonstrate or have an understanding of precession. I have clarified this point in the article recently as it was previously incorrect; by my mistake, not the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

To bring this back on topic. I agree with @IRWolfie that Jewish views on astrology is a disaster of an article, but when I put it in AfD recently it was kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish views on astrology. If it notable enough to have a standalone article then there is good reason to give it mention in the theological views section here. For now I have just added a See also to the section. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

20th and 21st century

We need to rewrite this section (I already made some changes to more neutral wording), as it is far too specific for our general article about astrology. The specifics can find a place in the more detailed article about History of astrology, here we only need some more general info about the 20th century and 21st century, as is the case in the two history sub-sections that come before it. If we mention new developments in Western astrology (midpoints and astrocartography are now mentioned here), then will we also list new techniques in Indian or Chinese astrology? And what is the example of Ronald Reagan's astrologer doing here? We also have the lede talking about popular revival because of New Age in the 20th century, but no mention about this in the body of the article. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have just been bold and tried to sanitize that subsection.MakeSense64 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added two paragraphs which were removed when they were commented out, they appear reliably sourced. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. But being reliably sourced does not automatically mean it belongs here in this general article about "astrology". The tidbit about Ronald Reagan's astrologer is an example of politicians consulting astrologers, for which you can find many well sourced cases. Here is another BBC news source with examples of using astrology in politics: [5]. You can also find sources for Hitler and Churchill using astrologers. I think that they better belong in Cultural influence of astrology, where we could make a section about influence in politics. Maybe we can also make a small section about the cultural influence here. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a section on cultural influence is a good idea. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Hartmann, Reuter and Nyborg paper - ref 59

Ref 59 supports the statement "Astrology is a pseudoscience". I have checked the paper and it does not make this definition or deny the possibility of astrology. I will quote from the intro and conclusion (with my embolding to show how the ref does not support the content):

From the Intro -1.3. Astrology

Several reviews of the literature on astrology (Dean, Nias, & French, 1997; Eysenck & Nias, 1982) show, in general, little support for any claim of an effect of astrology. As highlighted by Dean et al. (1997), the effect sizes of astrologer’s judgment amount to no more than 0.05, indicating very little practical relevance of astrology. When astrological effects are in fact observed, they usually can be explained better by non-astrological factors like the Barnum effect (i.e. the ‘‘. . .tendency for people to identify with personality descriptions of a general and vague nature. . .’’) or by acquaintance with Sun Signs and so on (Eysenck & Nias, 1982, p. 43). More recently, Clarke, Gabriels, and Barnes (1996) conducted a study on the effect of astrology in a sample of 190 subjects, testing two hypotheses. First, subjects born with the sun, moon and/or ascendant in positive signs (or the masculine gender) will be more extraverted than subjects born with these planets in the negative signs (feminine gender). Second, subjects born with the three planets in water signs will be more emotional than subjects born in non-water signs (confer with Table 1 showing which Sun Signs correspond to which Elements and astrological gender). Several t-tests indicated that subjects born with the sun and the moon in positive signs (masculine gender) were in fact more extraverted than subjects born with the sun and moon in negative signs. However, the significant p-values (about 0.03) would loose their significance had the authors used the Bonferroni correction to compensate for multiple testing. Based on these results we did not expect to find relevant relationships between astrology (Sun Signs, Elements and astrological gender) and individual differences in general intelligence and personality.

From the conclusion:

Our findings on astrology concord in general with the reviews of the research literature (Dean et al., 1997; Eysenck & Nias, 1982). In fairness, the present study cannot falsify astrology at large since the position of planets other than the sun might also have an effect. However, as pointed out by Eysenck and Nias (1982, p. 31 and 49) if there is some truth to astrology then some general effects of prominent astrological factors like Sun Signs should be detectable using large enough samples. The present large-scale study certainly found no independent effects of Sun Signs, Elements, or gender, and thus yields no support for the common claims of astrology.

There is good content to be built from this paper, but it doesn't support what is being said on our page. Our content needs to reflect what this source says - we don't use the source to qualify an OR assertion that the authors have not made. There is no reference to astrology being a pseudoscience in this paper; nor is there any implication that the researcher's don't take the subject seriously enough to consider it worthy of investigation (the paper shows the opposite). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The paper is Hartmann, P; Reuter M, Nyborga H (May 2006). The relationship between date of birth and individual differences in personality and general intelligence: A large-scale study. Personality and Individual Differences 40 (7): 1349–1362. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.017 -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It says it in the first paragraph of the introduction. See "The second strategy was based on the (pseudo-scientific) concept of astrology (e.g. Sun Signs, The Elements, and astrological gender), as discussed in the book Astrology: Science or superstition? by Eysenck and Nias (1982)." As a result I will remove the tag. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I was looking for some explanation of astrology being a pseudoscience, which is what I expect when an assertion is made and then given reference to a reliable source. But there is no discussion of that at all in this paper. I'd suggest that the paper is a good one, and gives a reliable account of the situation and the experiments that are still ongoing, so it's a shame that it is being used in a way that doesn't really relate to what the authors have to say.

@ Tippy - yes, I have expressed my view before that the 2nd ref is not a credible one to use for such an important point. It pulls down the worth of the first reference, which is a good one. I think ref 58 should go, and personally think ref 59 does nothing to support the comment. However, it's a credible paper so if it's purpose is only to show that astrology has been termed "pseudo-scientific" then perhaps its helpful to keep it until we find a better one that carries more weight for that definition and explains the issues clearly. In any case, all mutliple refs should be united into one, especially when we are using RP tages for page refs-- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you say Charpak is unreliable because he outlines exactly why it is a pseudoscience; you claim it's unreliable because you say it's debunking. Now when a source just plainly states that its pseudoscience without listing reasons, you claim it's not reliable. "if it's purpose is only to show that astrology has been termed "pseudo-scientific" then perhaps its helpful to keep it until...": it exactly supports the text, there is no "until" , it just is reliable, that is all. There should be zero expectation for it to explain why its astrology is a pseudoscience because it's not being used to source any explanation of why astrology is a pseudoscience. There is no expectation that a reliable source give a full justification of everything it states. For example, if a book on the history of Abraham Lincoln includes when he was born, we don't necessarily expect to see the justification for how they arrived at that conclusion. Your comments are at odds with wikipedia guidelines on reliable sourcing and, quite frankly, puzzling. The expectation that you can look through their arguments and decide has the look of WP:OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am also puzzled by all of this. The statement "Astrology is a pseudoscience" has such overwhelming support in reliable sources that satisfying its verifiability requirements borders on citing the sky is blue. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue here is one of citation overkill, compounded by the fact that the Hartmann paper limits itself to debunking Sun sign astrology, and so is arguably not an appropriate source for the statement being cited.--Other Choices (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

None of the three references relevant to the discussion are repeated in the first paragraph, so I don't think WP:CITEKILL applies. The Hartmann paper is appropriate, since it's a scholarly article that says what we reference it as saying, that astrology is a pseudoscience. If there's a problem with the article as you suggest, we're going to have to wait until scholarship produces a critique. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't criticizing the article's scholarship, but rather pointing out its limited focus on Sun sign astrology.--Other Choices (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What would you expect to find then? A scholarly article covering all forms and methods of astrology that concludes at the end that astrology is pseudoscience? That's not necessary. The contention that astrology is a pseudoscience is based on observing the general approach and standards (or lack of them) that astrology uses in its work. You don't need to study every branch of astrology to reach conclusions, just like you don't need to put weather stations in every street of a city to measure its climate. Moreover, if there is some branch/method of astrology that qualifies to be called scientific, then astrologers would be able to point it out, wouldn't they? Then we would have sources telling us which parts of astrology are not pseudoscience. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I could look up again the paper on astrology in Chaucer, which had a very strong disclaimer about astrology as pseudoscience. That author was definitely aware of more than sun-sign astrology, because she went into dizzying detail about the astrological patterns Chaucer was dealing with. Highly scholarly history/literary criticism. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@MakeSense64, your argument seems to be based on the outdated assumption that astrology claims to be "scientific" in the modern sense of the word. I suppose that Hartmann is a suitable example of this widespread erroneous assumption in the reliable sources that matter to wikipedia editors. But for any reader with a bit of knowledge of the subject, wikipedia's choice of language is going to appear anachronistic or just plain inaccurate (and it makes scientists look ignorant and mean-spirited). Perhaps awareness of this and related issues can help wikipedia editors use more nuanced language that doesn't annoy the informed reader. Per IRWolfie's suggestion a few days ago, this weekend I'm going to make a list of specific phrases in the "(modern) scientific appraisal" section where the language could be more neutral.--Other Choices (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether astrology claims to be scientific so long as it makes statements regarding the natural world, and it does. The whole "astrology isn't scientific" claim is an excuse, a case of special pleading so that people who hold ridiculous beliefs can avoid having their beliefs scrutinized. Astrology tried to be a science, and it failed without being left a single leg upon which to stand, so people who are alive today who either lack competence/intelligence and/or are emotionally attached to astrology claim that astrology isn't scientific and therefore isn't amenable to testing. This is a crock of horse shit, is obvious to anyone who has ever taken introductory logic, and it's insulting to a reasonable man's intelligence to even have to engage in these sorts of conversations. There is no "astrological knowledge" - there is only mutual masturbation amongst crackpots who don't have the wherewithal to realize they have no idea what they're talking about.

But all of that is really irrelevant, and so is your entire argument because on WP it doesn't matter that you think you know better than the reliable sources. The sort of WP:OR you're engaging in is part and parcel of what is getting Zach topic banned at the moment and what got plenty of astrology-friendly editors banned in the past. You either need to accept that WP represents mainstream, scientific thought on WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE topics and agree to work within the guidelines or you need to find another place to contribute your time. The sorts of things you want reflected on this page are not in line with WP policies or practices. Sædon^talk 06:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@OC. As Saedon already points out, your or my assumptions (outdated or not) do not matter at all on WP. All we are supposed to do here is "report on what we find" in independent sources deemed reliable by WP concensus. So, even if these reliable sources report (in your opinion) "anachronistic or inaccurate information", we don't care and WP will just report on it. That can change only if equally reliable and newer sources make the old information obsolete. WP is a complete "follower" in that regard. In other words: WP is not the place to come if you are out to correct what you see as wrong information in the world.

Most of the problems on the page here has been pro-astrology editors, mostly directed from within the Astrol. Ass. of Great Britain, who came here with the idea to change what they see as anti-astrology biased media. And that led to some bans last year in March. They probably thought that changing the language in the article on WP was the way to also change the media coverage (because journalists often use WP as a source). But it has to be the other way round, if the status of astrology and the media coverage about it change, then WP will automatically follow by reporting on it. So, WP (or other encyclopedia for that purpose) is always the last to catch up on any new information.

This doesn't need to annoy the "informed reader" with knowledge in a given field. Do you think physicists come to WP to learn the very latest theories in theoretical physics? The latest theories will only make it into WP after these theories have made it into other reliable sources (upon which WP relies). And they know that.

It is no different for astrology. If astrologers think that the sources reporting about their "art" are unfair or inaccurate, then it is their job to refute the wrong information and get reliable sources to report on it. Only then WP can pick up on this new information. To try to change the information in a WP article first, is like putting the cart before the horse. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie. You say "Firstly, you say Charpak is unreliable because he outlines exactly why it is a pseudoscience" - you seem to have made a lot of this lately but I don't recall making that point at all. Since that seems illogical and completely alien to the argument I am making, I'm pretty sure I never have, or you've misunderstood something fundamental. Can you provide me with a diff so I can check it out? Thanks -- Zac Δ ^talk! 08:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Artifexmayhem. I think your puzzlement (and IRWolfie's) is down to confusion. Maybe you assume that I am want to remove the pseudoscience comment? My interest is in having it properly referred to a reliable source, in order to remove the concern that trails this remark - or the regular attempts of new editors or IPs to rephrase to remove it. You say "The statement "Astrology is a pseudoscience" has such overwhelming support in reliable sources that satisfying its verifiability requirements borders on citing the sky is blue". So it shouldn't be problematic to give one or two strong, authoritative refs, and we needn't refer the point to weak or unconvincing refs. (If the comment triggered no more reaction than the comment that the sky is blue then my this talk page wouldn't have never stopped focussing on the issue for many years). Perhaps in your view that comment is too obvious to require proper verification, but I can assure you that many people with an interest in astrology cannot understand this point; for example, those who believe its basis is divinatory or completely outside the remit of science. Many astrologers might are confused as to why we characterise them as "pseudoscientists", as if they are pretending to be scientific when they are not. So it is important that the content gives good objective coverage on this point, even though it seems an obvious point to someone looking at astrology from a scientific view.

Usually, by academic standards, and by what one would expect to find in an encylopedia, refs are given to clarify and support assertions made in the main content. So making this assertion and then simply referencing to a whole paper that doesn't cover or explain the point, is no more effective than referring it to a work of Chaucer, who uses the term too (as ItsmeJudith tells us). It is better now that the ref has an additional comment to identify the comment that holds the term 'pseudoscientific'. But its not a 'good' ref - because many readers will expect, as readers of books expect, that when we give them 3 refs to support the comment, it is because - by our selection - these are three good, reliable sources which explain and authorise that remark. They might do as I did - waste time obtaining the paper, thinking it's a good up-to-date explanation of the issues involved. The first ref is a good one IMO, but I have provided myself better references than the other two and don't understand when and why they got changed. To explain why the second ref is not a good one, despite the writer's professional standing, consider the fact that when a leading statistician publishes commentary on an astrological expperiment in a peer-reviewed journal that is 'not on the list', even though he speaks as a man of science who has done a full investigation, we prohibit reference to this, purely on the basis that the publication is not a reliable source. So we might argue that according to WP policy the 2nd ref suffices, but it brings 'issues' with it. It would be better to not use poor quality references when, as here we have plenty of better alternatives available. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 08:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@MakeSense64, I'm not British, and I'm not part of any organized effort to change wikipedia. But I realize that this type of thing has raised the temperature on this page too often in the recent past. I hope that you and other editors will agree that having an editor around who is actually familiar with astrology and what astrologers do can be helpful, if everybody concerned is honestly trying to follow the wikipedia rules and guidelines.

@Saedon, you misrepresent what I'm trying to achieve. I will respond to your earlier comment this weekend, together with my response to IRWolfie, and then I hope that you or others will point out if my suggested improvements to the article are not in line with wikipedia policies. Beyond that, please let's keep it civil. Your use of language like "mutual masturbation" and "crock of shit" is not civil or helpful.

Your point that "it doesn't matter whether astrology claims to be scientific so long as it makes statements regarding the natural world" makes sense. But the problem is, your definition of "pseudoscience" in that way contradicts the wikipedia definition of pseudoscience. In our discussion of this issue, I have been following the wikipedia definition, and you haven't. Perhaps you can understand my frustration with this whole discussion. Should the use of "pseudoscience" in the astrology article correspond with the use of the term in the Pseudoscience article? I would be pleased to see your understanding of the term incorporated into the wikipedia article, but that hasn't happened yet.--Other Choices (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@OC. There is this common misconception that we need editors who are familiar with astrology to work on this article. That is not the case, because we work based on reliable sources, so somebody who is not familiar with astrology is equally able to read those sources and weigh them. Astrology is not rocket science. Just as often, astrologers can be really unhelpful to work on this article. They can be helpful in few ways, for example by pointing out possible shortcomings in the article, or by suggesting useful sources. But, as with most other "belief" related matters, editors who are too close to the subject are not helpful in determining how much weight (if any) to give to the various materials we can find about the subject. People who are not involved are better positioned to do that in a neutral way. See WP:NPOV. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Zac. The first thing that "confused astrologers" can do is read the article about Pseudoscience, that's what wikilinks are for. They will then understand why astrology can be labeled a "pseudoscience", even if it doesn't claim to be a science.

Secondly, statements in the lede do not need any sources, as long as they reflect what is found in the body of the article. The statement that astrology is a pseudoscience is thus not backed up just by the two sources that come directly with it, but by plenty more sources that are given in the well-developed "Scientific appraisal" section. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Saedon. You say: "people who hold ridiculous beliefs can avoid having their beliefs scrutinized..." Are we here to act as judge and jury over people's beliefs too?

"This is a crock of horse shit, is obvious to anyone who has ever taken introductory logic, and it's insulting to a reasonable man's intelligence to even have to engage in these sorts of conversations." Then simply don't, because your comments are hardly raising the bar on intelligent, non-emotive coverage of this subject, as your next comment shows "There is no "astrological knowledge" - there is only mutual masturbation amongst crackpots who don't have the wherewithal to realize they have no idea what they're talking about." What an etremely arrogant and ignorant comment to make - its the kind of scornful froth that pours out when someone feels threatened or intimidated, and it is loaded with the kind of prejudice and bias that is reflected on the main page content. Hence the reason why sections such as the 'Astrology's influence on world culture' has gone, as has the section detailing the fact that universities are still involved themselves with studying and exploring the subject, and the content about its principles are being chisselled away until all trace of the subject's own logic has been eliminated. Almost half the populace have a belief or non-hostile interest in astrology and want to know about more than the modern scientific view of something that doesn't claim to be a modern science. The main page is now a complete and utter mess, a testiment to how WP policies get abused when editors like Otherchoices, who has only ever contributed in a calm and sensible manner, gets insulted, shouted down, and bullied away with comments like you have just given here. It's the reason why every attempt to deal more effectively with the problems fails and descends into warfare mentality -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Makesense64 - you say that pro-astrology editors in the past were "mostly directed from within the Astrol. Ass. of Great Britain". That comes as surprising news to me, as someone who has wondered why the Astrological Association has not done more to make its members aware of the need to input sensibly into the many astrology pages that would benefit from their input. Im fact I'm so surprised to hear you suggest this that I wonder if there is any support for your view. Sorry to doubt you, but this looks like pure (and very unlikely) speculation to me. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@OC. If you want to delete your post, then the way to go is strike out all or part of your comment, not delete it because that risks deleting also other people's comments (as happened in this case).

@Zac. I remember the AA of Great Britain came up in last year's March bannings, even with a comment from somebody who was involved with that organization. You can look it up if you want. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You made that suggestion so I expect you to be able to look it up and 'back it up'. My point is that I don't believe there is any good basis for this (maybe you remember yourself or someone else speculating wildly without verification as often happens here). Also, you did some fiddling with this page content and left an edit summary about me being able to restore my own comments if I want. Since I am making this my last post and don't have time to trawl through complicated edits, please restore any comment of mine that you took from this page, back to the appropriate place. Thank you.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

After I hit the "undo" on @OC's deleting operations your latest comment seemed to be right back at the bottom, so I don't think anything is missing. But it's always hard to tell, especially with the strange indentations you often use. It is not my job to go out of the way to undo the mess that OC created. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Zac, Astrology is obvious pseudoscience, we aren't going to deviate from the sources and pretend it is a more dignified belief system than what the sources say. All of your statements are just general criticism and don't point out particular problems. When asked to point out a specific problem, you pointed out something that wasn't a problem. See the start of this thread. Since the mistake which led you to post in this section has been clarified, this thread has no further purpose. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you have not read my comments but have assumed a position as you tend to do. As we can safely assume there'll be no more from me, at least for a while, maybe you can take some time to actually read what I have said, and understand the point of what I have said, and not just follow any contribution I make with a false implication which characterises me as being opposed to clear explanation of the pseudoscience status. I have volunteered a self-ban on this page while I wait for the axe to drop, so I won't be following further discussions now -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Modern

The reason given for reverting this change here: [6] doesn't add up, if there "was no science as such in the Middle Ages", then it clearly makes sense to remove the "modern" as being superfluous. We don't refer to the internet as the modern internet, because there was no internet as such in the middle ages. Science is understood to mean Science. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Our article History of science clearly has a chapter about "Modern science" as opposed to the "science" in the pre modern era, and even a redirect by that name Modern science. If there was no science in the Middle Ages, then why do we have an article about it? Science in the Middle Ages. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As the lede in the Science article mentions, "science" has a modern use which is more limited than the traditional use of the word.--Other Choices (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's why I had reverted the section header back to "Modern scientific appraisal". Before astrology split up into astrology and astronomy, the "scientific" appraisal was clearly different. So the section is really about the "Modern scientific appraisal" rather than the "Scientific appraisal". But I am not going to fight about it. It is just a detail. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's generally understood that science refers to the modern usage and not the older usage to refer to many different areas of knowledge. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Core principles

I'm at a loss for what to do with the Core principles section...

1. The use of "principles" infers astrology has been codified in some academic sense (obviously not the case).
2. The sources are either WP:PRIMARY or don't satisfy WP:RS (i.e. McRitchie).

We seem to be in dire need of a reliable, secondary, academic, scholarly, reliable source for an overview of what astrology actually is (past and present).

Suggestions? Did I mention it should be reliable? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think "principles" here is used in the sense of "basic assumption", which is one of the definitions for "principle" that is also found in our article about it: Principle. It doesn't mean astrology is based on fundamental laws of nature (which is another meaning of "principle"). So, it would be clearer if the section was actually called "Basic assumptions" or "Core beliefs", but I am not sure if you can get a concensus on that. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Even worse than them being primary sources is that they don't directly support the text. i.e WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The last two paragraphs of it aren't directly related to astrology except for the Cosmic Perspective quote. Another possible route is to take some of the core principle articles and take their ledes and work with that? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

An additional problem is that the so-called core principles have probably differed with each of the traditions, and also have changed over time. If we find properly sourced "principles" then it probably makes more sense to mention them in their respective tradition section, or in the history of astrology. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed that section once before as OR and synth based on primary and unreliable sources. Take a guess who pitched a fit. It has no business being here, and I support its deletion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Having gone over it again, I'm bound to agree. It is (was) rather egregious. Deleted. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% on removing the entire section, I think certain parts can be salvaged and rewritten to better fit an encyclopedic style. I don't have the time to go into specifics right now but will try to tonight. On another note, the science section has become pretty long and may warrant its own article at this point. Perhaps we can retain the lead to the science section but split off the subsections into Scientific evaluation of astrology or something like that. Sædon^talk 18:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that it has too many subsections which give the appearance of it being overly long. The subsections themselves are very short. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think keeping the first paragraph of it is a good idea, it seems to have less issues, and we need a seed for future expansion of the section. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I can dance to that. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Wolfie, it was precisely that portion that I removed as being OR and synth based on primary and unreliable sources. McRitchie? You have to be kidding. If better sources can be found, no problem, but right now it's a mess. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I had a check through and it was as OR filled as the rest. I've taken a seed sentence from citizendium for the section, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

McRitchie sources should be viewed with extreme skepticism. In 2011 he was publishing articles in astrology journals for the express purpose of citing them on Wikipedia. Skinwalker (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I write articles because they are needed by the astrological community. It's okay be be skeptical, provided there is some critical thinking presented with the skepticism. The article that I wrote, which was cited in this section was not on principles, but did contain a summary of basic principles. Astrological principles have historically changed, and what I wrote was intended to reflect an up-to-date version of principles in keeping with modern astrological thought. The article was anonymously peer reviewed and was published in the leading British astrology research journal that also publishes articles by skeptics, such as G. Dean, Nanninga, and others. If you keep it, it will be one small area where this article will admit any critical thinking at all, rather than just an unabated attack on astrology. Ken McRitchie (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem said: "The use of 'principles' infers astrology has been codified in some academic sense." That is correct. Principles are what is agreed on, in principle, by the community engaged in the discipline. Whether you call that community "academic" is academic. Principles are useful because they separate what is the discipline from what is not the discipline, in this case, what is astrology from what is not astrology. They serve as a filter for theory and hypotheses, and allow flawed tests to be rejected on grounds of principle. Of course, there can be competing principles, but the test is their explanatory and organizing power. If other assertions of principles can be found for the article, and they are peer reviewed and published in a journal that is trying to define what astrology is and reports research, then by all means include them too. Ken McRitchie (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me give a simple example. It is claimed that when the Copernican system showed that the Sun was the center of the universe (we know better now), it meant that astrology could not work because it put the Earth at the center of the universe. The principle of what I call "nativity" is that the person or thing to be studied by the astrologer is placed at the center of the universe. This is what a chart is and astrology has always done this. The geocentric versus solar-centric claim has nothing to do with astrology and is a straw man fallacy, an attack on something that is not astrology in principle. But of course, articles based on astrological journals are "unreliable" and not allowed in Wikipedia is it? No criticism from astrological sources is allowed. The editors and policy ensure that this article is devoid of any possibility of critical thinking. Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have specific changes to suggest, please suggest them. Otherwise, please review WP:SOAP, we have no use for an opinion piece on astrology. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just leave in the reference to the peer reviewed article I wrote. I didn't put it there, but I think it belongs. I wouldn't dare try to edit this article unless things change. I've learned my lesson.

Since I seem to be spending a sleepless night, I might as well go for one of the big ones. It is claimed that astrology cannot work because it has no mechanism (preferably gravity or electromagnetism). But astrology doesn't say anything about mechanism. It talks about symmetry between correlative worlds (as above, so below), the principle I call "correlativity". To try to think of mechanical influences and how they all fit together in a chain is enormously complex. Occam's razor, if we believe it, suggests that we should not even go there, and astrology doesn't. It's a lot simpler to look at spacetime symmetries. Causal mechanisms can be measured and tested one way, and spacetime symmetries can be measured and tested another way. Both can have falsifiable theories and hypotheses. Astrology has always looked at symmetries in principle, never mechanisms. The claim of no mechanism is a straw man fallacy because it has nothing to do with astrology and never has. But of course, that sort of criticism, pointing out what is not astrology, is not allowed in the Wikipedia astrology article is it? Again, critical thinking must be suppressed. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please observe WP:NOTFORUM; no one is interested in discussing your platitudes about astrology. If you have concrete, sourced changes to discuss, please suggest them. Sædon^talk 04:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@MR Occam's razor doesn't suggest we should simply not think about how complex (or improbable) something is, in order to make it seem simple and probable. Quite the opposite, in fact. The criticisms of Astrology based on its lack of proposed mechanisms are well sourced, and that's all that matters. All we do here is report the reliable sources, and that is a criticism consistently printed in the literature. We can include more information, but removing sourced statements such as that one on the basis that original research indicates they don't apply would be a violation of our core policies. Thank you for commenting, but we need more sources to back up changes. If you could provide new sources for us to consider, that may be helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You claim your article is peer reviewed. I claim that a high-school year book is peer reviewed. Neither are legitimate scholarship. If you want to claim astrology works, publish your article in science journal. If you want to talk about the claims of astrologers, publish in a humanities journal. If you want to talk about Occam's razor and straw man arguments, publish in a philosophy journal. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ken McRitchie, you would do well to remember that some of the people you are interacting with here are statistically literate. We have looked through the article you posted. If no-one has pointed out its flaws to you, that is not because no flaws have been noticed, but because we apply external criteria to judge sources, such as the standing of the journal, the academic record of the author, etc. This talk page is not the place to discuss the substantive debates, but must be confined to how those debates should be reflected in the article. Your article is not reliable as to facts, nor is it notable erroneous belief. Continually mentioning it counts as WP:SPAM. Please desist from doing so. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ken McRitchie. Your idea that critical thinking is not allowed on WP is flawed. We report on everything we find in reliable sources, that's all. The critical thinking about astrology (or any other topic) is not supposed to be happening here on WP, but within the astrology community itself. If they somehow reach conclusions or agree on new ideas or methods AND it becomes sufficiently mainstream to get published in sources we deem reliable, only then it will get picked up here and can be added into our article about the topic. You can propose any changes you want for this article, but you need a good source for the changes you propose. Articles posted in blogs or fringe journals or fanzines do generally not make the cut to be used for WP. That's where the line gets drawn based on the verifiability policy that WP uses WP:V. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

How's this for a reliable source for core principles: James, Brockbank:‘The Responsive Cosmos: An Enquiry into the Theoretical Foundation of Astrology’(Ph.D dissertation), University of Kent (2011) here--Other Choices (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable for what? I think its better to make a concrete suggestion with a possible source, then reliability can be judged, as has been mentioned before, sources are often not reliable for everything they state, but some subset. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@OC. That source is just the PhD thesis of a student theology, in which he proposes a hypothesis. You wouldn't use that to back up a "core principles of astrology" section, would you? We don't even know if any astrologers agree with his hypothesis? Has there been any peer review to his (hypo)thesis? Has it been published somewhere?

It is not our job to read PhD theses like that one and discuss the merits of his ideas.

But there is a potential use: by looking into the sources he cites at the end of his thesis (there seem to be plenty), you may find other reliable sources that can be used here. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, Ph.D dissertations are acceptable as reliable sources, and they often serve as excellent summaries of a body of literature on a particular subject. In this case, Brockbank has lots of descriptions about what astrologers generally think about their craft. To simply extract from his chapter summary on pages 7 through 9: Many astrologers are attached to an empirical approach to astrology, but astrological methodology does not rely on empirical science. Astrologers variously explain their craft as a language game or a "new science" or divination, and/or describe astrology as underpinned by archetypes or hidden laws of correspondence. Most astrology theories are neo-Platonic in inspiration.--Other Choices (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not finding this thesis here. Any ideas? TippyGoomba (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@OC. It all depends what part of the source you want to use, and what statements you want to back up with it. Using the hypothesis he proposes as a source is a non-starter. If there are parts where he just summarizes from other reliable works, then it may be useful. But then we have to look at what is actually said. In the piece you quote he is basically pointing out that astrology doesn't have core principles that astrologers have been able to agree on. If you ask astrologers what the core principles behind astrology are, their answers are all over the map: ranging from a language game to divination to hidden laws of correspondence, and so on.. And that's of course a typical characteristic of pseudoscience: even after thousands of years the astrologers can still not agree what the core principles of their "art" are. That is something you could add to the "lack of consistency" section. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Scientific appraisal

There has been a suggestion that this section is becoming long and may need to be split off. But we should bear in mind that WP:PSCI requires us to keep a prominent section giving the scientific and mainstream views about the given pseudoscientific topic.
That being said, some cleaning up can be done, and it may help to reduce the amount of subheaders.
I think one of the first things that can go is the small "Uranus, Neptune and Pluto" section. While that could be used as scientific criticism on some forms of Western astrology, this is the article about "all astrology". Some Asian forms of astrology do not use the planets at all (much less Uranus, Neptune and Pluto), and plenty of astrologers believe that we should use only the visible planets and stars (which automatically excludes Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and all the new planets that are being discovered). So, this is a weak criticism anyway. It is certainly false that "Most astrologers make claims that the position of all the planets must be taken into account...", as this section contends. I would suggest to delete it.
I would also propose to rename the "Precession" section to "Lack of consistency", which brings it more in line with the other subheaders. It is not precession that is the problem, because some forms of astrology do take it into account. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

These topics could be treated historically. Generally, Astrology is a topic in the history of science. Most of the best scholarly work on the topic is of that nature. The work on astrology as contemporary pseudoscience is significant, but it should not dominate the article. Possibly, History of astrology should be merged back in. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure. We have astrology as we now know it, a topic of interest for some people, and that's what most of this article covers. History of astrology deals with its development, the cultural influence it has had (and has), and is a rather large topic in itself. Merging it back in could create problems of due weight.

Anyway, I just merged two subsections into one, calling it "Lack of consistency". I think the material under "Uranus, Neptune.." could also fit under "Lack of consistency", so I will merge these sections too. If somebody objects, feel welcome to discuss it here. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I also think merging the history in would be a good idea. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That will likely require us to make some trims and cuts, because we would be going into over 100 kB territory. The History of astrology itself is also a bit problematic article, because the history in the various astrology traditions has been very different. Right now it's a potpouri. Maybe we could do some selective merges into articles like Western astrology and Indian astrology, which have or could have their own history sections. The rest could then be merged here to expand the history section, and then we put See also links to the history of the various traditions in their respective articles. Could make all these articles better. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the way to go in the mid to long term, but it will take a while. I won't be editing at all in August by the way. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"Correlation" and reliable sources and "Other astrologers prefer not to attempt to explain astrology."

As I grapple with the finer points of wikipedia's policy on pseudoscience, I would like to clarify a few things, if other editors would be so kind as to share their thoughts.
(1) It is my understanding that the academic/astrological journal Correlation is a reliable source, because it has a form of editorial review.
(2) WP:SCHOLARSHIP states: "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." My understanding is that Correlation's reviewers have academic credentials, which if true would seem to qualify this journal as reliable. However, I have learned enough around here in the past few weeks to realize that this view might be controversial, so I'm asking for input from other editors.
(3) I understand that, even if Correlation is a reliable source, this journal cannot serve as a source to rebut scientists' criticism of astrology per WP:PSCI, which states that "editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views."
(4) Is Correlation an independent reliable source? WP:PSCI states that "points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." My gut feeling is that Correlation is not an independent reliable source, but I'd like to get the opinions of more experienced editors.
(5) Correlation is currently being used to support the article's statement that "other astrologers prefer not to attempt to explain astrology." Is an article published in Correlation an acceptable source for this statement? I find myself, with my admittedly limited understanding of relevant wikipedia policies, able to argue both sides of this question, so I'd like to get input from other editors.
Thanks, Other Choices (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Our old friend Zac had a long discussion about exactly that question on Jimbo Wales' talk page recently: [7]

It points out the problems with that kind of sources. Make your own conclusions.

Basically the answer to your questions is NO, except for question #5. We can use it as a source for "what astrologers say or believe" MakeSense64 (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Correlation has already been deemed unreliable by a very wide consensus of wikipedia editors. I suggest you look at the RSN archive and Jimbos talkpage archive for more. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we don't rule sources blanket reliable or unreliable. Correlation would be reliable for news about an astrologers' conference, although we might not think that such a conference would be notable enough to mention in the article. It is a pseudo-journal and therefore to be treated with the greatest of caution. More problematic, for example, than a local newspaper. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree that sources have different reliability for different things (I mention this above a few times). I presumed when he mentioned pseudoscience he was intending to use it for countering scientific arguments. I also agree that WP:DUE weight of any source is a separate issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you want to cite? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for your feedback; the link to Jimbo's talk page was especially helpful. My current understanding is that Correlation can be used as a reference for a brief mention of astrologers' views concerning topics which are discussed in the article using other sources, with the understanding that Correlation cannot be used to rebut the scientific assessment of astrology.

@TippyGoomba, I wanted to double-check the current use of Correlation in the article; and I also started going through the synopses of articles on the Correlation webpage, and realized that I should probably double-check the limitations on the use of this source BEFORE suggesting any specific content for the article. I've been looking for discussion of what astrologers actually think and do. Brockbank's Ph.D dissertation might work out for that, but as you pointed out earlier, it's not registered in the U of Kent database, which raises a yellow flag for that particular source. My guess is that the website simply hasn't been updated, but who knows.--Other Choices (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried poking around google scholar? You can crawl citations using the 'cited by ###' button. Perhaps there exists a recent survey from a historical perspective containing that sort of information. I went to the U of Kent database simply to make sure I had the final version of that particular thesis, dissertation committees occasionally make significant valuable corrections so it's always wise to ensure you have the latest version of any thesis (or any manuscript for that matter). I hope that helps. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the views of modern astrologers can ever be notable enough for Wikipedia. There are two types of people who are involved with modern astrology: those who shallowly consult it (e.g. the businessman who consults an astrologer for advice or the ingenue who seeks out partners compatible with her charts), and esoteric astrologers such as those who publish in Correlation and SciEx. The former have no opinion as such to be published while the latter are so utterly fringe and non-notable outside of their own universe as to prohibit mention. The field of esoteric astrology is essentially a walled garden lacking contact with the outside world, and especially the mainstream. Our article should focus on astrology as a historical concept, but as a modern concept should be limited to observances of mainstream practicing, which means maybe a paragraph describing how astrology impacts modern life (both in the West and abroad) - but the point to take home is that publication like Correlation don't impact modern life except for those directly involved with "studying" astrology. Any weight given to publications such as this would the epitome of WP:UNDUE. Sædon^talk 23:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

@TippyGoomba, thanks for the google-scholar link. I suppose the appearance of Brockbank there would be a good indication that the source is ready to be mentioned in this article.

@Saedon, I noticed that most (but not all) of what I found at Correlation has little or nothing to do with what practicing astrologers say to each other or to their clients. I think that your description of modern astrology is incomplete, but I acknowledge the notability issue that you raise. However, the "scientific appraisal" section currently uses the word "astrologers" exactly 23 times, which would seem to be prima facie evidence that the collective views of astrologers are relevant to the astrology article.--Other Choices (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@OC. Not necessarily so. We mainly use the word "astrologers" where scientific appraisal is saying something about "the astrologers". By the way, is there such a thing like "collective views of astrologers"? Remember that in this article "astrologers" covers Western, Indian, Chinese, Tibetan,... astrologers alike. Is there any "collective view" that they have ever agreed upon? Other than their collective belief that astronomical phenomena influence or correlate with events on Earth, they differ in every possible way. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Finding reliable sources for what modern astrologers belive is a very big problem. As Saedon said, almost all of the sources available are in-universe coffee-table "for-entertainment-purposes-only" books and mags written by self-described "experts" whose expertise is not recognized outside (a small corner of) the "astrological community", which is impossible to define. They were published without the benefit of anything resembling fact-checking or scholarlyly review. Very few real-world scholars have found modern astrology interesting enough to write about, except to debunk it. Good sources exist for Classical and Medieval astrology, but very few for modern astrology. Pseudo-journals like Correlations and the like are essentially worthless except, as Judith said, for trivial information about conferences and the like. It's very difficult, if not plain impossible, to determine which beliefs are widely held by modern astrologers or who can be considered representative of the "astrological community". It's pretty much an "every-man-for-himself" "make-it-up-as-you-go-along" type of "discipline". The patina of apparent consistency breaks down once you scatch the surface. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@MakeSense64, your point highlights the fact that it is all too easy for editors (including myself) to get western-centric on this page. For example, the "scientific appraisal" section includes criticism of astrology for "lack of consensus," but the lede states that astrology consists of a number of different traditions from various cultures, from which one can't reasonably expect consensus. In general, the "scientific appraisal" section is directed exclusively at western astrology. Perhaps we should clearly say that in the article, and/or move most of the "scientific appraisal" section to the western astrology page. By the way, your source James Braha is self-published by a practicing astrologer, even if the explanation itself is useful and non-controversial. If I understand correctly, WP:PRIMARY can only be used to justify its inclusion if it was reliably published. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

@DV, that's where Brockbank (see here) will be especially useful, because he analyzes at length the various philosophical views and assumptions of practicing astrologers. Of course, as TippyGoomba already pointed out, this source might not be ready for wikipedia yet, but it's in the pipeline at least.--Other Choices (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Broadbanck is a Ph.D. dissertation, and was not published or reviewed as a review article. It would not be a reliable source for the "various philosophical views and assumptions of practicing astrologers", as this is not part of the thesis. A review written by a Ph.D. student as part of a dissertation is far below the standards required for our purposes. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

DV, I hope you'll admit that you're doubly wrong here. Ph.D dissertations are explicitly included as reliable sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Brockbank's thesis includes several chapters exclusively devoted to exploring the various theoretical foundations for astrology that are prevalent among astrologers today. If you read his chapter summary on pages 7 through 9, you will see where he is coming from. Here's a brief extract of the elements of those pages that I think are relevant to the article here: Many astrologers are attached to an empirical approach to astrology, but astrological methodology does not rely on empirical science. Astrologers variously explain their craft as a language game or a "new science" or divination, and/or describe astrology as underpinned by archetypes or hidden laws of correspondence. Most astrology theories are neo-Platonic in inspiration.

And later he devotes entire chapters to the various points mentioned here, all of which is worth exploring. I think that the idea that most (western) astrology theories are neo-Platonic in inspiration would be an excellent addition to the article. Perhaps Saedon, our resident philosopher, can weigh in on that one.--Other Choices (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would not rule out PhD theses in principle, but this one represents an extreme minority view in academia. The main thrust of its argument is not to present a critical, scholarly view of astrological practice (as a sociologist, folklorist or anthropologist would do), but to say that all forms of astrology assume a "responsive cosmos", i.e., it is an attempt to prove the existence of God, starting with the unlikely premise that astrology "works". Maybe this argument is relevant to the idea of a Responsive Cosmos, maybe not even there. Anyway, his attempt to categorise approaches to astrology is partial and far from definitive. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have only read the conclusion of his paper when OC posted it. Brockbank is actually first saying that astrology itself does not "work", it is God that "works" (through divination). Quoting: "Instead, astrology is best understood as a form of divination in which there is no necessary correlation between the position of the planets and events on Earth." In doing so he sets the stage for his hypothesis, which is formulated as follows: "The Responsive Cosmos is a label to cover the factors which are necessary for our hypothesis: first, that it is a non-human agency; second, that it is essentially beneficent; third, that it will respond to enquiries and will provide signs which can be read; and fourth, that these signs and responses are not guaranteed. Other than those four characteristics the Responsive Cosmos is a place holder for any other characteristics the non-human agency might have."

So, a "beneficent non-human agency that responds to your enquiries, but doesn't guarantee anything" , in other words: a God who answers your questions, but plays safe by not guaranteeing anything.... How convenient. While people are of course free to believe whatever they want, we should note that astrologers not necessarily agree with any of this, and a lot of astrologers may also be atheists. So, at the most Brockbank's thesis could be used for the section about theological views on astrology. But his' may very well be a minority view among theologians. E.g. in Jewish views on astrology we can already read about rabbi who contends that God works through angels, who are in turn working through planets and stars (very similar to Brockbank's hypothesis), but we also see that other rabbi's disagree and condemn astrology as form of idol worship.

OC's suggestion that we could add the idea that most (western) astrology theories are neo-Platonic in inspiration, is also problematic because several forms of astrology are older than Platonic thought.

And what if Brockbank's PhD thesis has not been accepted (yet)? Could that be the reason why we do not find it published or commented on? We should be very careful with using such recent (2011?) theses as sources. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to digress about PhD theses for a moment. If publications are each valued at a thousand points, a PhD thesis is valued at one point. Usually, if the thesis contains something of value to scholarship, then it is published in a journal like any other result. A PhD thesis might make for a nice secondary source for esoteric content, if it summarizes peer-reviewed scholarship in the same manner as a book. Hopefully someone will find my comment useful. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You might prefer to open a thread on RSN or the talk page of IRS. Theses have come up several times before. I do think it depends on the discipline and the country. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith, it seems like one of us is misreading Brockbank. He isn't trying to prove the existence of God, and he doesn't have a basic premise that astrology "works." Here's a fundamental sentence from his conclusion (p. 379): That astrologers actually practice astrology because they believe that through the process they engage in a conversation with another realm -- whether neo-Platonic or not -- is a possibility which should be taken into consideration. In any case, astrology is already associated with divination in the article, so Brockbank's supposition fits in with what other sources say.

Whether his attempt to categorize theoretical foundations is conclusive or not would seem to be irrelevant for our purposes as wikipedia editors. Last week, people were talking about the lack of reliable sources that deal with astrological "core principles." Well, here's a source that appears to be worth considering.

@MakeSense64, your critique of Brockbank appears to be both inaccurate and WP:Original Research. Your claim that several forms of astrology are older than Plato doesn't work (when applied to western astrology) because any such older form would have been exposed to neo-Platonic thought for literally centuries if it hadn't already died out. I suppose you could make the argument that Brockbank's dissertation only applies to western astrology. What do editors think of that particular issue? By the way, I googled around and found a notice board comment that Brockbank's thesis had indeed been accepted, but of course that's hardly definitive. I agree that we shouldn't add anything from this source until there's clear confirmation.--Other Choices (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@OC. We can go round and round arguing about this single source (all the while there are much better established sources we can use for this article). But as long as you don't tell us: what you want to use from this source, which statement you intend to back up with it, and where you want to put it in the article.., so long we are talking only hypotheticals.

In statement you quoted from that source a few days ago, Brockbank was pointing out that astrology lacks clear core principles and that's why he proposes a new possible core principle in his (hypo)thesis. For the sake of clarity, with "core principles" we mean principles that the vast majority of experts in a given field agree to, don't we? Principles that are only used or believed by a minority in the field are not "core" but "fringe" principles within the given field. The problem is that astrology is a mish-mash, as astrologers themselves know and agree, so what is there that can be called core principles that most astrologers (East and West) agree to? E.g. , taking from your Brockbank quote: is the idea that astrology is a kind of word game, a core principle? Is the idea that astrology is a kind of "new science" a core principle? I don't think so. See what I mean?

Even within the more narrow field of "Western astrology", what core principles do these astrologers agree on? Last I heard there were something like 20+ different house systems, all with their own adherents. Some use only the classical planets, others use all planets, still others use asteroids and "new planets" as well, or calculated points,.... Some Western astrologers believe there is some unknown physical force underlying astrology, others believe it is a kind of synchronicity, still others think there is no mechanism whatsoever. Where are the "core" principles they have agreed on?

WP:OR does not mean that we should not read and try to make sense of a source before we use it. We have to make sure that our article does not misrepresent a given source, so we need to think. That's why you need to tell us what you want to use from this source and what text you want to back up with it. Only then other editors can look into it and a concensus may be found.MakeSense64 (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As for the neo-Platonic thought. There is a difference between "inspired by" and "influenced by". Something that is older than Platonic thought can become influenced by it later on. But pretty much everything has been influenced by Platonic and neo-Platonic thought, so it's kind of moot to mention it unless we can be more specific how it has been influenced by Platonic thought. It would be like mentioning in every article about physics that it has been influenced by Newton or Einstein. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not clear about your point about "core principles." You mention differing systems of houses, for example, but the use of houses itself would seem to be universal among western astrologers (and the same goes for planets). When you add various eastern systems to the discussion, then obviously a discussion of "core principles" becomes impossible.

Brockbank, on page 283, makes it clear that he is dealing specifically with western astrological thought. Accordingly, I would add the following paragraph (subject to modifications by other editors, of course) to the end of the "western astrology" subsection: Many astrologers are attached to an empirical approach to astrology, but astrological methodology does not rely on empirical science. Astrologers variously explain their craft as a language game or a "new science" or divination, and/or describe astrology as underpinned by archetypes or hidden laws of correspondence. Most western astrology theories are neo-Platonic in inspiration.

As I indicated, I took the following extract from the chapter summary on pages 7-9. Each sentence corresponds to a separate chapter which is clearly identified in the chapter summary. For example, the "neo-Platonic" reference corresponds to chapter 13, pp. 301-318. On p. 303 he states that "the three main models of astrology that have been put forward to account for the astrological process - correspondence, archetypal, and neo-Platonic divinatory - are neo-Platonic in origin. In all likelihood, the majority of astrologers will accept one of these models."--Other Choices (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OC, I don't want to sidetrack things unnecessarily, but I think there's something in your proposed wording that may cut to the heart of the matter. Can you explain how it is possible for the phrase "astrological methodology does not rely on empirical science" to be justified? Surely all astrology, by definition, attempts to make predictions or arrive at facts on the basis of a given set of principles and a given set of observations. That's always going to be an empirical method, isn't it, however much some astrologers might seek to eschew the label "science". Formerip (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Otto Neugebauer in his book "The Exact Sciences in Antiquity" (2nd edition) on page 168 states "One of the main reasons for the transmission of astronomical knowledge from one nation to another was undoubtedly the spread of the belief in astrology as the one science which gave insight into the causes of the events on earth" - This suggests from an academic point of view, that astrology is a combination of a belief system and a science, but not purely one or another. On page 171 Neugebauer states "Compared with the background of religion, magic and mysticism, the fundamental doctrines of astrology are pure science". This is from an expert on premodern science. Terry Macro (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

@Terry Macro, the quotes you provided are interesting, but perhaps you could suggest how to specifically incorporate your source into the article. That might be worth a section of its own.

@FormerIP, this section is getting very long, so I'm going to open a new section with selected quotes from Brockbank relevant to your question.--Other Choices (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)