Talk:Dennis Elwell (astrologer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

I

I know Dennis's precise birth data, but as I'm not sure he would want it published, I'm witholding it. MayoPaul5 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

(citation needed): I shall try to find the origin of this assertion in next few weeks, but otherwise may have to delete POV part of the sentence. MayoPaul5 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's too bad. Crud3w4re 07:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

improve

Removed some spam -- Serious concerns remain for this article, even though it was tagged months ago. -- Notability concerns because references are still very weak, since it only links to a single trivial mention in a non-notable book. WP:NRVE MakeSense64 (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

- It wasn't spam man. The article says "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources". Added a link to a page which gives a personal interview with Dennis Elwell, originally published in Garry Phillipson's Astrology in the Year Zero. V. informative interview which shows why Dennis Elwell is one of the outstanding astrologers of his generation. Can't see how you are going to build up the info when you remove such relevant information. Suggest you check that link again and reinstate.Clooneymark (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Note the article also gives Elwell's birth chart, which is talked about, but not given, in the above discussion.Clooneymark (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the link to the list of his published articles, fair enough; but it was one link and gave a lot of his work for anyone who wants to know more about his contributions. The personal interview link should definitely be re-instated. Also not happy about suggestion to drop this page because Dennis Elwell is very notable amongst astrologers. He gained a lot of press coverage for warning P&O ferries about an upcoming disaster on one of their ferries, recommending them to double-check their dafety procedures. Their letter to him saying they had nothing to worry about was in the post as the P&O ferry, Herald of Free Enterprise disaster occured. Lots of information and references to that on this page - http://www.skyscript.co.uk/shipelwell.html

I won't add that link in case you think I'm spamming and get paid for linking to it or something, but someone should.

And MakeSense64, can you remove that 'spam tag' from my user page. I've never had any controversy here nor any warnings or even one single comment on my edits before now. No one even bothered to welcome me when I joined up but when I have added my bits of info it has alsways been good, informative info not spam.

I want to get an answer to my comments cos I'm pretty annoyed at being labelled a spammer just for trying to help. If someone else agrees that my link to his interview was out of place then I'll definitely leave this page well alone and won't add any more links of that nature. I think I should reinstate that interview link so please speak up and let me know if you don't want me to do that Clooneymark (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The spam issue is explained on your talk page User_talk:Clooneymark -- Let me remind you that a core principle of WP is 'verifiability', not 'truth' WP:VERIFY . So it is not about me or you being happy (or not) about suggestions to improve this page. This page was tagged back in January by a registered WP editor , you can find him here User:Acabashi. If the article does not get improved it may be deleted. Improving the article is not being done by inserting more external links at the bottom of the article. What is needed are reliable sources MakeSense64 (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The spam issue is not satisfactorily explained on my user page. You just mumbled some words there.

Concerning Elwell's birth data which is of interest to many of the readers who are interested in Elwell as an astrologer, what is more reliable and easily verifyable than a link to a published interview where his birth chart is on display?

Because this article was tagged by one editor doesn't mean it should be deleted. I just checked the history of this page and see that most of the reasons for Elwell's notability have been deleted. The famous ferry prediction has been deleted because some editor thought it was 'phantastical'. That person mistook their view of the truth for verifyability. It is a verifyable fact that Elwell gained extra notability because of the reports of that well known prediction which added to his reputation. The article can and should cover that from a neutral and unbiased point of view. The link I gave above gives all the details of this. I could put the details into the Wikipedia article but I would still have to link to that page. Would that suit you better? If not, what's your suggestion?

Before anyone deletes this page note that the article has been heavily cut so that the reasons for Elwell's notability are not being shown. Clooneymark (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not my job to explain the WP policies around spam. You can read the WP guidelines, and I even gave you the links to them. -- If there are verifiable facts about Elwell, based on reliable outside sources as per WP guidelines (read them first), then they should be added together with the reference. That's why this article was tagged in the first place. WP is not interested in your or my opinion about Elwell or what some readers may find interesting about him. WP is about bringing plain facts that can be sourced. -- If in doubt, then it is better to first post what you want to add on the talk page, then add it if there is no objection to it after a week or so. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The last comment was all I needed. Fine. Will do that. Clooneymark (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is what I would like to propose for this entry. I'll also add a photo of Elwell to Wikmedia commons but I can't see myself how to add images to main pages. Please discuss if you think there are problems with this.Clooneymark (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Figured out how to add the photoClooneymark (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Astrologer Dennis Elwell

Dennis Elwell (born 11:44 pm GMT, 16 February 1930 1930 in Stourbridge, England, UK) is a British astrologer, journalist, author, lecturer.

After teaching himself the basics of astrology as a teenager, in his early twenties he began writing regularly for American Astrology, the first popular astrology magazine, which acted as a platform for the leading astrologers of the day. The association continued for twenty years and subsequently led to an international reputation for his articles which appeared in most well known international astrology journals. Though a journalist by profession for most of his life, Elwell reported that he explored any byway that might throw light on astrology, leading to a study of science on the one hand, and occultists like Rudolf Steiner and Gurdjieff on the other. He began lecturing to astrologers in 1963 and gained a reputation for being an original thinker and stimulating speaker.

In 1987 Elwell gained significant press attention for a publicised prediction which forewarned two shipping companies of potential trouble at sea, one of them being the ferry company P&O Ferries. Nine days after P&O replied to Elwell that their procedures were designed "to deal with the unexpected from whatever quarter", their ship, the Herald of Free Enterprise, capsized at Zeebrugge with the loss of 188 lives.

In an interview Elwell explained that the warning letters were sent at the request of his publishers, to help raise his profile as an astrologer.

The book, Cosmic Loom, was published the same year (Unwin Hyman, 1987) and later republished in a revised and enlarged edition by the Urania Trust.

Elwell is also known for running an advanced correspondence course on astrology in the early 1990s entitled "The Chiron Project" which closed at the end of the 1990s when he entered retirement.

Works

• Elwell, Dennis: Cosmic Loom ISBN 1-871989-09-4 Publisher: Unwin Hyman, 1987 first edition; Urania Trust 1999 revised and enlarged edition.
• Elwell, Dennis: 'Here's the Answer, Now What's the Question' essay in The Future of Astrology Edited by A. T. Mann, ISBN 0-04-133023-4 Publisher: Unwin Hyman, 1987 First Hardback Edition; London.

References

---

Your proposed edit will need to be improved on several points. -- Reference 1,3 and 7 go to the same page on astro-databank. This cannot be considered a 'reliable secundary source' because it depends largely on user input and cannot be verified unless it refers to other sources. If that is the case then these other sources should be given rather than an astro-databank link. -- Reference 2 looks OK to me. -- Reference 4 and 6 are also redundant, and is very likely to be challenged as a 'reliable secundary source' -- Reference 5 appears to be self-sourced. If the 1987 prediction did indeed gain significant press attention, then what we need is references to that press attention. No matter how true the prediction may have been , it shouldn't be mentioned if no high quality sources can be found for it. WP is not edited based on truth or our opinion, it is edited based on what we can verify. -- What we need is 'reliable sources'. Doing a google book search yields several references that can be used here. Focus on that instead. -- Your current edit will not satsify the editor who tagged this article as being written like an advertisment and lacking 'independent sources', in fact your proposed edit makes it look a lot worse. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

- Reference 1,3 and 7 go to the same page on astro-databank.

The astro-databank is reputable and known for being reliable because it uses the Rodden rating system which evaluates how reliable the information is. This one is rated A ‘accurate’.

- This cannot be considered a 'reliable secundary source' because it depends largely on user input and cannot be verified unless it refers to other sources.

Indeed it’s the same principle as Wikipedia. Even if that principle were of concern here - its not since WP requires citability not truth - it’s not even relevant in this instance. Most users can contribute to the biography pages as they can on WP, but the only pages that are locked for edits, and cannot be created or edited except by the administrators of the databank are those for the notable astrologers that they select. Those details are selected and protected.

Reference 4 and 6 are also redundant, and is very likely to be challenged as a 'reliable secundary source'

If the editor who tagged the article feels they are redundant they can easily be removed. They are there to show the published sources of the comments used in this item. It’s unlikely that the web source will be challenged as a reliable secondary source. Since you tried to make this point elsewhere I’ll repeat my answer, which you may not have seen already, here:

How do we know its credible? Easily answered. Its not about what you think or I think. Go to Google books and run a search on the word ‘Skyscript.co.uk’ and then check how many books, including academic publications, quote the site as their source of information. That explains my use of it. In many cases its the only source of easily accessed information because it covers a specialised level of the subject that goes beyond the popular end of astrology.

Reference 5 appears to be self-sourced. If the 1987 prediction did indeed gain significant press attention, then what we need is references to that press attention. No matter how true the prediction may have been , it shouldn't be mentioned if no high quality sources can be found for it. WP is not edited based on truth or our opinion, it is edited based on what we can verify. -- What we need is 'reliable sources'.

They are given here with refs to two reputable sources. The Skyscript site and the Garry Phillipson book. Since it’s documented and part of the public reputation of this man then WP needs to cover it. Why you are raising the matter of whether it’s true or not? Irrelevant. Truth is not being suggested one way or another here. This is just reporting in a neutral fashion.

Doing a google book search yields several references that can be used here. Focus on that instead.

Following your suggestion I did that. I ran a google book search for “dennis elwell astrology Herald Free Enterprise” and came up with 4 returns. However I can’t see the content, view what was written and I don’t know how to make those links. But surely this is not a problem - I gave reference links to substantiate the article content. If anyone wants to point those references elsewhere or to better sources that’s fine, great. What matters is that this presently poor quality page gets improved so that it’s a good entry in Wikkipedia. I’m not the one who has issues with where the references go or follow-up links. Let’s just get the page right.

And no, I don’t think I’ve made the page look a lot worse. It’s an improvement and might help to get the ugly tags removed. Hopefully others will now see this as something to keep and developClooneymark (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I will ask for editor assistance on this page. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Clooneymark (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Clooneymark I believe that Elwell’s prediction, though well known amongst astrologers and astrology students at the time, may require additional verification. A Press reference would make it worthy of inclusion since there is a case that this is what the public expect astrologers to do and this was a major event.

Whether Elwell's prognostication can be verified or not, this entry is certainly not an advertisement. The only possible item that can be bought here is Elwell’s book Cosmic Loom, which is currently out of print and can be purchased from amazon (etc) at a premium with no benefit to the author. I cannot imagine a published author being listed on WP without a full list of their titles with links and ISBNs. Given that there is nothing to sell, I don’t believe that this retired octogenarian is actively seeking self-promotion on the web. So I propose that that 'advert' tag is removed asap, unless someone can put the case for keeping it.

MakeSense64 I notice that you question the reliability of the sources for the proposed revisions. Here is some background that may help:

• Editing is permitted on astrodatabank – however unlike Wikipedia, I understand that editors are vetted for their expertise on the subject before being granted authority to edit. The Swiss site hosted by Dr Alois Triendl has a high international reputation for precision and reliabilty.
• Skyscript is a major source of reference for articles on astrology contributed by experts in the field. I don’t believe there is a better online resource for historical information relating to astrology.
• Gary Phillipson is a well respected published author known for his neutral interviews of astrologers and sceptics.

These are all solid sources within the field. So that there is no question that you aren’t ruling out sources from astrological experts as a matter of personal taste or bias or due to a lack of familiarity with the field, please could you list what you would consider the top ten sites authored by experts in astrology that would to you be acceptable as WP sources? Robert Currey talk 14:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Further to my last post, I have contacted the principal editor of skyscript, Deborah Houlding to ask if she can provide more information on Elwell's prediction. Robert Currey talk 15:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not here to be quized on my knowledge of astrological sites. Even somebody who knows nothing about astrology can question whether WP guidelines are being applied, and tag articles that lack references. -- A few remarks:

• About Elwell's predition. Agree that a press reference will be much better than a self-sourced article. That's what I was saying.
• Agree that putting in a well sourced bibliography should be the first priority to improve this article. That's what I suggested.
• Astrodatabank is a wiki. WP guidelines asks to avoid open wikis WP:SPS. It doesn't matter how good is the reputation of the astro.com site. If the astrodatabank wiki article about a certain person refers to a reliable source, then we can and should use that source reference here in the WP article, not the astrodatabank link. If the astrodatabank page gives no source for the information, then we cannot verify it and should not include it here.
• Same for skyscript. No matter how informative that site may be, the articles with historical information usually contain source references to where that information comes from. Then we can and should use that original source reference here in the WP article, not the skyscript link. If historical information in a skyscript article cites no sources, then why believe it? And WP:SPS clearly states : Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

MakeSense64 (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response,MakeSense64. Assessing sources according to the WP guidelines is the way to go. I also agree that wherever possible the original source is best, though I prefer the good practice and courtesy of citing the route as well as quite often a modern book or a web site is more accessible to anyone researching a subject. I see no need to make Wikipedia user unfriendly by quoting only an obscure ancient text for example.

WP:SPS states "... self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources."

Astrodatabank and skyscript do not fall into the categories listed.

In the first instance as stated before Astrodatabank is not an open Wiki. It has become a surprisingly well established resource. It was originally created by Lois Rodden as an online progression from a series of books (not self-published) containing chart and biographical data. Secondly, Skyscript is not a blog, social network or personal website. It contains many articles from a variety of well-known, independently published authors. Both sites contain forums, but like other authoritative sites where individual opinions are expressed, this sector is not a reliable source.

WP:ABOUTSELF states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

As an independently published author and speaker at astrological conferences, Dennis Elwell evidently qualifies in this category.

However, without the verification of a newspaper, the crux of the argument for/against inclusion of the prediction boils down to the next section of WP:ABOUTSELF:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. . the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. . it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. . it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. . there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. . the article is not based primarily on such sources.

As skyscript is an independent publisher, I would not consider Elwell's article to be self-published and no one has to date questioned the veracity of his claim. However, the 5 listed points are open to interpretation and debate. Robert Currey talk 23:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert

The article reproduced on Skyscript was originally published in the Traditional Astrologer magazine, as cited at the bottom of the Skyscript page. The reference is:

Elwell, Dennis. “An Astrological Warning of Trouble at Sea” The Traditional Astrologer Jun. 1993: 21-25

As you point out, this is not self-published material and Dennis Elwell has no connection to the Traditional Astrologer magazine; nor Garry Phillipson’s book; nor the Skyscript website (except for giving approval for his article and interview to be reproduced following my request).

Clooneymark’s proposed edit looks good to me although I would use reference 5 to give the Traditional Astrologer publication details, since this was the original publication, and reference 4 should clearly state that the original source was Garry Phillipson’s book; the details are given in reference 1 but may be missed. Wikipedia policy can then dictate whether it is sensible and beneficial to add links alongside those publication details to online sources where the text can be viewed in context.

(removing reference to outing that was removed by a WP administrator)

I have a very old email address for Dennis but it is years since we were in touch and I don’t know if it is still active. I will try to contact him on it and if I get a response I will pass the information on to you personally by email for you to forward here if you wish.

Regards, D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.187.87 (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Deborah H. I have read the comments on your bio page. I am not in a position to get involved in this personal dispute, though I know that if your allegations about MakeSense64 are supported this is something Wikipedia would take seriously as it contravenes WP policy including: WP:SPA WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and possibly WP:NOTADVERTISING If you have evidence like an IP address or if you consider that a pattern of targeting you or skyscript continues, I suggest that you refer it directly to a WP administrator.

In the meantime, the comments from MakeSense54 suggest that he or she is an experienced editor of Wikipedia and for now, I would like to focus on a synthesis of the improvements to Dennis Elwell’s biography suggested by both MakeSense64 and Clooneymark. I have taken the liberty of removing the advert tag as proposed earlier, but have left the other tags on until a final version can be agreed. Robert Currey talk 10:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me point out that the comments D.Houlding made on her bio page have been removed on the grounds of WP:OUTING and the WP administrator has also left a comment to explain the policy. -- Let it also be clear that I have not vandalized any WP page, and that challenging pages is a normal procedure to get them improved. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

removed materials per WP:TALKO. Talk page is about the topic. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I have put the question whether astrodatabank is a reliable source on the reliable sources noticeboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#is_astro_databank_reliable.3F So far the only answer is: no. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And that only answer was based on you not presenting the full facts. I've added a remark to give a better understanding of the situation and to point out the other comments that were made here. Let's see how it goes there, I doubt anyone else will have a problem with this.

The general consensus is that the proposed changes improve the page so I've added the new info to the page and have requested that the editors who originally tagged the page revisit to consider removing the tags they placed. Clooneymark (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you know on what that person's answer was based? On the reliable sources noticeboard people do not answer based on the facts you give them, but based on what they see for themselves on the source in question. He even cited what he saw as problematic on the main page.

I also don't know where you have seen consensus. The only consensus I have seen is that the part about the ship disaster prediction will need independant sources. WP guidelines are very clear on that point. If you phrase something --In 1987 Elwell gained significant press attention for-- , then you need to be able to cite some press coverage to back up that statement. Otherwise it has to be phrased differently , or removed.

Now that part of the article falls back on something that Elwell has written himself. So it should not be used because WP:ABOUTSELF, it involves claims about third parties. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This point has already been adequately discussed, not only by myself. Robertcurrey explained with patience that there is no question of the remark being self-published because this was written about Elwell as a lede to his article, which was also not self-published.

I would ask that you do not attempt another edit war on this page because otherwise I will have no option but to put back those comments of relevancy that you alone decided ought to be removed, to spare your own embarresment. They show your motives for causing disruption and generating trouble where none need exist. I am trying to add value to this page, whereas all you are doing is trying to cause trouble. Let me remind you that there are thousands of bios on Wikipedia with none or hardly any references at all. Since you have had your say and no one else supports you it is in your interest to find another page to work on.Clooneymark (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I read this in Robertcurrey's comments here: I believe that Elwell’s prediction, though well known amongst astrologers and astrology students at the time, may require additional verification. A Press reference would make it worthy of inclusion since there is a case that this is what the public expect astrologers to do and this was a major event.

That's what I think too. To support the statement that there was significant press attention you probably need more than an article from Traditional Astrologer magazine 1993 (and thus 6 years after the event)

It is pointless to accuse everybody who disagrees with you of starting edit wars, and suggest that they should leave after they had their say. That's patronizing. Maybe first take a look at what an Editwar actually is. We haven't been in one.

Get used to it that people will disagree with you on WP. Often a concensus is not reached. That doesn't mean they are starting edit wars, or in a vendetta against you. Now you are bringing the same kind of ad hominem comments that a WP adminstrator deleted from your history just yesterday, and threatening to bring more. But somehow you try to paint me as the one who is making trouble. Have a good look at that. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I would only need more support for that statement if it was my own description. It's not - I've given the details of the published journal where the statement was said of him in 1993 and this can be seen by following the online link. You know this. WP is not about doing detective work to try to prove or disprove the circumstances that define someones reputaion. We only need to point to the sources where that element of renown has been published and circulated. So no - we don't need to start trailing newspaper archives for evidence of press reports from over 30 years ago. If others want to do that they can.Clooneymark (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the complete part backed by ref #5 : In 1987 Elwell gained significant press attention for a publicised prediction which forewarned two shipping companies of potential trouble at sea, one of them being the ferry company P&O Ferries. Nine days after P&O replied to Elwell that their procedures were designed "to deal with the unexpected from whatever quarter", their ship, the Herald of Free Enterprise, capsized at Zeebrugge with the loss of 188 lives.

I don't see how this is coming from the foreword to his article only. Strong statements are made about third parties here, and these statements are from the article that he wrote himself, then submitted for publication in Traditional Astrologer magazine. The title of his article clearly says "An astrological warning of Trouble at Sea, by Denis Elwell" . If I am only one who thinks you need better quality secondary sources for statements like that, then so be it. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys - I hope you dont mind my adding to this discussion. Now, Im a bit of a newbie here, so dont have much experience to offer - however I can say that I had a tough time editing a page when I first started because I "knew" certain things to be true about something, and found it frustrating to constantly come up against a brick wall with people wanting more and more verifications of those facts. So I think I have some clue of whats going on here - although I must say its not a subject I would usually touch on. I would suggest, as an outsider, that if you cant come to a concensus with a cite from one source, do a good search for a secondary back up to verify the first claim. Sometimes, with the best will in the world, we have to let go of something we would really want to see in the article because we cant cite it and we may think its really important or whatever, but because Wiki is an encylopedia, we have to abide by its rules. Better to remove something we cant prove than have clean up tags and cites requested all over the place. There is nothing stopping you from continuing research and trying to find a back up source later after all. Of course thats just my suggestion. Best wishes Panderoona (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Review 8 June 2011

I decided to look at the article without referring to comments on this page, this to concentrate entirely on the article as it stands on 8 June 2011. The best way to approach the article and what it asserts is by looking at references, as WP:Verifiability is all.

Citations 1, 7 and accompanying text - Astro.com Wiki site is not an independent source as it promotes the subject of Astrology and in this particular case, Elwell, just as it would not be appropriate to try to prove the quality of a Republican politician by referring to an official or supporting Republican Party website - the tone of astro.com’s language confirms this lack of neutrality.

Citation 2 is OK – it shows Elwell is an astrologer.

Citation 3 - This cite doesn’t support the sentence or paragraph and it again refers to the partial astro.com.

Citation 4 - The Skyscript site (registrant Deborah Houlding) is suspect as this page is also repeated on astro.com (the registrant details of astro.com have been hidden from Whois). Any wording, or interpretation from the wording, in the sentence or paragraph cannot be accepted if it refers to the Q&A session therein – a subject cannot be self-referencing for verifiability – although the introductory statement might be allowed to be referenced if Skyscript is seen to be viable; I believe Skyscript not viable but I could be convinced otherwise. However, the sentence and paragraph as written is editorializing as it does not reflect, but embellishes, what is said in the Skyscript introduction.

Citation 5 - Again possibly suspect Skyscript – certainly not good enough for the major assertion in the sentence of significant press attention. This significant press attention has to be shown by references to actual verifiable serious independent press reports – for example The Times, Telegraph, Guardian, etc.

Citation 6 - Again the Q&A session at Skyscript, and yet again a subject cannot self-reference.

As far as I can see, the only reasonable citation is number 2 that indicates that Elwell is an astrologer, with all other wording, although quite possibly factual, being not independently verified – Wikipedia’s major concern is verifiability, not what we know or believe to be true. If what remains is a just a stub with a non-independently reviewed book and essay, the notability of Elwell for Wikipedia may be called into question. The templates should stand as I believe the references to be flawed. It all hinges on the viability of the promotional Houlding’s Skyscript and astro.com Wiki. Acabashi (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I made two small edits - Elwells year of birth was accidentally entered twice so I removed one. I also entered the word "and" in the phrase astrologer, journalist, author "and" lecturer.

I also added two citation requests - If Elwell wrote for American Astrology for twenty years I would expect to find some of his articles online? This sentence:The association continued for twenty years and subsequently led to an international reputation for his articles which appeared in most well known international astrology journals. would make me even more likely to find evidence of this "international reputation". The foreseeing of the ferry disaster and kings cross fire - to make such a claim you would need either a very reliable independant site to source it from, OR two citations - one astrology related and one skeptic related to give a balanced viewpoint. If he had "significant press attention" for said predictions, I would expect to be able to find reference to it.

The burden of proof Im afraid lies with the person who wants to include it in the article. Hope this isnt all coming across too negative, it may not feel like it, but we are trying to help. Panderoona (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

added a book ref regarding the apparent foreseeing of the ferry disaster - however it does not make claim to press interest or recognition - only to Elwell stating himself that he foresaw the event. I do hope it helps a bit though. Panderoona (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Panderoona. That the Herald of Free Enterprise sank is an obvious fact, but whether it sank 9 days after Elwell sent a letter, if he ever did send a letter and got a reply (probably true but unverified), is the contention. Your cite to here indicates that Elwell made a conference claim that he sent a letter but this is self-referencing, and there are no independent sources to support the sent letter claim. So the cite is not viable unless against wording that Elwell made a claim that he sent a letter. The adjacent cite, Houlding's Skyscript, makes a similar assertion, but as it is in an article written by Elwell it is again an unreliable self-referencing source. A subject self-referencing can't be used as verifiable proof whether it's in their own written articles, interviews, or others reporting what they said, unless it is noted in the article text as a claim, in which case it's usually not worth noting anyway unless it led to something else - such as let's say for example a notable and significantly reported counterclaim or court case. Acabashi (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

When I am doing an advanced news search on Google, nothing turns up for Dennis Elwell before 1990, and the Dennis Elwell that does turn up is the major of Secaucus,NJ. This complicates the search. When I add in words like "astrologer" or "Herald", there are no results. I am not sure how far the news search goes back in time, but for example when I searched on "Cheiro" I got plenty newspaper articles from the early 1900s.

This suggests to me that either the significant press attention was not so significant, or British newspapers before 1990 are not yet in the google search.

I also wonder why somebody who worked as a journalist most of his life, did not include direct references to any of the press coverage in his article.

MakeSense64 (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers guys for your replies. I agree with Acabashi that with no obvious verification reference to the Herald of Free Enterprise incident should be completely reworded to reflect what the cited references state, which is that he made a claim to that effect.

Being of a certain age  ;) and no expert in this field, the only name I can think of in regard to something similar is that of Nella Jones. Now if I google her name, all sorts of stuff comes up, and yet she doesnt even have a page on Wikipedia. Given that this is a BLP do we have a consensus of opinion?

Whoever wrote the above comment - could you please add your sig.? No we certainly don't have consensus of opinion on that, and since it is potentially libellous to suggest that the subject self-promoted himself by making up spurious reports of the prediction then you need to be very hesitant indeed before publishing a report of the incident that reads in a way that such might be construed. The focus of Wikipedia is to report on what is reportable; not to speculate on what may or may not be your own suspicions or negative assumptions. I have just added some point of notability refs, one of which includes the fact that he was featured in a channel 4 program in 2000 concerning recent notable astrological predictions, on the basis of this event. This is a point of notability for Elwell, and if it is shown to have been treated with credibility by the media then WP need only reference this and take the reported information in good faith.

The fact that someone here might suspect that Elwell simply self-promoted; or that someone here might suspect that the registrant of the Skyscript site could be the secret registrant of the Astro-databank is completely irrelevant. The latter is a little ridiculous given the well known status of the ownership of those sites. Please be careful to leave your bias out of this article. I am still researching this and will try to find more to substantiate the points that might benefit from stronger referencing. For this I will need more time. However, the point has already been made: Dennis Elwell was notable in his field, and he is also known for his correspondence with P&O at the time of the Herald disaster.

Panderoona - thanks for sharing your experience with me. I can agree with what you are saying - it seems reasonable and I can see that your advice is well meaning. So I will take it on board. Thanks.

It was me who forgot to sign above, for which I apologise. I have a habit of doing that because Im concentrating on what I want to actually say and then simply forget. It was I that wrote on your talk page asking you to come here and read through what we have been saying, as I would not wish to draw a concensus of opinion without you. Now, Im not suggesting for a moment that the entire page goes west, never have and I cant see a reason for a wholesale deletion. He does undoubtedly exist, and he certainly is an astrologer, and probably known to those in his field. My problem is what is verifiable from external unbiased sources. What is verifiable from external sources - including your recent edit - is that he made a claim that he wrote to the ferry companies and etc - there is no proof even via the C4 witness transcription that any ferry company agreed that this was so, and no newspaper accounts can be found, and I have been looking most of the day. So the only answer I can see is a more unbiased rewording of the facts that we CAN verify. Now as I said previously I know and understand your frustration, but sometimes we have to let go of what we cant cite and concentrate on what we can to improve an article, and remove those pesky tags. There is absolutely no reason why something that has been removed cannot be re entered once a good verifiable source has been found. Best wishes Panderoona (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked in the off-line newspaper archives though? Or just Googling? This is pre-web material. One reason why it's important to capture this story whilst we can, because it is becoming living history. I personally find the suggestions that Elwell made the story up distasteful, so I wish editors would drop their speculation on that. It's not just that I remember this, but that he is so respected in the astrological community, and a man who has a good reputation should not have that good reputation taken away from him on WP by editors who know only what they can easily access on Google, to which is added speculation. No offence intended, this is simply what will happen here if we are not careful. No need to rush things. Give me some time please.

BTW, there are other web references to the prediction - some of them critical in suggesting that it added no value to the credibility of astrology - but there is not one single suggestion that Elwell fabricated the claims. That suggestion doesn't even make sense - the details about him receiving a letter from P&O were too widely circulated and publicly published, and too easily dismissed by P&O if that were not the case, for him to publicise something like that if it was untrue. Cheers Clooneymark (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked at offline newspaper articles obviously, because they are not to hand. Now with regard to online news sources many date back that far, and yet we dont come up with anything for this particular reference. If we cant verify it - it cant be included, and as someone once said to me, "I cant stress that enough". Now we can either, include the fact that published sources prove he claimed it, or we can delete the reference to that incident entirely, if you feel that it would cause offence if it were to be worded that way. The fact is that the burden of proof lies with you who wants it included, not with those who dont care much one way or the other - BUT want the entire article to be a good one, with citations and references, and no tags asking for more information and etc. Please believe me I am trying to help, although I am sure it doesnt feel like it. Panderoona (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well as I said, give me some time because I will try to find documentation that is not easily to hand. Can I ask that people don't speculate on cutting or rewriting this for say, two weeks, so that myself and anyone else who wants to, can add what is able to be located before decisions are made? Thanks Clooneymark (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's not necessary. No decision is ever final on WP. If something is removed because we have no sources today, then you can always put it back in after two weeks, once you have the sources. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Panderoona is right that things can always be added back in , once proper sources are found. More and more old newspaper articles are being digitalized and coming online. I think it is quite important for his notability to find quality independant secondary sources about his prediction. Just to be an astrologer of good reputation and with a few books published, that alone does not qualify for notability. No matter how well loved Elwell may be in his community, we have to go by WP standards. There are no specific notability guidelines for living astrologers, but we do find indirect mention of it in Notability(academics) WP:TEACHER If you read the details down the page for criterion 6, 7 and 8 , then we see clear exceptions being made for pseudoscience. So, as per crit.7, having published books on pseudoscience, is generally not enough for an academic to be considered notable. As per crit.6, being the head of an institute or center of pseudoscience, is not enough for an academic to be notable. As per crit.8, being the editor of a journal dedicated to pseudoscience is also not enough to be notable. Also crit.2 may be relevant. Only prestigious academic awards qualify for notability. Is an astrological award a "prestigious" academic award? Now, I am not sure if I am interpretating it correctly, maybe Acabashi can fill us in, but if academics cannot be notable from mentioned activities in pseudoscience, then do we put the bar lower for non-academics? That would be discriminating to academics. So, I think Elwell's notability hangs on finding good sources for his predictions that made the mainstream press. That doesn't mean these sources have to be found immediately, things have time on WP. So give Clooneymark time. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has previously written about geography, its wierd indeed to find myself in a discussion on a living person - and thats my biggest thought, BLP is pretty clear as is the note at the top of the page about deletion of unsourced/poorly sourced information. I too would like Acabashis (or another admins) advice on the right way to go with regard to removal of unsourced/badly sourced material and what kind of timescale is relevant. The note a the top of the page says "immediate" - so I think two weeks is probably pushing it a bit? If Cloonymark comes up with good sources, undeniably he should put the references back in. I have found a reference that proves he is has given lectures http://www.londonschoolofastrology.co.uk/about/lecturers.php so thats another small plus. Please note I am absolutely not suggesting the article be deleted, only brought in line with Wikipedias standards. What is more, given the level of current interest, I think a really good article could be the end result, and I believe that is what we all want. Panderoona (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Putting things to WP standards is our only job here. And since astrology is a pseudoscience we have to take the related WP guidelines into account. The press sources from 1987 would help a lot to establish his notability. Being a respected astrologer who has a school or gives lectures, that is not notable. There are plenty of respected academics, who give lectures every day in universities, who have some articles published, but they don't meet the standards to be on WP. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As for the timescale to remove unsourced material. Basically you are expected to do some search for sources (e.g. on Google) before you delete something. But you don't need to wait days or weeks to remove unsourced materials, in fact in some cases you are required to remove immediately. If you have made a good faith effort to find proper sources and didn't find any, then you can remove right away. In fact, that's often the quickest way to get an article improved. Either others will bring back the material (with sources) , or other sourced items can be found to add to the article. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a reference source in which industry awards and industry notability is relevant. Makesense64 has done this before - try to turn the bio of an astrologer into a controversial argument over whether astrology is a pseudoscience. That is NOT relevant and it is an argument that does not have to be made here. Elwell's notability does not rest purely on one incident (I'm sure if it did, he would argue for this bio to be removed anyway as being notable for only one incident). His notability is established by the measure of his influence, and by the fact that that he has a prominent reputation within his industry. Writing one book does not make someone notable. Writing a book that has been influential does. Elwell's book has been reprinted four times because it remains widely regarded as one of the most respected astrology books of recent times. I'll add those details later.

Thirdly, that note at the top of the page which calls for "immediate removal" has been in place since 2006. It is only since I came into this page to add reference and try to improve the value of the page that it suddenly becomes crucial to act immediately? How strange. I'm sure you can give me one or two couple of weeks without that causing WP to 'break'. I'm hoping I won't need that length of time, but off-web enquiries are not as instant as we'd like them to be. Since I have requested a little leeway please give me the courtesy of a little good faith that I will continue to work on this.

BTW, Elwell has lectured widely. I will also be adding a link to him giving a particularly important lecture, soon. Feel free to help out by adding in content tht helps the material meet best standards the page, as Panderoona has done.

Lastly, (and this is my last discussion point as I intend to drop the discussion page off my watchlist, so I can spend the time doing instead of talking) can I say that I did not create this article, and am not passionate about spending my time on it. I offered one 'further reading' link and got caught up in a controversy over spamming with someone who has a known bias against the site mentioned in the refs. It caught my eye as one tagged for possible deletion and I have remained involved to (initially) stop that happening and (currently) to try to ensure that a point of interest does not get dropped from record, or distorted towards a negative slant. I have said I am confident of improving the refs so I haven't asked a lot for you to give me a bit of time to do the best job I can. Thanks Clooneymark (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Points:

First, I understand there is a viewpoint that astrology is pseudoscience (above), but Wikipedia doesn’t make such subjective, or even objective, judgments – it is neutral. Astrology is a subject that exists and has adequate history and sources whatever views exist of it, and we must approach this article with the same disinterest that should apply to all Wiki articles.

To add comments that appear to set one editor against another (above), or to perhaps to garner support by setting the quality of comment of a particular editor against another is discourteous and should be resisted – in fact we are here to discuss the article, not the personalities. And indeed I came to this article through the request of two editors and have commented on the veracity of the article in good faith and neutrality.

“The focus of Wikipedia is to report on what is reportable”? No, the focus of Wikipedia is to report on what is WP:Verifiable, even truth is secondary to this. We all know stuff that many people might see to be “true”, but for Wikipedia, if it is not verified by significant reliable neutral sources independent of the subject, it’s not viable. His own words can be linked to, but until neutral corroboration is found, they have to treated as a claim. No-one is suggesting that Elwell made-up spurious predictions – as I said above, the prediction about the Herald of Free Enterprise is “probably true”, and his family, friends and colleagues might have seen him write and post the letter and have read the reply from P&O, and I suspect that there was some press coverage, but this is not the same as neutral independent verification.

The Channel 4 transcription at birthsigns.co.uk notes what it says are Elwell’s own words, but not even a comment from a presenter saying that he sent the letter – when someone says something on a TV program, which in itself could have been partial, do we take at face value that what they say is truth? No. If we did we would have a surprising trust in politicians. Again, I have faith that what he said is true, but all we can verify is that he again made a claim on TV, reported second hand on a web page. There is no corroboration from newspaper reports or P&O themselves from the time.

The registrants of Skyscript and Astrobank Wiki are indeed irrelevant, but the viability of those two sites I believe is not. Both are in the business of promoting the general subject, and both promote Elwell – my view is that neither site is neutral, although as I said above, “I could be convinced otherwise” – I would be glad to see evidence that both sites are even-handed in their views of whether astrology or Elwell can be believed or not. We would not expect a Maoist website to describe failings of communism and Mao alongside the glories.

The burden of proof is much higher on BLPs than on other types of articles – rightly so – and we should therefore on BLPs be more stringent with verification, and in removing dubious citations and wording attached. Acabashi (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

wow! okay firstly, I stand absolutely by Acabashis fairness and judgement - he is one of three people instrumental in helping and pointing me in the right direction. I saw what was said about this article on his talkpage and came here to try and help because I do know (and Im sure Acabashi and most other editors here have experienced the same) it CAN be frustrating in the extreme. But Wikipedia stands by what is verifiable NOT by any truths someone might know but cannot verify. If you cant cite it - it doesnt belong here and thats the end of it. If you want to write your own website about it, then you can write what you like because its yours. Here you cant, because it isnt. That other articles arent up to scratch, or that this wasnt or isnt, isnt the point. Our attention has been drawn to it for whatever reason, and whatever reason is not the point - it has come to our attention, and anything that is unverifiable will have to go as per Wikipedia rules. That is not to say it cannot be added again once citations have been found. But I implore you to understand that this is how it is, however frustrating that might be, and unreferenced material (or any other material against wiki policy) can and will be challenged and most likely deleted if sources cant be found - especially in the case of a BLP. Panderoona (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Acabashi's comment makes me wonder. Then why are these distinctions being made for pseudoscience in the Notability(academic) guidelines? WP:ACADEMIC crit. 6, 7 and 8

Pseudoscience is being defined in this WP guideline WP:PSCI, and astrology is listed as belonging to this category.

So it looks like WP actually does make a judgement and has some specific guidelines for pseudoscience. Are we then not supposed to use it? I have found a lot of articles of astrologers that need improvement or deletion. Before I work on them I will first need a better idea what creates notability in the case of an astrologer or occultist.

Panderoona is right. Better delete the things that cannot be properly backed up. The paragraph about Elwell's prediction was not here when I found this article one week ago. So it will not be a disaster if this information is removed till proper sources are found, maybe after one or two weeks. MakeSense64 (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies MakeSense64, you are of course right - I did think you were being disparaging, which of course you weren't. I think the intensity of the discussion was getting to me :) Humbled. The point that we should treat Astrology as any other subject is a good one though. Acabashi (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I think it would be better if WP had more clear notability guidelines specific for astrology and other psci topics. Now it is kind of mixed in with the Academics, which is probably the last place where it should be put, because psci topics have often more in common with religion. Not an easy problem to solve. MakeSense64 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to take the question on notability/pseudoscience to somewhere where its liable to be answered from "way up" so you getting a truely definitive answer - being new Im not sure where that might be Im afraid although Acabashi might know, and you seem to be able to find your way fround from what Ive seen? Apologies for not being very useful. Im part Romany and I had no idea it would turn into such a lengthly debate - I guess I must have been at the shallow end of the gene pool when they were handing out the clairvoyance ;) Panderoona (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No Panderoona, I was wrong - all my talk of not shooting from the hip and I shot myself in the foot. Acabashi (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

hope it hurt my friend. Heck we are all HUMAN ;)Panderoona (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested changes (rough copy)

Please note: I have entirely removed refs to precognition of the Herald of Free Enterprise incident as Cloonymark feels that it may be considered unfair to Elwell to say that he "claimed" (indicating its not proven) - we await external sources and can always add it back into the article.

=========

Dennis Elwell (born 11:44 pm GMT, 16 February 1930[1] in Stourbridge, England, UK) is a British astrologer,[2] journalist, author, and lecturer.[3]

After teaching himself the basics of astrology as a teenager, in his early twenties he began writing regularly for American Astrology an association which continued for about twenty years. Though a local journalist by profession for most of his life, Elwell reported that he explored any byway that might throw light on astrology, leading to a study of science on the one hand, and occultists like Rudolf Steiner and Gurdjieff on the other. He began lecturing to astrologers in 1963 and gained a reputation for being an original thinker and stimulating speaker.[4][5]

His book, Cosmic Loom, was published (Unwin Hyman, 1987) and later republished in a revised and enlarged edition by the Urania Trust.

Elwell is also known for running an correspondence course on astrology in the early 1990s entitled "The Chiron Project"[10] which closed at the end of the 1990s when he entered retirement.

In 2007 Dennis Elwell was awarded the 'Charles Harvey Award for Exceptional Service to Astrology' by the Astrological Assocition of Great Britain, in recognition of his work.[11]

Looks a lot better than the article I found here a week ago, and has a good neutral tone.

The one thing I am wondering about is: Elwell is also known for running an correspondence course on astrology in the early 1990s entitled "The Chiron Project"[10] which closed at the end of the 1990s when he entered retirement.

To mention the publication of a book, OK. But running of a correspondence course, is this notable enough to mention? MakeSense64 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Acabashi I apologise for being hasty in forming doubts about your neutrality and have edited my last comment to take out the remark that was inappropriate. It was the comment made about the registrant of Skyscript being possibly the same registrant of Astrodatabank that concerned me, given the history of discussion on this page. It is easily established that Astrodata bank is associated with Astro.com and the owner of the astrodatabank site is well known within the astrological community. It seems tiresome that such things need to be pointed out, but only because I’ve spent more time than I felt was necessary already, to try to clear away unnecessarily allegations. And just as Panderoona admits to not realising this would turn into such a lengthy debate – neither did I. The notion of bringing up a whole pseudo-science debate fills me with despair. That is something I do not want to get into myself, nor have raised as a reason to question the otherwise reliable references I am trying to locate. Why should this particular entry be targetted with that issue, just because it is one I am trying to improve by a better level of reference? Also note, that in your edit above where you crossed out your former remark, you needed to cross out the comment "Wikipedia is neutral".

All I ask is that this entry gets the same treatment towards neutrality as any other. No more, no less. Even though it concerns a subject who, as an astrologer, is likely to attract the prejudicial hostility of those who have a dislike for his subject. But please note that it has not been established that what has been said cannot be backed up. I have more references to add tomorrow, and will work on this until it is fully supported, or as supported as I can make it. Hence my appeal to just give me a little time, and understand that I want to concentrate on the content, not on the discussion of thorny issues that will likely cause a lot of controversy and end up going nowhere. (And also, when I say ‘reportable’, I mean it is reportable because it is verifyable). Clooneymark (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

firstly, I stand by the edit I made rightly or wrongly, on account that we need to give a tiny bit of leeway to both sides. Clooneymark has offered to come up with the goods, and as a rough approximation of an article until such time, I think we can say it its pretty well within the limits of acceptability. - Not long term, but certainly short term. Im not pushing myself as an editor here by the way but I had the feeling that Acabashi was already involved, so were both Clooneymark and MakeSense64. In effect, that means the only truely neutral party in the current debate is me, so like yeah Ill take the blame. With regard to "Why should this particular entry be targetted with that issue, just because it is one I am trying to improve by a better level of reference?" it would be easy to think that were so if you were an editor (especially a new one) trying to better (in your eyes) an article. However, the fact is Wiki is and always will be, a site where no one owns an article-facts and citations can and will come up against challenges and it can always be edited by others. And will be - because as has been mentioned, new things appear on the web every day. Neutrality of position and verifiability are the keys to good examples of wiki articles, and that is what me must strive for. There is no point, as I already said, in believing its some kind of personal vendetta, because it isnt. Wiki is vast - pages dont get looked at as much as they should, but if we are to consider ourselves serious editors, then we must do our very best to strive to improve articles within Wiki rules. However this particular one came to attention is not important. Editing a page is a surefire way to be noticed after all - It may seem hard to believe but it is not personal. In fact its trying to be perfect ;) Best wishes. Panderoona (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-science is part of the WP guidelines, whether we like it or not. And since astrology is listed under psci, it applies here.

But it doesn't affect the reliability of sources you bring. Sources are judged on their own merits. Psci concerns can come into play when notability is questionable. That's why good sources about the prediction would make the article stronger, because it makes notability stronger.

You can take as much time as you want. As soon as you bring quality sources the paragraph about the ship disaster prediction can be added in. Without quality sources the piece about the prediction should not be in. That's all we have to think about as editors. MakeSense64 (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason not to improve the article based on what we have and can source right now. Later additions remain always possible, as long as they are up to WP standards. MakeSense64 (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

strange as it may seem, I took time out today to look at various religious articles and how they deal with the obvious kind of arguments - Astrology falls in my book within the realms of a belief system, so I think taking time out to check up on how other belief system pages works is valuable. Its an extremely tricky subject because you are pitting belief against verifiability and fact - its always gonna be a tough subject. In another world many years ago I was admin on a certain newsgroup which neccessitated a big step back and the only reason I bring it up here is because by its nature you "to develop skin as thick as a Rhinoceros" to be able to do it. I think you guys are both very valid - the one passionate about the subject and belief system regarding Astrology, and the other passionate about the skeptical side and if you want my 2p worth Ill tell you this - you are both as valid as the other, and you should recognise each other and work together to hold each other in check, and produce the best arguments for and against wiki has ever seen, one is ying to the others yang. You could together be a formidable partnership. Food for thought. Now wheres my choccy? Panderoona (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Why so quick to put a 'rough copy' onto the main page, which now makes my work of trying to substantiate comments that are no longer present, and integrate reference code into old material so much more difficult? I even stated that I have references to add tomorrow - could this not have waited even 24 hours? When I proposed a revision for the page I myself gave plenty of time for feedback, discussion and approval before changing the content on the main page. I asked for feedback and review after posting and received that only this morning. Since then I have been as clear as I can be that I am in the process of obtaining more substantiation. There is no doubt that the omitted section is relevant and already verified to an extent that shows it will merit some form of inclusion. Clooneymark (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I restored the content with the later minor amendments made by Panderoona, and have added the details that I wanted to add for now. Have reworded the shipping forecast section to show that the details come from his own report. I am still working on this so please allow a reasonable amount of time for discussion, enquiry and correction, before deleting substantial sections of text on the basis of the need for citation. It is difficult work to interpose into the code of the article - at least for me - and it took a lot of time to recapture what was deleted last night. Minor edits aside, it is much easier and more sensible if you allow time for references to be located, especially when someone has explained they are gathering them together and about to add some to the page. I am hoping to obtain more details on the shipping report, and need to make a detailed check to see what press reports are able to be located. I have other enquiries ongoing which will take a few days. Clooneymark (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Clooneymark. Maybe you don't realize it, but you act as if you own this page. And editors who disagree with you get negated, just like you are now also brushing aside Acabashi's recommendations for the page. I see you are only adding and adding. But WP is not about adding everything you can find about the person. Then all you get is a very bloated article. For example if you are going to list every article that people have published then you would get never ending pages on some biographies. Do you actually have any intention to remove the references that were deemed useless based on WP standards? I see you are adding more links to sources that are not independant.

My proposal is: revert the page back. That doesn't hinder your work at all, since you can always find any paragraph or sentence back in the history. But if anything is added to the page then it should come with the high quality independant sources that WP requires for BLP. You now increased quantity, but not quality. That's not the way to go.

As I have pointed out before. There seems to be a silver lining in everything you do on WP since you joined in 2007. And that is: adding more links to the skyscript.co.uk site. Now we can almost not count them anymore in this article.

What is going on here is very typical for "belief" based topics where some strong proponents are defending the page. Neutral editors who somehow end up reviewing the page are being tired out, till they quit. That gives the proponents what they want. I wonder how WP tries to address that problem.

MakeSense64 (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Im actually astonished to get up and find that its all back - and today I dont have time to help because I have a hospital appt and other things to attend to. So you have your day to find reasonable references. Im not sure why the issues that have been addressed over and over here are not sinking in. Point one: It is a BLP which means we have to be tighter about what is written on the page and unsourced or poorly sourced material MUST be removed. Point two: Verifiability from unbiased reputable sources. Point three: Neutral point of view. These are the ground rules for writing on wikipedia and should be adhered to at all times.Panderoona (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Panderoona. Actually I was not so surprised to find everything back (and more) this morning. In this type of articles around "belief" you have some editors with a very fixed idea of what the article should be, and they rarely move from their position no matter how many WP guidelines you point out. Usually a WP article gets balanced by giving due weight to the pro and the con side, and then consensus gets reached. But with astrology there is the problem that it has no such thing as a real peer review process, because most (if not all) of it is non-falsifiable. So astrology is more a field of peer-praise and peer-pressure. As a result you find 95% sources making favorable mention of a given astrologer, praising each other to get an article or book across to their group of students. This makes it difficult to create a balanced neutral tone WP article. Now with Elwell we are more lucky as we can find good criticism about him. Now setting up a new section for that.

On the one hand it is very hard to work on any BLP, not to mention BLP of musicians or astrologers. On the other hand it can also be most rewarding because of that challenge. My attitude is to try to enjoy the process (not always easy) , knowing fully well that the result can go any way. It's a kind of enjoy the journey rather than the destination thing.

All the best on your day. A day off can be good to come back with fresh ideas. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

criticism on Elwell

Just came into these pages : http://www.astrology-and-science.com/o-attk1.htm and http://www.astrology-and-science.com/o-attk2.htm , which publish some profound criticism on Elwell. This is very good news for this article, and can help us to give it a more neutral tone. I think we have to set up a "criticism" section for it, and use some of the materials we find in there to create equal weight. If Acabashi and Panderoona have not given up on trying to help with this article (which I would fully understand), then would appreciate their thoughts on how to do this properly. With a proper criticism section this could become one of the best WP articles about a living astrologer. Meanwhile I'll continue reading those new sources. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interesting passage found on one of these pages. Kind of strongly reminds of what we have going on here:

A further obstacle is Elwell's style, which is marked by unsupported assertions, ignorance of science, and abuse in lieu of scholarship. For example whenever he says X is crucial, he typically fails to explain it, or resorts to jibes, so readers have no clear idea of what X is about and no clear way of deciding whether X is a reasonable point. His strategy is to find fault but never suggest improvements, to brush aside or ignore what doesn't suit him, and to bury everything else in torrents of words. In other words to be as unhelpful as possible. There is no attempt (like ours below) to list issues concisely to facilitate discussion, or to summarise the arguments to facilitate progress. Our most common reaction to his unhelpfulness is "Elwell does not tell us", meaning "why should anyone believe this?".

MakeSense64 (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I see Clooneymark already added the new sources mentioned here, but it is not good WP practice to muffle the criticism away in the small print in the references, while putting them all together under one reference as to make them as small as possible. That shows bias on the side of the editor.

There is no point in adding sources without using anything from them in the article itself. Also the source http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/randel.htm has material that we can use directly in a proper criticism section to balance out this article. His refusal to participate in a $1 million controlled test should be mentioned against the succesful predictions he is claimed to have done. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is another piece to include (http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/ertel_elwell.htm). This is actually peer review by another astrologer, Professor Emeritus Dr Ertel, who is strongly critical of Elwell:

Dennis Elwell, despite being well informed, ignores all this research. He refers to a no-authority in statistical matters (Dawkins) who has published nothing in this field. Further, he ignores most favourable judgments on Gauquelin research by H.J. Eysenck, whose score of published statistical studies in mainstream psychology has hardly been excelled by anyone. For me, therefore, the way Elwell uses his intellectual capacity to downgrade scientific research on Gauquelin effects is utterly irresponsible. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

How interesting. Now we have a new editor Makepeace101, whose very first actions on WP consist of coming straight to Elwell's page to remove some tags. Care to introduce yourself and comment here on the talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Makepeace101 .

Changes reverted. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I applaud your time and good effort in discovering sources for alternative views. These are badly needed in this article to go some way to restore balance and neutrality, and most definitely are required in a "Criticism" section, very much accepted in articles of this sort. Acabashi (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have just got back from hospital - but will unfortunatly be busy most of the rest of the day. But I would like to add my thoughts here. As it is the article reads like a an advert and why the advert tag was removed I do not understand as it was there this morning. It is reading as heavily biased and absolutely NOT from a neutral point of view. There are two many Peacock words in it, and we are now wandering dangerously close to Original Research as well. Given the many problems the article has in its present state, I would say that the overnight and this mornings efforts to improve it are actually making it more liable to end up on the deleted pile. PLEASE before making further edits read up on Wikipedias Guidelines. Sorry that I simply cannot be around to offer further help, but a read back through this entire talkpage is needed as all the pointers for a good article, and what to avoid doing are up there. Panderoona (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry Panderoona. There is only that much we can do. If some editors insist on destroying the article and ready it for speedy deletion, then we cannot go on reverting the changes. Just enjoy your day. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

To briefly comment: I am not building on belief, but notable biographical information. As anyone can now see, this entry, which was marked for deletion, is valid and interesting. Although a living biography, it concerns someone who is now in his 80s and has led a full life with a notable career. All of the information given comes from reliable secondary sources. I will remove the ‘sources needed’ tag as that is transparently no longer needed, each comment being more than adequately referenced.

I was concerned that by adding links to online material, the old chestnut of spamming would come up again. But I checked WP policy, and this says that appropriate links are those which point to where published works are available online. The links are not a big issue to me. This about adding value to the page. Since the subject is notable, this page now offers a valuable reference source for anyone wishing to research his life and works, and also offers good ‘further reading’ information.

Sorry, but I do not wish to engage in discussions about what the problems with astrology or astrologers, or people who have beliefs, may or may not be. I’m not here to speculate – my concern is to add valuable information to an encyclopaedic resource. It should be no harder to work on the biography of an astrologer or musician than anyone else since, it is simply a matter of understanding WP principles and adhering to policies.

I have added all three of the critical links suggested, alongside those I gave earlier (which also lead to those links and are the means by which the criticisms and arguments of both sides can be explored in full). I have also included within the main body the critical quote from Ertel. I had already built in references to the fact that he had critics, and why he had critics, and had included the references and further reading suggestions for readers to follow that.

This is not a problem. The fact is that Elwell was notable and controversial in this regard, involved in challenging arguments, which is why I included the extra reference to this aspect of Elwell’s notability. I think it is significant that he had eminent critics and opponents. This doesn’t raise issues of neutrality for me. A neutrally written biography will feature the highs and the lows and the criticism as well as the praise. What we don’t want to do is steer away from coverage of the main points of notability by trying to replicate arguments or Elwell’s points of debate within the main page. We outline them, and provide a reference and link for further reading, which is what I have done.

BTW, I have no idea who Makesense101 is but will put on record now that this is nothing to do with me. Since the edits were explained with the comments “(Too many tags. Not relevant)” and “(Disagree. The article contains useful information and sources.)” I hope this new editor will express further views on this discussion page.Clooneymark (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Clooneymark. I have never seen this article marked for deletion. You may want to strike out your comment in that regard.

You say: All of the information given comes from reliable secondary sources. I have not seen anything near a concensus on that. You have not even bothered to address the concerns that Acabashi has formulated on that point. Since when are you the sole person to decide what are reliable secondary sources on WP?

It is better wikiquette to wait to remove "sources needed" tag till you get concensus on that point. Right now my answer is no.

It never hurts on WP to show that you also respect the other editors' input. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the WP advice on tagging WP:TAGGING. It says this:

It is best to provide the fewest number of the most specific possible tags. Placing too many tags on an article is "tag-bombing", disruptive, or may be a violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Placing vague tags on articles results in confusion and discouragement more often than it results in improving the encyclopedia.

Whether a tag should be placed on an article is sometimes the subject of disputes. Occasionally, editors place tags to make a point, to disrupt editing, or to be tendentious. Similarly, editors occasionally remove tags without solving real problems because they are embarrassed by the tag, do not want additional attention from other editors, or do not like tags.

Sometimes problems are solved by inexperienced editors, who incorrectly believe that they must wait for an authority figure to remove the official-looking template.

The latter applied to me when I incorrectly believed that since Acabashi placed the tag, he must be the one to remove it.

The advert tag was removed by another editor on 5th June. All comments are substantiated and I have included reference to criticisms so I am removing this and the ‘undue weight’ tag as having now been addressed.

Implications that I “insist on destroying the article and ready it for speedy deletion” are offensive and unnecessary. The material on the page has been well considered and thoughtfully attended to with the utmost attention to WP policy. I have, and still do, show myself to be listening to all opinon and taking advice on board. Ive addressed all the points of criticism that have been put forward. Insinuous comments, that by contributing content I am trying to 'take over the page' serve no constructive purpose. I stated an intention to try to imporve the page and have only asked that material is not hastily deleted whilst I am in the process of adding citations. The article will evolve by the input of others, but I have made a sincere attempt to contribute something worthwhile and non-controversial. To ensure that this article gets helpful input/feedback from other editors I will raise a request for comment. Clooneymark (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting 3 tags on an article is not outlandish. You will find many WP pages with 3 tags. One can use the "Multiple issues" tag, but then it is even more vague. The advert tag being removed on 5th June doesn't matter. I added the advert tag back on after your latest big edit. As soon as pages have a major change, all tags that were previously removed can be put back on by any editor. WP articles are always a work in progress. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Clooneymark wrote: The material on the page has been well considered and thoughtfully attended to with the utmost attention to WP policy. I have, and still do, show myself to be listening to all opinon and taking advice on board. Ive addressed all the points of criticism that have been put forward.

So, and you alone decide on that? Several other editors who have worked here are not even asked as far as I can see.

Where did you address all the points that have been brought forward? Where did Acabashi and Panderoona agree to your changes? Maybe I have missed something. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] Ah, I see the new editor has been in and removed the tags already. I hope this editor will comment here. The notice he placed on the edit page was "This article is perfecty well sourced, contains interesting information and is not an advertisement.)"

Whoever this is, thank you. The only non-critical remark to come in response to the work I put into this.Clooneymark (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new editor. I looked a this page and it is well sourced and informative and I couldn't see the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makepeace101 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome. As a new editor it is rather odd to jump in and start reversing the work of editors who have been involved in it for a couple days already.

That doesn't exactly make peace on WP

And this article is not so easy to find, you know ;-) MakeSense64 (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is highly desirable for an "outsider" to WP:BOLDly jump in to situations like this to make whatever changes seem, from that outside perspective, to be sensible. The people who have been arguing fruitlessly and rather nastily for days are the ones who should avoid reversing the work of uninvolved editors. WP:UNINVOLVED is policy for admin actions, but it's a good idea for everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

depends on who that new person really is doesnt it? Anyway, youve made it very plain we are not wanted here, so since I have no interest in astrology and came here only to try and help, I shall take this page off my watchlist and leave you all to it. Panderoona (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Those tags are not going to be removed until a consensus is reached. At present opinion is split. Panderoona (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources

An interesting piece of information just came in on the reliable sources noticeboard where I had put up the question of reliability for astrodatabank. An insider to the astro.com site confirms that the birthdata themselves are checked and sourced, but that the biographical information on that site is NOT reliable. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#is_astro_databank_reliable.3F So this means we have to remove astrodatabank sources as references to statements in the biography part. So much for the concensus that Clooneymark and Makepeace101 have been trying to force on this article. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Have edited the article accordingly and removed biographical statements that were based on astrodatabank. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please pay attention to what the official representative of astrodatabank had to say:

As one of the maintainers of Astrodatabank at www.astro.com, I can confirm that the birth data information (date, place, time) is researched and documented meticulously. Each entry has its 'Source Notes' where details about the origin of the information are given. We employ a rigid classification system, called the Rodden Rating and developed by the late founder of Astrodatabank, Lois Rodden. For the biographical information the same CANNOT be said. It often contains judgment by the writer, and does not name the source of the biographical information.

What you removed from the article was not a reference to bio information but the data source, which is the undisputedly reliable information. You removed the published additional refrence on this that added iinteresting additional information about the data for the time of birth.

I will restore this. The second reference to astrodatabank was not needed now that a better citation has been found and provided. Indeed, I was under the belief that I had already removed this.

No one is trying to force a consensus. The object here is to get good quality information on the page. I have raised request for comment from other, objective editors, so that a general consensus can be reached which would not require the direction of this page to rest on the views of one or two (possibly entrenched) editors. Clooneymark (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That additional information I removed had nothing to do with the information that is on astrodatabank. So it didn't belong with that source. Do not mess up different sources within one reference tag. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is the convention that when birth-data is given as a footnote, it is accompanied by supporting comment if that exists. This is the case here. The Phillipson reference adds further information to 'offical record' as given on the astro-databank site, to explain how the data given there was rectified. So it does belong with that source. However if you feel strongly and want to make it a separate footnote and link it to the same point feel free. That is less correct IMO, but it would not trouble me in the same way as deleteing the information - which is well sourced and highly relevant - would, because astrologers who read this page should also be aware of the rectification process applied to it. Clooneymark (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this bio up to standard now, and can the three warning tags be removed from the top of the page?

I have been trying to bring the biography of an astrologer up to standard. There is dispute about whether the page continues to warrant the three tags that remain at the top of the page:

• In need of further citations
• Reads like an advert
• Lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole.

I think the 'further citations' tag is clearly unecessary, since all comments in the article are referenced. The issue here is probably more about whether this article is neutral in approach and proportionate towards the subject's area of expertise. I believe it is but others say not. We would very much welcome the objective input of other editors who are not attached to the subject of the page or strongly inclined towards or against his field of expertise. If you can find time to look at this and leave a quick comment with your feedback, please do. It would be very helpful to us Clooneymark (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you finished adding everything to this article you intend to? Acabashi (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A page is never finished here is it? But at this stage I have made requests for objective assesment from other editors who have not been involved in the discussion here - which I think is blighted by unfounded speculations, negative assumptions and entranched views. I would obviously like to consider constructive feedback if we can get any. I think I already mentioned I am planning to try to locate press reports by a visit to the British library, which I hope to tie in to another reason to visit very shortly. On the whole, I consider this article, as it is, to be well supported and offering a neutrally reported account of verifyable information. However, I am interested in all positive points of feedback, from yourselves and others, that might add value to the page and remove the need to regard any content as suspect to 'reading like an advert' or 'lending undue weight to certain ideas' (short of falsifying the reality of the situation or attempting to rewrite history in such a way that what has been widely reported by other trusted sources is not allowed to be reported on this page) Clooneymark (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

True, a page is probably never finished. However, have you added all the stuff that you feel is substantial for the moment? It is difficult for other editors to directly add to the article when major edits are being performed over many days by one editor, so the reason for asking is to see if we can allow the opportunity for other editors of this page to add their own edits (major or minor) to the page, after all, none of us owns the article do we? - I'm sure you understand. "Falsifying the reality" is subjective - an assumption appears made here that there is an accepted, or protected, view of what that reality is. We are in the business of adding reliable secondary source verification that directly supports assertions, whatever those assertions may be - "trusted sources" that you mention can be either pro or con to the subject, and no editor can decide what the "accepted" reality is, as no-one writes or re-writes, or is the guardian of, "reality" on Wikipedia. To say that something is "not allowed to be reported on this page" because it might "falsify the reality" clearly indicates a non-NPOV. As I have mentioned before, Wikipedia is about WP:verifiabilty not truth; it is not what any particular editor, or even "trusted source" believes is reality, or good or bad for a subject. If legitimate verifiable sources stack-up one way or the other, so be it. Acabashi (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A page is never finished, but when you put on a RFC template then it is assumed you are done adding what you intend to for the moment. You were still making changes yesterday after you put up the RFC notice. Editors don't like to comment on a "moving target", because their comments may already look stupid by the time they post them.

You say: "I am interested in all positive points of feedback"

That's the problem. You are only interested in positive feedback. That tells it all.

NPOV demands that we look at both sides of coin. I have not seen you very willing to do that. If you think there is no undue weight in this article then try this excercise: count how many words are in this article. Then count how many words you have spent on criticism (and even those were only added after I pointed them out).

Then try to imagine how you would perceive the article, if the situation was reversed: plenty coverage of the criticism and just a few sentences on the plus side. How would that look to you? Would you put an undue weight tag on it? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I made a response to this but lost the post in an edit conflict. Briefly, the page history shows that the only edits I made after making the request for comment; was 1) to re-instate the reference that you deleted by mistake, and 2) to correct the spelling of a word and add one comma to the page. I also added three in-wiki links to pages that already exist – so hardly a case of me continuing to make changes (although I see no reason why that would be a problem anyway).

My use of the term ‘positive feedback’ was in reference to constructive feedback that would benefit the page. This includes valid points of criticism, which I would view as ‘positive feedback’.

Elwell is notable for having a well respected influence in his astrologiocal work; for engaging in arguments with critics, and for the particular attention he gained in 1987. I cannot invent critical references that don't exist, to try to balance the word count of negative points of notability with the rest of the bio. Fact is, he had a good and well-established reputation. Even his critics would give him that. Clooneymark (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Advice: If you hit an edit conflict, click the back button on your browser and you should return to the edit window with your text intact. Select and copy that text, and if you are worried you might subsequently lose it, paste it into a word doc. Reboot the page again, open the edit window and paste your copied text. If the text is substantial, it's useful to copy your text anyway before you save, just in case this happens. Apologies if you knew this. Acabashi (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

All feedback that has been given here has been constructive feedback. But it looks like you don't see it that way. What may not look as a valid point to you, may be a valid point. Again you are putting yourself up as the benchmark to decide.

I found at least 5 different critical articles about Elwell on the astrozero site alone (a site by an author you have labeled as very neutral and well known). You have thrown them all into one reference and just make a passing mention. As for the more positive articles about Elwell, you list them one by one. Doesn't look very balanced to me.

It is not about making equal word count for both sides. It is about giving equal weight to everything we find about him (if it is properly sourced). Doesn't matter how good or bad a reputation of a person is, we are just to report on what we find. Actually WP has many long articles of people with very bad reputations, criminals and so on.. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not share your opinion of the previous conversations. I find, for example, your discouragement of a new editor to be distinctly non-constructive. I find nothing even remotely constructive in your statement about "If other people insist on destroying the article..." There has definitely been some non-constructive feedback provided on this page, and I therefore have quite a lot of sympathy for Clooney's disinterest in receiving more of that useless sniping. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a question, Clooneymark, in regard to your last edit on the Article, in which you changed wording to "Elwell's book Cosmic Loom, has remained a recommended text amongst astrologers as a valuable and thought-provoking introduction to the subject written in layman's terms" - do you see this as a neutral point of view? Panderoona (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do Panderoona, because if anything it understates the reputation of this book amongst the astrological community. There are certain books which crop up frequently in 'best of the best' discussions, and this is one of them. Widely recommended and so kept in print by demand. The references I have given to published sources demnstrate how widely it is valued. On the other hand it is hard to find any criticism for the book as a whole. It was a notable work because it had a defining influence on a whole generation of astrologers. I took out an adjective to try to keep the point neutral in tone, but I have certainly understated the case rather than exagerated it, in terms of the books reputation within the astrological community. Hope that answers your question Clooneymark (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It does, thank you for your reply. Panderoona (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

WP is not about reputation. If a book crops up in "best of the best" lists then that can be mentioned if a reliable source is found for it. Otherwise it is only the opinion of the editor.

I saw several critical remarks about Cosmic Loom in this article, and I haven't even read it completely. But Clooneymark doesn't mention anything from it.

And look at ref 16 that is used to back up the statement that Panderoona questions here, this is the link. A purely promotional page where you find a brief reference to Elwell's book, but nothing like the words used in the article here. So if this are not peacock words then what are? And if that is a reliable source than what is not? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay this is what I think. I am only going to address one point here. I think that one of the things that needs addressing with the article in its present state can be presented by the single case in point I put above - now it says: "Elwell's book Cosmic Loom, has remained a recommended text amongst astrologers as a valuable and thought-provoking introduction to the subject written in layman's terms" Previously it had said: "Elwell's book Cosmic Loom, has remained a recommended text amongst astrologers as one of the most thought-provoking introductions to the subject written in layman's terms" The addition of the word valuable has increased what is already a non-neutral point of view. In my humble opinion, a more neutral point of view would be something more like this: Elwell's book Cosmic Loom, is a recommended text amongst astrologers and is an introduction to the subject in layman's terms" Panderoona (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that Panderoona and yes, I agree with you. I had sought to remove the adjective so that the reference to the book was neutrally reported, whilst still able to demonstrate that it is a particularly notable book for astrologers, not just one of the very many books written about astrology. It really is a case that this work is extremely popular and highly respected - as astrology books goes it is likely to have a strong place in the history of astrology. I had not realised that my new suggestion made the refrence worse instead of better. Sometimes a new pair of eyes can see things that those who have worked on the words cannot. I trust you are OK to go ahead and make that edit yourself. Clooneymark (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Panderoona. This is the actual statement on the page that is given as the source for this sentence: "A beautiful and most readable book on the working of astrology, is authored by Dennis Elwell. ‘Cosmic Loom’ and published by the Urania Trust is one of my treasured passions."

And not unimportant: with an Amazon.com box right below it to sell that book.

I do not see how this supports the statement, even in the toned down version you propose. Words like recommended and layman's terms do not appear, so it will look like the editor has pumped this up.

It is pure advertising style. If it is to stay like that a different high quality source has to be found making that kind of assertions. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was this is just one example of how the article does not read as neutral in tone. Even if I changed it, there are still similar areas that would need to be amended in the same way. I have no intention of changing it - I am trying to help you learn where the pitfalls of writing about something you obviously care so much about are, and how to step back and see it with dispassionate eyes, so that you can change it. Its a hard trick, but it can be done because I too had to learn to do it. I also agree that the reference in question doesnt reflect what is said in the text, and Im sure a better reference could be found. This leads on to another problem I see in the article, which is extended references with all sorts of opinions of others written in which dont really (I feel) have a place here. I think they should be either in the main text of the article, or left out all together. An interested reader would soon follow up the links and read what was there themselves. A final point I would like to make, anyone could have reverted or changed the article at any point during the time you were busy on it, and we have sat back and waited for you to finish out of courtesy, we have been, and still are, trying to help you. Panderoona (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"Neutral" on Wikipedia means something more like "follows the sources" rather than "doesn't take sides". If the sources are gushing about something, then Wikipedia should reflect that. For example, if the typical physics textbook got all starry-eyed about Newton's First Law, saying that it is the fundamental principle of matter and motion, without which nothing in the universe could exist, the most important concept described in the history of humanity—then Wikipedia can say that, too, and without trying to tone down the language to be "neutral". While it's more common for editors to show bias by overstating a source, it's just as possible to show bias by understating a source. "Encyclopedic tone" hasn't meant "the most boring writing style possible" since 1911 (when Encyclopedia Brittanica published an encyclopedia with a famously interesting writing style).

In the instant case, it's important to notice the difference between "Some astrologer says it is valuable" and "It is valuable". The first says only that somebody recommends it; the second implies that everyone does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In the case of something that is well known to be valuable I would agree absolutely that it should be reported thus. However, my own intention was to try and help Clooneymark take a step back and view his own writing style with a slightly more dispassionate eye. He evidently cares very much about this subject, and I believe that he could hone his writing skills to be a very good editor here. However, having said that, there has been, Im afraid, an effort on his part to ignore the remarks of others and continue on his way. Whilst we have argued points here, we have allowed him to continue to edit the page to the standard he sees is best. I am only voicing my own opinion in response that I personally wouldnt have written it that way, making suggestions as to how I believe it could be improved. The page still stands, I believe, in the way he last edited it. Panderoona (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)