This is an archive of past discussions about Dennis Elwell (astrologer). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Some relevant quotes: "in 1995, in an attempt to score a major publicity success for astrology, renowned British astrologer Dennis Elwell publicly predicted a shipping disaster for mid April in 1996. Instead we had the Tokyo subway nerve gas attacks and the Oklahoma bombings - which fit the astrological patterns just as neatly but he hadn't predicted."
This definitely puts his other predictions more in perspective. If a person takes enough long shots, then he is going to be right once in a while. Next they talk about the (few) hits, and keep quiet about the (many) misses. Of course it is not our job to provide original research here, but I think this 1996 failed prediction should be mentioned alongside the 1987 prediction.
And further: "there haven't been enough 'Titanics' in all of human history to justify a prediction like Elwells."...snip..."Elwell - and perhaps astrologers in general - doesn't appear to have taken those statistical requirements sufficiently seriously."
So, more I am discovering about this person, more it is becoming apparent to me that significant criticism from various sources has been glossed over by Clooneymark in this article. It's not sufficient to point out that there has been "some criticism", when the prediction itself gets described in such detail. NPOV demands that we try to give proper weight to both sides of the argument. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I was aware of that link and considered adding it along side the criticism I quoted from the Parkers book in reference 15. The reason I didn't is because it is extracted from a larger piece and it's not clear enough what the criticism amounts to; and also because I considered that this online reference does fall beneath the par of what can be called a 'reliable source', being a personal blog based on an exchange of emails that are not published. I wonder if MakeSense64 has actually read the full account to understand the point being made - not that Elwell was wrong, but that the astrological factors he used could also support other disastrous events, so that only by the enagagment of the mind can the prediction be made precisely. The full quote from the relevant passage reads:
(For the benefit of new readers - in 1995, in an attempt to score a major publicity success for astrology, renowned British astrologer Dennis Elwell publicly predicted a shipping disaster for mid April in 1996. Instead we had the Tokyo subway nerve gas attacks and the Oklahoma bombings - which fit the astrological patterns just as neatly but he hadn't predicted. In corresponding about the case with me, Michelle pointed out that such things as explosions were just as valid an astrological outcome and thus she 'accidentally' predicted the bombing about 3 days ahead of detonation. )
In fact what Elwell predicted was an upcoming period, demarked by the eclipse effect, in which shipping disasters would be highlighted; and the links already given on the page sufficient substantiate that, for those who care to read them. I'm Ok with the idea that this link is added though, since I'd considered it myself - the problem is the difficulty in efficiently capturing what the point of criticism is (it depends on the reader having read three other sections which build his point). When I found the Parker's criticism in a published book, I decided to use that, because it makes a similar point but in a much more succint and self-contained manner. Personally I think that point of cricism is sufficiently addressed, having been covered in the main article with a reliable source to quote from, so I don't believe it needs augmentation, unless we are able to find other references as suitable as the Parkers one is Clooneymark (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC).
That's what other editors on the same page are for, Clooneymark. If you are unsure whether (and how) to add information from a certain source, then just ask.
The latter 80% of what you write here is called original research, a big no-no on WP. It is not our job to explain our "understanding" of what is the point in a given source. We are only expected to report on what we find (and can verify), in as neutral a language as we can. If we find positive stuff about Elwell (and can verify the source) then we report on it. If we find negative stuff on him, criticism and so on, (and can verify the source), then we report on it just the same. That's all we are supposed to do here. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Now, I do think that some of these critical sources are questionable. But no more questionable then some other sources you have been insisting on. We can't use double standards in that regard. Now that we are finding some critical stuff about Elwell you suddenly start questioning the reliability of sources. I like that. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no 'original research' - everything is verified and substantiated by reliable secondary sources. I don't wish to enter into the subject of 'double-standards' with you - sorry. Clooneymark (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, you don't wish to enter into any subject if it doesn't suit you. We knew that already.
Let me state this clearly so that we don't have to waste more time. I truly have no interest in what you want to declare about what you 'believe' to be my motivation. I do not wish to engage in your sarcasm; your negativity; your underhanded insults; nor your inability to clearly define what it is that you 'believe' to be the problem here with the entry - or with myself as a wikipedia editor. At my discretion I have chosen to allow certain (in my opinion highly relevant) disclosures concerning your activity here to be struck from the record. I did that, and allowed you to delete some of my comments, despite the fact that you argued your case on the administrators noticeboard, and no one supported your call that those comments should be deleted. Please take this in: I am not arguing from a bias or in support of a bias. I am not only open to new suggestions but grateful for the ones that come from a sincere interest in the content of the page. If you want to make a suggestion then simply put forward your analysis of the problem and your proposed solution. It takes a very foolish person indeed to declare that they already know what it is that someone else does or does not want to do here. Clooneymark (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying the article is original research. Your answer, starting from "I wonder if MakeSense64 has actually read the full account to understand the point being made...", that is original research. We don't need to know what "Michelle pointed out.." because we are not writing an article about Michelle. A source can only be used where it pertains to Elwell or his work. Here we learn that he predicted another shipping disaster for April 1996 and no shipping disaster happened. So that may be useful. What Michelle thought is not relevant here. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, but you are supposed to report your understanding of a source. When you don't understand a source, you need to be cautious. If the source says "The skin of an apple is usually red, but it can be green or yellow", and you understand this source to mean that apples might be red, green, or yellow on the outside, you should report what you understand from the source.
Clooneymark does not appear to have exceeded or misunderstood this source. It might well all be nonsense, but the source appears to have said what Clooney claims it says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. It is not good editing to cherry-pick a quote so that it distorts the original meaning and context and appears to favour one POV. Not only is such selective editing original research WP:NOR, WP rules advocate minimal change to original quotations as stated in WP:MOSQUOTE “Do not omit text where doing so would remove essential context or alter the meaning of the text.”
Another, probably apocryphal, example of this is when a Pope faced a crowd of reporters on arrival in New York on an official visit, one asked loudly Your Holiness what do think of hookers in New York?
This perplexed the Pope. To buy time he rhetorically repeated Hookers? In New York?
