Talk:Mundane astrology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mundane astrology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Retarget, 8 May 2019, see discussion.
merge to Astrology, 26 March 2012, see discussion.

Mundane Astrology

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have a problem with editor behavior please take it to WP:ANI

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Recent reverts on a top-rated Wikipedia page calls for additions to the Mundane Astrology page. A critical section would be helpful as well as expansion of the history section on such an ancient topic. Eagle Eye 22:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Expansion is fine so long as it doesn't use a blog as a source. This is almost never acceptable and when it is it is only for certain kinds of statements (such as what a person has to say about themselves). Saedon (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs can and do serve as sources on the Internet and do on Wikipedia as external links. The page is top-rated. Also, whomever continues to revert the page does not see that there are blog sources cited as references? Eagle Eye 22:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

A page being top rated means nothing, so please stop bringing that up. The fact that blogs are being used is a problem and you shouldn't be adding to it. How many times do I have to point out policy before you'll actually read and understand them? Again, please see WP:SPS and WP:ELNO. I have reported you at WP:3RRN since you're attempting to edit war a policy violation into the article and I will wait to revert you until an admin has blocked you. If you want to avoid being blocked I suggest you self revert. Saedon (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia policy. You've been reverting without adding to the page, or discussing the topic on the Talk Page other than threatening a block and for what? You have not added to the page, nor added references, or verifiable sources other than to revert. Your argument is also emotional which suggests POV. Why don't you try to join the Wikipedia community in a positive manner rather than to be anti-social and rude? Eagle Eye 23:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You obviously don't know WP policy since you make the insinuation that editors cannot revert a page without adding to it (not to mention that you can't remember to sign your posts or indent your paragraphs)...where do you even get this nonsense in your head? There is nothing in policy that even resembles what you're saying. I'm not threatening a block, I'm telling you that I've reported you for crossing a bright line rule that will lead to an admin blocking you. Saedon (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Report me for what? Listen, you obviously are hostile and we do not appreciate your reverts without adding sources and references to the topic. You are not the only editor in the world you know. Saedon, I suggest you learn to work with Wikipedia editors rather than to throw around insults and trying to start revert wars. This is a community. Try being part of it as a contributor rather than a constant complainer. ThanksEagle Eye 23:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Do I really need to say it again? You violated WP:3RR after I warned you about it on your talk page (though I'm getting the impression that you literally do not read any of the blue linked policies I give you), I have reported you for said violation and an admin will now block you for said violation unless you revert yourself and agree not to EW anymore. Whether you think it's fair or not, WP doesn't allow blogs as sources, end of story per multiple policies. Saedon (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Saedon, this is a Talk page used for improving the topic. You just jump right in and start insulting, being rude and threatening. If you want to improve the article, then fine, but you do not do that, all you do is threaten to report an editor for doing what editors do naturally on Wikipedia. You are violating guidelines - the most important of is WP:3RR along with being friendly and adding to the quality of content. Why don't you learn to add quality rather than starting revert wars then blaming others for doing what you are doing? No, it's not fair because you do not assume good faith and if you have noticed, on this talk page you have not talked about improving the article but rather wanting to fight. For what purpose? If you have something to add to the page which improves it then that it the purpose of Wikipedia. Eagle Eye 23:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs)

Removing bad content source to crap blogs is improving the page in the same way that removing a false claim from a text book would be improving the text book. Please don't lecture me on how to work with Wikipedia. My main account, as I pointed out, has 7000 edits, about 3000 of them to article space. You have 6 and thus are in no position to lecture me about anything here. Whether you think that crossing 3RR is "what editors do naturally" is irrelevant. We have policies, you either follow them or you get blocked, simple as that. You are also misrepresenting the history of this page. I did not start with insults (and haven't made any) and threats, I started by explaining policy, I then escalated the issue when you violated policy, that's it. Saedon (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not done that Saedon. Also, so what if you have 7,000 edits, what is your point? That does not necessarily give you the last word on any Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a big world community and we have rules and policies so that the Wikipedia community can flow with the least resistance. It is not to go around trying to have Wikipedia editors blocked simply because you don' like something. Re-read your own comments Saedon, right from the get-go, out of the gate, you threatened, reported me, requested arbitration - all the while not even bothering to first discuss on the Talk Page as I asked you to so I had to start the discussion myself. So no, at this time you are not assuming good faith at all - in fact, quite the contrary. And yes, you are trying to escalate the "issue" when all you had to do was to first assume good faith and be civil and you've not. If you want to improve the article as anyone would then use the talk page. Thanks.Eagle Eye 00:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs)

Mundane Astrology article

Again, Wikipedia talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have a problem with editor behavior then take it to WP:ANI but don't whine on article talk

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Did have a talk page I started earlier but it disappeared. Adding content, sources, references and links on the topic only serves to expand and improve the article. Those who Revert based on ideology and POV tend to be hostile, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, "making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to good editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia, thus fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above." This new talk page is to discuss the quality of the article with well-written, concise additions by editors with references and sources along with internal and external links that the reader can go to if they choose. The addition of a critical section should also improve the overall quality of the encyclopedic article on mundane astrology.Eagle Eye 01:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Historical Predictions section

I suggest removing the historical predictions section as it is poorly sourced and the link of many of the entries to the topic is dubius. I also propose deleting any unreferenced sections, are there any objections/comments? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. I doubt any of those sections could be reliably sourced anyway. It is notorious difficult to find reliable sources for astrology-related topics. Modern astrology is practically never treated in scholarly sources, and most of the sources that exist are non-reliable coffee table books and for-entertainment-purposes-only do-it-yourself guides and such which give wildly conflicting information. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the material, as per WP:BURDEN be aware that the burden of proof lies with the restorer. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis and blogs

Neither are reliable sources, and they all need to go. 86.** IP (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about the skeptical sections

I propose that we delete the last two paragraphs (and the quotation) - it's enough to say that astrology is a pseudo-science. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding content

This page was proposed for deletion a few months ago for having mostly unreferenced poor quality content. It was decided to reduce most of its content and merge what remained into History of astrology as a subsection of that page. However, mundane astrology is a branch - a type of astrology, not a period of its history, so this content does not fit on that page.

I have taken the content that was merged out of the History of astrology page and will aim to recreate a more appropriate page, starting initially with the text that was salvaged in the merge. I will add a little more to develop this, but want the original text from the merge to be seen as it is before adding anything to it. Almost all of the astrology project pages reference this page because it is one of the top importance pages for the astrology project, and links to it are built into the project footer-templates. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have added more information and references. I believe that all the previous problems identified in the earlier delete proposal have been fixed. If any remain, please discuss. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution of content concering Richard Trewythian's practice of mundane astrology

This is a contribution of new content which relies on a good academic source and adds (I believe) informative encyclopedic content to the page. If anyone feels differently, please amend as necessary. I have no other planned contributions in the short term. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting discussion regarding the return to redirect

I am on a wiki-break so I will post a record of a discussion made on my talk page, concerning whether this article can be recreated as I attempted to do. See diff here for the state it was in when IRWolfie decided to turn it into a redirect that now leads nowhere.

The result of the recent AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mundane_astrology on Mundane Astrology was merge to Astrology (or optionally History of Astrology). Add a section to Astrology and work from there, then when it's a decent size a discussion can reach a consensus on the issue. The current text does have several issues. Mostly the basing sections off items which don't have a necessarily clear link to the topic. For example, some of Ptolemy's text looks like it applies to Astrology in general rather than the specific subtopic. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Not unless you read it with your eyes closed. There is nothing on that page which is not directly relevant to the topic. The article refers to the second book of the Tetrabiblos, which is only about mundane astrology, and as the article says, the most important source of principle and technique. I read the policies and made sure I was following the advice given when someone wants to redevelop an article like this. The result of the process was applied to that old content; not this new content which doesn't have any of those past issues. You did the wrong thing - nothing prohibits the redevelopment of a page in this way. That's one of the reasons why the history of the page is kept in-tact, to allow future redevelopment. It's inevitable that page has to be recreated - of the 633 articles associated with the astrology project it is one of only 14 rated to be of top priority. I'll leave it to you to consider. If you think I broke a policy then I'll take it up on an appropriate board when I have more time. Or you could check the policies yourself, and use your common sense.-- Zac Δ talk! 20:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree in principle that mundane astrology deserves its own article. I think that IRWolfie's suggestion, to piggy-back mundane astrology on the astrology article for the time being, is better than sticking it onto the "history of astrology" article. I do have a question about sources for the mundane astrology article. It seems to me that the book "Mundane Astrology" by Baigent, Campion, and Carter is a natural source to use for this subject, but my impression is that others are inclined to dispute its reliability for wikipedia purposes. If anybody thinks this book isn't a reliable source, could you please say so and explain why.--Other Choices (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie; please confirm whether you still maintain there is a problem with regard to the relavancy of the text I developed for this topic. If not, please undo the reversion of the developed text into a redirect or explain clearly here why you believe there is some policy prohibiting this subject from having the opportunity to redevelop its own page. Thank you -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:CONSENSUS on the issue was clear at the AfD, merge it to Astrology (or possibly History of Astrology). We can discuss a split again when the content is up to scratch. Also, discussions about the reliability of sources etc reach a much larger audience on the astrology page, making working on the content even easier too. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baigent is a writer of pseudohistory, so the work is not reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The decision of the consensus was followed through, though obviously in a thoughtless manner, resulting in the remaining content being plomped into the History of astrology page where its definition was not relevant. Its an exercise in silliness to suggest that all this content should go on the Astrology page first, in order to evaluate whether it should be split from that page to allow the further development of context I wish to undertake.

First you suggested the content was not relevant to this subject (!) now you imply that the content is not "up to scratch" - please specify why you doubt that.

The place for exposing a discussion on the reliability of sources to a much larger audience is on the reliable sources noticeboard.

I intend to reference the point currently substantiated by Michael Baigent's work to that of Francesca Rochberg, a reliable source, which can also be used to substantiate the comment supported by refs3 & 4.

Note that Other Choices post did not ask about the reliability of Baigent's text, but the well known work Mundane Astrology, jointly edited by Baigent, Campion and Harvey. This is not a good source for substantiating historical points, but as a notable and authorative account of its principles and practice it can be used to verify content that relates to those issues. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored this re-created article, for the reasons given at the deletion review noticeboard here. As I mentioned there, I think the Baigent citation for footnote #1 is unreliabe, but it should be easy to find a reliable source that makes the same uncontroversial point. As Zac points out, the reliability of the Baigent/Campion/Harvey book is a different question.--Other Choices (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]