Talk:Astrology/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

astrology "the oldest of the sciences"

I added a brief quote from the American Federation of Astrologers, citing their opinion that astrology is "the oldest of the sciences." This was reverted by Dominus Vobisdu, restored by Polisher of Cobwebs, and reverted again by Dominus Vobisdu.
Here is edit summary for DV's first revert: "Fuck no. No consensus for this, and extremely POV." Here is the edit summary for DV's second revert: "Get consensus on the talk page first per WP:BRD. The opinions of astrologers on the scientific merits of astrology are completely irrelevant. Material is HIGHLY POV."
To answer DV's concerns: first of all, this quote has nothing to do with the "scientific merits of astrology." If you bother to read the Science article, you will notice that the word "science" has two definitions, and the cited website is clearly using the older definition, which has nothing to do with modern "scientific merits." Learn some basics, please -- and clean up your potty mouth.
Secondly, regarding DV's complaint that this is POV: the language I added was a neutral representation of astrologers' professional association's point of view ABOUT THEMSELVES, at the wikipedia article on astrology, which I believe is acceptable per WP:SELFSOURCE.--Other Choices (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that there can be a broad definition of "science", but this statement is at best an extreme-minority view, whichever definition is taken. By the way, why not sociology or biology, if you want to speculate about what people discussed round their camp fires in the later Palaeolithic? Or theology, or materials science with particular reference to pigments? If you want to argue that it should go in clearly attributed to the American Federation of Astrologers, to show the kind of things that astrologers say, then maybe. If it really is notable and typical of what astrologers say. It cannot possibly go in in Wikipedia's voice. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with amending the sentence to read, "The American Federation of Astrologers states that..."

My rationale for adding this quote is as follows: The word "pseudoscience" very clearly implies a claim to be "scientific," so it makes sense to include an example of what astrologers actually say about themselves to go together with the "pseudoscience" sentence.

It seems to me that balance demands some sort of explanation of why astrology is considered a pseudoscience. The wikipedia AFA page states that astrologers had pretensions to "scientific" status back in the 1940s. But things have changed, so the "pseudoscience" tag might be a bit out of date, not that we can do anything about it here at wikipedia.

--Other Choices (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Using the quote to contrast with the characterization of pseudoscience would be synthesis, see WP:SYN. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would, but contrast isn't the purpose of the quote. It simply provides an example of astrologers using the word "science."

--Other Choices (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many creationists who like to imagine that intelligent design is a form of science, but that view is so WP:FRINGE that it does not warrant a mention in an article on Wikipedia (except in an article on what creationists think). In the same way, a statement to the effect that a group regards astrology as a science can only occur in an article on the views of that group. Johnuniq (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless that group is representative of the views of astrologers in general. And as by far the oldest professional astrological association in the United States, the AFA would seem to have such a claim.

However, I don't think your "intelligent design" comparison works, because those people want to believe that their theory is scientific (as the word was used by Dominus Vobisdu above), while the AFA is making a very different statement with its use of the word "science." There is an issue of semantics here that is very easy to get tangled.

--Other Choices (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You have five seasoned editors with a lot of experience editing controversial articles, namely IRWolfie, Saedon, Itmejudith, Johnuniq, and I, disagreeing with you. The appropriate response is to spend a lot more time listening than talking, and to hit the books and bone up on WP policies and guidelines. Like this one: WP:IDHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Answered in detail on Other Choice's userpage, but, just for the record, the edit was in gross violation of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and, whether intentionally or not, was disruptive. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I cited the relevant wikipedia policy in my answer to Dominus Vobisdu's post on my talk page. Other than that, Dominus Vobisdu is entitled to his personal opinion, which I will carefully consider together with the opinions of everybody else who has shared their view. Regarding DV's statement that "five seasoned editors disagree with me," I have answered each editor's particular concern. They may or may not agree with my answer, but it is not DV's place to assume that they disagree before they have shared their own replies to my responses to their concerns. DV's behavior seems to be incredibly presumptuous.

--Other Choices (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is fine to give astrologers' view on astrology, as Other Choices has attempted to do. Cla68 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Then your opinion is not consistent with how WP treats pseudoscientific topics per WP:FRINGE and WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision. SÆdon^talk 20:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you go further than your opinion though and give a policy based reason? In my opinion it isn't fine, but if I don't elaborate why, then my opinion is worthless and should be discounted (see the essay WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT). Adding the text here is a very clear synthesis: [1]. It is stating what is said in one source, then it says the word but and uses what is verified in another sentence to contrast that. That is clearly a synthesis, look at the examples at WP:SYN. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I could go on record stating that I'm the majority shareholder of Microsoft, but I expect if someone wrote a biography about me they would omit such a lie unless they were trying to ridicule me. Having this in our article makes it seem like the position is valid; since it's obviously not true we would be irresponsible in publishing it SÆdon^talk 20:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If this does go in, it will not shed particularly good light on the astrological community but it is an official statement by a major body in the field, and that is their problem. It must not be juxtaposed to the scientific position, that would be a synthesis leading to an argument that is not to be found in any mainstream literature, i.e. that both positions are equally valid. Linking with "but" is completely wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Putting the sentences beside each other is also a synthesis because the only reason the two sentences would be placed like that would be for the contrast of the two sentences (you can say we would be changing the implication of the sources if we did that). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also a perfect example of WP:VALID. SÆdon^talk 21:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Protected

Just off protection and the edit war continues. I've protected it again. Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the RfC. As there had been no editing for a few hours before the RfC was closed, and none after it was closed, I've unprotected the page. Please play nicely now or it will be protected again and of course more edit warring could lead to blocks. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Scanned source

Okie, I have scanned the two pages out of The Cosmic Perspective, 5th edition, an astronomy text book, into PDF format. They're the only two pages that deal with astrology in the book. Going over our available sourcing options this seems to be our best bet for the science section as it's a respected undergraduate tertiary source and thus will help us alleviate the problems caused by "contradictory" secondary sourcing per WP:TERTIARY. For the sake of making it easier for all of us, I'm willing to email you the PDF if you send me an email though the WP system (you can't send attachments through email using WP so you need to email me first and I will respond directly). The science section needs an overhaul, and the lede pseudoscience section is still a problem, though since no one closed the RFC I don't know what consensus has determined and since I'm involved I won't attempt to read it. SÆdon^talk 22:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the following two sentences:

"Scientific tests of astrology have never found any evidence that its predictive methods work."

"Some astrologers do not make testable predictions at all; rather, they give vague guidance about how to live one's life."

However, this book repeats the error of Dr. Charpek (see the end of the previous section above), and then goes on to make unsupported suppositions about the significance of the discovery of Neptune and Pluto, ignoring the overwhelming consensus explanation among western astrologers about this topic. A relevant astrological source for this is Liz Greene's book, The Outer Planets and their Cycles.

I suppose this textbook is a good reality check for the content of the "modern scientific appraisal" section -- the article gets it pretty close to the textbook.

--Other Choices (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The consensus of Western astrologers (what ever that means) is simply a case of special pleading and compensation for the fact that their "theories" inconsistent and illogical. When we have a respected academic work broadly condemning an entire topic and then giving specific examples as to illogicalities, we don't defer to the astrological "consensus" because no such consensus exists and even if it did it would be contradicting a much more reliable source. There is no central governing body of astrology, and there are no objective methods by which astrologers come to their conclusions, so it's impossible to say what the astrological "consensus" is; astrologers believe in different things individually and there is no way to gauge consensus in a system that doesn't have the aforementioned qualities.

I think something that some people here may not be grasping is that people who practice astrology are an incredibly small and fringe minority. Yes, the uneducated layman may believe in his horoscope and may even call a psychic/astrology hotline every once in a while. But the people that actually deal with astrology as a large part of their lives is likely less than even adherents of the anti-vaccine movement or proponents of the idea that aspartame is government mind control. I recommend watching this episode of South Park to get an idea of what "astrologers" look like to the outside world. SÆdon^talk 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have the book as well so I can work from it. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I will probably boldly attempt a rewrite later today and see what people think. Currently there is a noticeable absence of studies on Astrology in the section. I think the Cosmic Perspective can be used for as a tertiary source introduction, with comments etc by famous scientists in a subsection (it's easier to see what works when the text is there). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've found some interesting studies etc (by looking through those who cite Carlson) which raise interesting points, but it will take me a lot longer to work through them and get something for the article than I thought. Looking through them there seems to be sufficient grounds to expand the section. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Potential sources

Some possible sources: This article discusses some more about Astrology and Astronomy and gives more details of the Carlson experiment: [2]. It seems insightful and a good source to work with. Possible sources: [3]. The majority of sources appear aimed at dealing with the Psychology of why people believe in something false. There was research into whether people emulate the characteristics of what they believe the star sign should be like, such as this one and references therein [4], also [5]. [6] Possible sources but I don't have access: [7], comment by Maddox [8], [9]. Rates Astrology as a Personnel selection technique ("obvious quackery") [10].

Study by JH McGrew et al, A scientific inquiry into the validity of astrology Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1990. Not a reliable journal but the individuals are psychologists, they engaged with Astrologers who helped design the experiment, which they then failed. Not that well cited. Probably not suitable but might pass WP:PARITY. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

While my first edit is done on this. Note that I am not near completion and I will keep working on this with the different sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a cartoon image from NASA that was already uploaded to wikipedia, it's probably the closest thing to another free image that makes sense for the section. I don't really mind if it's removed (I was just being WP:BOLD). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Popper. IRWolfie- (talk)

celestial vs planetary

On this diff [11], we should be using the astronomy terminology (possibly with a note on astrology terminology) to avoid confusion (probably using the term solar system objects or similar). We don't need to use fringe terminology in the encyclopedic tone when there is mainstream terminology for it already. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. We write WP using normal scholarly English, not fringe in-universe jargon or code that has no meaning out of the fringe universe. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Explain the specialist terminology of astrology, but explain it in ordinary modern English. "Heavenly body" might do. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say "based on the positions of the sun, moon, planets and other celestial objects at the time of their birth" Terry Macro (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps for the sake of simplicity, it would be best to just say "the sun, moon, and planets," because that is the dominant feature of astrology. Otherwise, for the sake of strict accuracy, it might best to modify by saying "...other celestial objects and mathematical points," because astrologers (both western and Hindu) use the nodes of the moon when casting horoscopes. Western astrologers also have historically also used derivitive points, the Arabian Parts.

--Other Choices (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It is more accurate, as you say, to state "based on the positions of the sun, moon, planets, other celestial objects and mathematical points," - for the sake of a few words, a better encompassing statement is made. ," Terry Macro (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What does "mathematical points" mean? I suspect this term will be opaque to the uninitiated. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If editors at this article want a different wording than "planetary", I'm fine with that - as there seems to be consensus for a different wording. I was just a bit miffed to see the established wording changed without discussion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, discussion is not required before making such changes. Indeed, editors are encouraged not to discuss before making wording changes such as this.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

mathematical points are common in astrology. Astrological influences are not limited to actual physical bodies. There are many instances of using mathematical points in astrology, and Arabaic parts is one such area. In Arabaic Parts, a point may be defined as the addition of the longitudinal diffence between the sun and moon added to the longitudinal position of the ascendant. There are numerous points based on this type of system. Probably the most famous mathematical points are the moons north and south nodes, which when conjunct a full moon or new moon results in an eclipse. However these nodal points always exist somewhere regardless of eclipses and have astrological connotations. Each planet also has nodes. The moon rotates around the earth in an elipse which has two focal point, with the earth located at one focal point. Some astrologers use the other focal point as an astrological influence. What all this means is that astrology is not limited to physical bodies, defined points in space also have astrological influences in astrology. Terry Macro (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

As these points are defined by the positions of the sun, moon and planets, it is superfluous mentioning them here, expecially in the lede. I'm not sure whether it's worth elaborating on them at all in a top-level article. "Sun, moon and planets" suffices for the purpose at hand. OR "sun, moon and other celestial/heavenly bodies. OR, for that matter, simply "celestial/heavenly bodies". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Celestial/heavenly bodies" is poor style. Please let's not use that wording. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to one or the other, not both seperated by a slash, which is redundant, and, as you pointed out, poor style. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"most astrologers make claims that the position of all the planets must be taken into account"

Saedon, you state that it is impossible to say what the astrological consensus is, but right now the article states, in the voice of wikipedia, that "most astrologers make claims that the position of all the planets must be taken into account." How can any scientist know what "most astrologers" claim if it is impossible to know what the astrological consensus is? Your statement appears to be inconsistent with the wording of the article. Do you see a problem here? Furthermore, the article's statement, as currently written, is western-centric, because Hindu astrologers ignore the outer planets. (Are there more Hindu astrologers, or more western astrologers? That affects the balance when summarizing the views of "most" astrologers.) Perhaps you and other editors will agree that this sentence needs to be re-worded.

Finally, western astrology has been grappling with the problem of integrating the periodic discovery of new planets and other bodies (like Chiron) for over 200 years, and the community of astrologers, over this period of time, has developed a unified explanation that you apparently can't believe exists. I haven't seen the book yet, but Peter Whitfield's A History of Astrology most likely covers this subject. It was written by somebody who is "agnostic" toward astrology (per amazon.com here, so should meet wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.--Other Choices (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If he is agnostic about Astrology as you put it that probably makes him a non-neutral source considering the large body of evidence against Astrology. It is similar to claiming that someone who is agnostic about natural selection, despite the evidence, is neutral to write about it. I am also a bit skeptical of claims of outsiders who are reliable, especially considering Tarnas above who it turns out is an astrologer himself. Also it is not a good idea to accept to much off the opinions of customers on Amazon, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Bias isn't the issue. Book is for a popular audience and fails WP:HISTRS. A scholarly review [12]. It might be OK for the present-day practice of astrology, not for early modern period or before. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the line, please suggest a way to change it. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't write the article so I'm not surprised that an analysis of mine would be inconsistent with it. I would suggest the article be changed to reflect that astrology was historically a belief system that focused on the positions of the planets. I'm generally of the opinion that the article shouldn't have more than a paragraph describing modern astrology in the west and another for astrology in the east. As I've explained before: though many people may read newspaper horoscopes and some others may call astrologer 900 numbers, those who call themselves "astrologers" are an incredibly fringe minority, usually involved with other various new age hippie garbagings and not worthy of mention, no matter how many "journals" they publish. SÆdon^talk 02:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

But there is a multiplier effect, with the views of astrologers passing through their students and former students (many of whom purchase astrology books -- one "bestseller" sold 80,000 copies) spreading into society at large.

Here are specific thoughts for improving the sentence in question:

How about, "...most western astrologers make claims that the position of all the planets must be taken into account." The problem, of course, is that the source doesn't say "western." Is it permissible to add "western" in this context? Should wikipedia reflect the western-centric bias of the source? This is why I think this sentence shouldn't be in wikipedia's voice.

To take the sentence out of wikipedia's voice, how about, "Scientists conclude/state/point out that most (western) astrologers make claims..."

--Other Choices (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, anytime someone in the West is talking about astrology they are doing so wrt the standard Greek manifestations and the like (consider e.g. The Stars Down to Earth by Theodore Adorno or the textbook pages I sent you), and it's never referred to as anything but "astrology." This is problematic for us because ideally a source should distinguish "western" astrology from say Vedic or Chinese, but if no sources do that then we're in the odd position of having to refer to the Western version as an unqualified generality and having to distinguish other forms by their country of origin. This of course smacks of Western bias. I'm not sure what the solution is. Perhaps something like "Astrology as practiced in the Americas and Europe." But is that true? Does Greek based astrology have a popular following anywhere else (and is it popular in Europe? I don't know. I lived in Germany and France and can't remember anyone ever asking me my sign like they do in the States). SÆdon^talk 03:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There should be a way to qualify the agency along the lines of among those astrologers that believe <statement>, they failed to predict Neptune...etc. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a well-established astrological community in Great Britain. Don't know about the rest of Europe, but the largest online astrology service, Astrodienst, was founded in Zurich by the German physicist (!?!) Dr. Alois Treindl. (There's the fun fact for the day.)

Regarding Greek and Hindu astrology, we need to keep in mind that in recent decades, Hindu astrology has gained a following in the United States, where some astrologers employ both systems. The leading American astrology magazine, The Mountain Astrologer, generally has one article on Hindu astrology in each issue, with an editor who specializes in Hindu astrology.

@IRWolfie, you refer to the "large body of evidence against astrology." I know of no such body of evidence; in my opinion the "modern scientific appraisal" section of this article is a bad joke from start to finish. I would be pleased to discuss the reasons for this assessment of the "evidence against astrology" on my talk page if you or anyone else is interested.--Other Choices (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the "evidence against astrology", visit something like [13]. Otherwise, please suggest how to improve the article. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There are is a massive amount of studies etc out there, it's just a matter of intergrating them into the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@TippyGoomba: my previous post was written in answer to Saedon's question about the relative weight of Greek vs. Hindu astrology, which came up because of the issue of the western-centric bias of the relevant sentence in the article. Perhaps you have a suggestion about how to deal with this specific issue. (I will give a thoughtful answer to the comment you made on my talk page as time permits.)

To further discuss the question of whether "most" astrologers follow the modern variant of the Greek system, India has a huge population, and if every village has its local astrologer (which I understand to be the case; it's an ingrained part of the culture), then the number of Hindu astrologers vastly outweighs the number of western astrologers.

@IRWolfie: I'll respond to your point about the scientific studies on my talk page together with my response to TippyGoomba.

--Other Choices (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

When I said please suggest how to improve the article, I didn't mean please explain why you're not suggesting how to improve the article. My request still stands. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, since you insist, I think the simplest solution would be to simply delete the sentence in question. However, I didn't want to appear too pushy with that suggestion, preferring to give the others the opportunity to weigh in.

As an alternative, we could mention a reliable source (published by Penguin Books) that mentions a case where astrologers DID predict the discovery of a celestial body Chiron, as well as explaining the general astrological principle relating to the discovery of new planets. However, the author in question is a practicing astrologer without any advanced academic degree, and my impression is that such a source would be considered unacceptable by the majority of editors here.

--Other Choices (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, sources aren't declared to be inherently reliable, it depends what you do with them. You just said this book (I don't know which one) was a reliable source, but then followed by saying it is not a reliable source. It also directly contradicts other more reliable sources if what you say is true. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought your initial argument was that Astrology doesn't make testable predictions: don't you remember saying I would be interested in seeing some backup for your contention that astrologers "routinely make claims that fall within the purview of science", and now, directly contradicting that you are saying that it does in fact make falsifiable predictions and that you have an example. Which is it? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You suggest deleting the sentence. Do you not think it's important to mention? You alternatively suggest adding additional, tangentially-related information. The information does nothing to address your initial issue. It appears as though you're attempting to counterbalance this failure of astrology with a success. Can we get back to addressing the initial issue you mentioned?

You are correct that the author you suggest isn't a reliable source. In fact, were he to have every relevant degree he would still not be a reliable source. This is because scholarship is not based on decrees by authorities. Degrees or not, the author is free to publish his findings in a peer-reviewed journal. TippyGoomba (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie, the key word here is "routinely." The two predictions in the source I mentioned weren't routine, but rather extraordinary.

@TippyGoomba, my proposed addition clearly isn't viable, so I withdraw it. That leaves us with my suggestion that the sentence simply be deleted, unless somebody wants to propose specific language to improve it.

I do not think the point is important to mention, because it is inaccurate and highlights the ignorance of whoever made it. I will be pleased to explain my view in more detail on my talk page if anyone is interested.

The sentence as written is pregnant with unstated assumptions about astrology, relying on the presumption of scientific authority to convince the reader of a point that is not clearly made. It's simply a bad sentence.

And finally, the source for this sentence is over 30 years old; there is no reason to believe that it reflects contemporary astrological opinion or practice.

--Other Choices (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This is looking more and more like a shell game. You now propose to delete it on the basis that it is factually incorrect. You think that astrologers did predict Neptune? Or that we should not have expected them to? Please provide a source. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No, this isn't a shell game, but more issues are coming up, some of them off topic. I do NOT propose to delete it on the basis that it is factually incorrect; but rather I answered your question about my opinion about the point's importance by pointing out that it is inaccurate (and therefore unimportant). Please don't confuse my answer to your question with my reasons for proposing the sentence's deletion, which are the sentence's western-centricity and the fact that the source is over 30 years old. I could add my opinion that the point is not clearly expressed, either in the source or in the article. I brought up my suggestion to delete the sentence after it became clear that nobody was inclined to propose a specifically-worded improvement. --Other Choices (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We have sources in the article that are 2000 years old, why is the age relevant? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious weight - Education section

We have 8 sections in the article and Education is one of them. Does the Education section really have due weight for the article? It consists of only two non-primary references in newspapers with the rest being primary. In comparison to the other sections it's due weight appears minimal. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The only thing remotely noteworthy here is the Trinity St. David thing, and that is only an online distance learning course. Giving this a full section is asssigning two much weight, esepcially since in most cases the term "education" is stretched to the limit, or beyond. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts about keeping some of the content from the India section? In particular, I think we should observe that scientists in India consider astrology to be nonsense. Even if none of the following content or references make it, should the topic still be mentioned in the science section? TippyGoomba (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

In February, 2001, vedic astrology, Jyotish Vigyan, was introduced into the curriculum of Indian universities. Undergraduate (called "graduate" in India) post-graduate and research courses of study were established. "Beneficiaries of these courses would be students, teachers, professionals from modern streams like doctors, architects, marketing, financial, economic and political analysts, etc." In April 2001 the Andhra Pradesh High Court declined to consider a petition to overturn the curriculum guideline on the ground that astrology was a pseudoscience, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2004 which declined as a matter of law to interfere with educational policy. The court noted that astrology studies were optional and that courses in astrology were offered by institutions of higher education in other countries.

Although sourced, I don't think the due weight is there to have it as an independent section. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more to have something in the scientific appraisal section from indian scientists talking specifically about indian astrology. TippyGoomba (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Lede change based upon Rfc

I have made a change to the lede based upon the results of the Rfc just to get off the mark since it has been 8 days since it was decided that something should be done. I used sentance 1 and 2 from the proposal and my own try for 3. I left the references since I did not want to mess whith them. They may need to be changed or moved. Jbhunley (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I made a few small changes, described in my edit summaries - mainly, I thought that the third sentence was a bit unclear. Please let me know what you think. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The changes seem to make it read better. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitly better. Third sentance still a bit clunky but clearer now. Jbhunley (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the lede change was not agreed and the text that appears did not gain consensus. It is pure synth - and an outright lie to say that astrology is not taken serious by academic communities. And if scientific communities don't take it seriously, then why has the entire article been turned into an excuse to condemn astrology from a scientific point of view, with anything that doesn't rdidicule to the subject or presents its logic for what it is, reduced to the barest minimum?

The lede should summarise the main points of the article. The new wording does not do that. It is synth. I am tagging the article for neutrality - see the section below which points out how the article has become little more than an unbalanced representation of what the subject is not. I am also tagging it for making an unsupportable comment in the lede. The policies of WP require that the tag should not be removed without demonstration that the assertion astrology "is not taken seriously by the academic or scientific communities" is verifiable. This is clearly not the case, as my previous references to academic works have demonstrated. Though now removed from view, their verifiable existence continues. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is taken straight from the closing statement of the RfC. See above sidebar for full text.

It appears that consensus is in favor of changing the wording currently employed in the article, and that something resembling the proposal would serve as a good replacement. There does not appear to be strong consensus for a specific proposal in full. The first two sentences of Saedon's suggestion appear to have wide support as reflective of the article body and the literature.

The third sentence was something which I put in as an attempt to say what people had been proposing in the RfC it has since been edited by at least three other editors to tweek it so that is indicitave of some consensus building. If you have some suggestion for improving it then please suggest something constructive and then build consensus for your position. Just tagging and complaining is unhelpful and while it may make one feel better it is unlikely to result in positive change.

Here is a quote from WP:FRINGE about things which may be properly considered pseudoscience.

Things which generally should be classified as pseudoscience—for instance, for categorization purposes—include

1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (such as Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) should be treated as pseudoscience.

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

Astrology is specifically mentioned in the policy (emp. mine). If you want to change it please feel free to work on getting people to agree with you. I personally would like to see more in-universe information on articles like this. I think that, properly disclaimed, it is valuable to know what believers and practitioners think and that an enclycopedia should document those things. It just should not make any representations that those beliefs are grounded in reality. Jbhunley (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Cartoon image

Does the cartoon image from NASA add anything to the section? My impression is that it might detract from what is supposed to be a serious discussion. Could we maybe find an image illustrating one of astrology's implausible claims (or one of the refutations) instead? Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I added it but feel free to remove it. I agree that some image is needed though. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It should obviously not be there - but since it nicely illustrates the joke that the article has become, I'm loathe to remove it myself, (tempted as I am to see how many seconds it would take before DV reverted my edit anyway). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and delted it for now. I agree with Wolfie that an image is needed, but also with Arc that this one detracts from the seriousness of the section. His suggestions are worth considering. What about something like this: [[14]]Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Here is the original source of the image: [15]. Anyone have access to the library of congress? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"astrologers prefer not to attempt to explain astrology"

I deleted this sentence, because it was falsely sourced -- the source doesn't say that. Here is the source for those who want to check it: Prejudice in Astrological Research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 11:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

it's typical to add a verification needed or citation needed tag rather than actually removing the content. Give editors time to find sources per WP:BURDEN. I willingly accept the burden and will try and check/get the sources in the next week. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The whole article linked to is about how astrology doesn't need explanations. But admittedly the source has some funny basic errors thrown in, for example unlike what the article suggests, 2+2=4 is actually precisely defined starting from Peano axioms, we don't just assume it's true. We teach children to do the methods of adding 2+2 in the same way that an engineer uses the results of science, they work under the assumption it's true. But, ultimately we know it's correct because we have 1. the proof or 2. the evidence respectively. Astrologers work under the assumption it's true without any proofs or evidence. This is a good example of a source only reliable for the opinions of the individual or astrology. I assume he is reliable for the opinions of Astrology though? I'll look around for a more reliable source though if you desire it. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

A major problem with astrology (as opposed to the creationism/ID related articles) is that it is impossible to identify anyone who speaks for astrologers. No reliable independent sources exist to make that determination, and we can't use in-universe sources for that. A reliable independent source would be best. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree that this is most likely the case and another source is preferable. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie, okay, I'll do it your way.--Other Choices (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Theodor Adorno's criticism of Sun sign astrology

The article currently states that Theodor Adorno "concluded that astrology was a large-scale manifestation of systematic irrationalism." The problem with this sentence is that Adorno, in the referenced source, from beginning to end, was solely and exclusively concerned with Sun sign astrology. Accordingly, I changed "astrology" to Sun sign astrology in this sentence to clarify the target of Adorno's criticism, but this seems to be controversial. If anybody has a problem with this edit, please say so.--Other Choices (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the bigger picture of the essay. He considered astrology, period, to be a manifestation of mass irrationalism. Do you have a source that states that he was only writing about sunsign astrology or is this your interpretation? The book doesn't seem to differentiate. SÆdon^talk 07:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Your statement that Adorno "from beginning to end, was solely and exclusively concerned with sun sign astrology" is not justified by the source. Besides the newspaper column, Adorno examined a wide range of magazines "directed at a nucleus of astrological followers rather than at the public at large" that "contain more 'technical' astrological material and try to impress the readers with both 'esoteric' knowledge and with 'scientific' elaborateness". Sounds like a lot more than sun sign astrology to me. His statements about (unqualified) astrology are not discernably limited to sun sign astrology. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds convincing, DV. If you could give a page reference, I'd appreciate.--Other Choices (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Page 59 in my copy, second paragraph under the section header "The column and the astrological magazines". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good enough for me. Here's a critique of Adorno: "If Adorno doesn’t like something, no matter how inane or innocuous, it isn’t long before he begins to detect in it the seeds of fascism. The Stars Down to Earth seems now and again almost as obsessive as the astrology it analyzes."--Other Choices (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't say anything about fascism in the article so this comes off as little more than ad hominem if used in the article. Secondly, that a researcher or philosopher is "obsessive" doesn't seem to have anything to do with the arguments they make or the results they conclude, at least not relevant to anything we've got in the article. SÆdon^talk 08:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I've read it before. You're cherry picking [[16]], by the way, and Dutton's comment is irrelevant to our discussion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On top of that, the Dutton review of TSDB is pretty positive, and I can't find a single sentence in there that criticizes Adorno's take on astrology as irrational. To include your above quote would be to take the entire source out of context by making it seem like Dutton condemned Adorno's whole analysis - this is definitely not a neutral presentation of the source. The quote you presented is a WP:CHERRY SÆdon^talk 08:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with DV and Saedon. Also, Dutton ends by saying that Adorno's position is similar to Popper's. Which reminds us that we should also mention Popper's view on astrology, Popper being one of the best known philosophers of science ever. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Great, I'll add that to the list of suggested material in the section on potential sources. Note that if anyone has access to these sources if they could look at them that would be great: Talk:Astrology#Potential_sources, I presume the maddox nature source confirms the quote we already have sourced to the Randi foundation (it would be nice if this was verified and added to corroborate the secondary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@Saedon, thank you for that link to WP:COATRACK. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that the "scientific assessment" section is getting to be out of balance with the original article -- just look at the article's table of contents. If I understand correctly how wikipedia works, we're approaching "critical mass" for splitting off content to a daughter article on scientists' views of astrology.--Other Choices (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really. A great deal of the discussion about astrology in reliable independent sources is about its pseudoscientific nature, so there is no problem with WP:WEIGHT. If length becomes a problem, we can always spin off or delete some of the non-science related stuff, some of which is poorly sourced and doesn't belong here anyway. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Much of the article is just references. Content wise, it's quite a short article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Influential/Non-influential Dichotomy

A while back I made a newbie edit (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Astrology&oldid=485730185) to address what I consider to be a significant division in astrological belief systems. While I understand the rationale for its removal, it disturbs me the existence of the dichotomy is still hidden. I accept the fault may be mine for not creating this talk section sooner, but I'm not interested in spending a large amount of time learning to dot every policy i and cross every academic t to get the existence of the dichotomy published. Perhaps someone already facile in such nuances who reads this could trivially augment my work such that the dichotomy could take its rightful place in Wikipedia. Or maybe someday I can attempt to please the authority structure with my humble scribles. David L. Craig (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It's wikipedia policy that things be verifiable to references, see WP:RS for more information. Wikipedia can't be the publisher of original thought. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv.usa: I have to agree with IRWolfie that your contribution seems to be original research and therefore does not have a "rightful place" on Wikipedia according to WP policies. Try your luck at an astrology site such as Astrowiki: [[17]]. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had the opportunity to contribute lately, but just accessed Wikipedia and found a note addressed to me on my talk page, dated 14 June, which asked me to check some comments here. There's a lot to catch up with and I'll have to wait until I have more time to contribute fully. For now I'll just say this - the above remark by Dominus Vobisdu is unhelpful. David L. Craig explained he made "a newbie edit" and if the only suggestion DV can offer is to go off elsewhere he is doing no more than telling people that their attempts to contribute are not wanted and not to be tolerated. This contributes nothing towards facilitating the editing process on this page. If there was any point in DV’s contribution it was made in the first 13 words - the rest is indulgence in incivility. Until that sort of arrogant 'ownership' ceases more than "good luck" will be needed to sort out the editorial problems connected to this article. Implying that someone's contribution "does not have a "rightful place" on Wikipedia according to WP policies" is doubly ironic when the suggestion fails to adhere to one of the five policy "pillars" of WP or the principles highlighted at the very top of the page:

• Be polite, and welcoming to new users
• Assume good faith

-- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Zac, have you considered contributing to Citizendium? Their astrology article is woefully inadequate. Skinwalker (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As short is that article is I actually think it's much better than our article. I wouldn't adverse to importing it and building on that instead of what we already have. It doesn't appear as though they have been marred by the type of POV pushing and bickering that has lead to our article's problems (e.g. using simple English words in their astrological context). I urge other editors to take a look and consider this. SÆdon^talk 23:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm not talking about scrapping our entire article and replacing it with that, just importing their version to replace parts of the lede or other areas where we're lacking. SÆdon^talk 00:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Assume good faith, David L. Craig appears to also acknowledge that it was original research. We can't accept original research on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Gee, I'd love to take credit for original research here, but in fact I was taught this in public elementary school in Montgomery County, Maryland, USA in the late '50s. If I could remember the exact grade, I could cite the teacher. So nobody considers the signs in the heavens reference as significant, hmmm? Clearly, I am only an egg in these parts.David L. Craig (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll check out my Mother-in-law's circa 1960 Encyclopædia Britannica—maybe it still had acceptable references to a concept that doesn't appear to have any staying power in this learned publication (one could start to wonder why...). David L. Craig (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"Fascinating, Captain. Google lists pages of 'signs in the heavens' hits in Wikipedia that no longer exist in the text." David L. Craig (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what—I'll just call this a CWOT, as you can't fight City Hall, eh? David L. Craig (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It gets worse. I just noticed all my explanatory notes are GONE from the edit. Just how widespread is this type of alteration of the record? I am deeply grieved by such shenanigans and my good opinion of Wikipedia has been severely burned. David L. Craig (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) There might be a technical explanation for the disappearance of your notes. Depending on how long ago, they might have been archived where they would still be available. My impression is that this astrology article was weighted too heavily in a pro-astrology direction last year, and more recently the "science crowd" has been throwing their weight around a lot. If you decide to stick around and edit on other articles as well, then perhaps you might be able to eventually help promote a neutral point of view on this page.

For whatever it's worth, although I don't agree with the current editorial bias on this article, there is a reason for it in the bigger picture of what wikipedia is trying to achieve. However, the end result is that the science crowd has made a parody of itself here at the astrology article. In the long run, with patience and willingness to communicate, hopefully a better balance can be attained in the article.--Other Choices (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you decide to stick around and edit on other articles as well, then perhaps you might be able to eventually help promote a neutral point of view on this page.

That's the problem, isn't it—deciding to stick around. Thus far, as I said, this bids pretty fair to be a CWOT because agendas incongruous with the primary goal of the publication—present the pertinent facts to fairly educate the reader implicitly trusting in the publication's integrity who seeks to become well-informed about topics—are not dealt with swiftly. It is inconvient truth, rather, that is swiftly eradicated, with search and destroy missions mounted as needed. It is clear, in this subject area at least, biased agendas to deceive readers control what those readers read and the highest editorial level is either complicit, ignorant, or impotent. If a topic has a history of agendas hijacking what the readers see, it should be monitored and edited at the highest level to ensure objectivity. Why is this subject not so handled? When I get a solid explanation, I'll consider investing further time here as well as perhaps updating my fair promotion of Wikipedia on my website. Am I displaying good faith? Is Wikipedia? David L. Craig (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand (and share) your indecision Daniel, and don't have any answers to your questions. As I've posted on this page, I think this is the kind of subject where the usual WP approach to open-editing becomes most problematic. To give up on it? Very tempting ... The ultimate solution, I hope, is to ensure that we fairly and properly report the notable facts and commentaries that that have been made about this subject elsewhere. Whatever the readers own inclination - they will have their own biases for and against the subject too - the objective should be good quality summary accounts, substantiated by credible refrences that the reader can explore further if they wish. I hope you can help by contributing to the process. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia approach fails for this subject

The consensus of editors here have proven one thing - the policies of Wikipedia fail for a complex subject of this nature. In principle, this article is supposed to be open to editing by anyone who has knowledge of the subject and can provide a verifiable account of what astrology is, the philosophy behind it, its notable influence, and historical and contemporary applications. The result of that collective input ought to lead to ever-improving focus on the most important and significant aspects of the subject, presented in an encyclopedic, informative manner. But, alas, all editors who are informed but not hostile are eventually sidelined, the result being that this article is now merely an attempt to vilify astrology and focus on the definition of what it is not. Rather than presenting details on the pertinent issues and notable criticisms, it is dominated by inconsequential ramblings against astrology and criticisms which either don't apply, don't carry weight, or are answered philosophically by the astrological argument (which is not allowed to be presented here, according to the 'rules' apparently).

The fault, perhaps, is not in the stars, but the fact that Wikipedia is driven by agendas, and has adopted policies which psuedo-skeptic editors diligently twist to ensure that the focus on verifiability and notability is not enforced. Before puffing up with satisfaction at the prospect of diminishing this controversial subject, consider the wider consequence of allowing this approach to prevail, and what a disservice you do to the ideals of Wikipedia. This place is supposed to make knowledge and information freely available to those who genuinely seek it and sincerely follow an interest. The prohibition that has been placed on the points of real astrological interest here appear to be motivated by fear, lest enquiring minds should access philosophical perspectives and theological views that extend beyond the borders of what modern science considers objective and provable.

Many editors left this subject in disgust last year, after the consensus decided not to allow reference to the fact that a truly independent and authoritative re-evaluation of the Carlson experiment reversed its findings and demonstrated "significantly-relevant" support for the astrologer's claims. This is the verifiable truth, but we are not allowed to report it. Instead, gleeful sceptics insist on adding more prominence to Carlson, for supposedly proving astrology to be false. And what a disingenuous report of the criticisms of Gauquelin’s work, which hides the truth: that his experiment was critiqued from all angles, but every attempt to disprove it only served to strengthen his claims. His findings have never been disproven though the reader would learn otherwise. It has become the policy that nothing but negative reports are allowed to be presented here, regardless of their worth, reliability or significance. Many comments on the page are transparently false to those who know the subject well - but the argument that editors cannot make reference to primary sources, or to any astrological source, or to any academic source when it is not hostile to the subject, ensures that censorship prevails.

Presenting an imaginary account of astrology does not serve the interests of science. It simply makes a mockery of this publishing platform - no longer Wikipedia but Wickedpedia, a place which exists far, far away from anything remotely intelligent, balanced or encyclopaedic. To all who participate in the falsification of history and prohibition of relevant facts, enjoy your fairy-tale, but beware how it ends. Other sources are out there, academics do treat the subject seriously, scholars and researchers are not easily fooled, and attempts to oppress information usually have the opposite effect. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you like some cheese with that whine? If you don't like our policies on fringe topics you're free to contribute elsewhere. I really feel you would be a good fit at Citizendium - their astrology article needs attention, and they welcome agenda-driven SPAs with open arms. Skinwalker (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. I'm sorry you feel that WP policies are bad, but this isn't the place to discuss them. You can take it to RSN, the Village Pump, a policy talk page, another noticeboard, or off-site. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that you have strong personal beliefs on the issue, but wikipedia is here to represent what the reliable sources say. I was faithful faithful to the reliable sources, I didn't introduce OR when I added to the scientific reception section.

On the note of what you say about "authorative" papers: there is nothing unique to astrology in your claims, every pseudoscience belief system claims they have the truth, Psychics, Alt Med, etc etc all claim to have rebuttals to scientists. They claim that they are misrepresented in some way, that Study X was wrong or didn't take account of the subtle nature of the art, and pseudosciencer Y printed an authorative rebuttal in Pseudoscience Weekly. They just aren't good enough as rebuttals to highly cited articles published in reliable, peer-reviewed scientific journals. When you've devoted your life to something you don't want to find out that there is no basis for your belief, that it all can be explained away by statistics and psychology. It can be hard to accept. But, if that is what the reliable sources say, that is what we report.

In fact on wikipedia I think explaining what astrologers believe and what astrology entails in excruciating detail (and reliably sourced) is important. But, when it comes to the scientific research we should not use crap sources to counter some of the most reliable sources. If we did use these crap sources we would then be violating NPOV, see WP:VALID. We should not pretend that there is evidence for astrology, we should not pretend that astrology has scientific acceptance, we should not pretend that the reliable sources take it seriously as a predictive tool. To do otherwise is to be violating wikipedia policies and guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Rather than presenting details on the pertinent issues... [this article] is dominated by inconsequential ramblings...

This is pretty ironic. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, I am speaking out against a prevalent attitude, and hardly expect to find expressions of agreement. But the history of the page will show the extent that I have contributed to this article as an editor, so - like it or not - I don't think anyone can doubt that my concern is a genuine one.

Jess - it is relevant on this talk page because the issues directly affect the content of this article - which uniquely does not have a defined category on Wikipedia. And it is also relevant that the problematic attitudes evident here are also evident in the contributors of the boards which are supposed to address them. Perhaps a RFC should be made for suggestions on my concern that the content of this article has been dramatically reduced by the attempt to prohibit informative facts and ensure the focus is a negative one. Unfortunately, for the reasons given, I no longer have confidence in the WP process. It simply does not work in an article of this nature, where decisions are enforced according to the popular vote (intrinsically sceptical) rather than the notability, reliability and relevance of the editorial amendments.

IRWOLFE - the sources you have used are crap sources. They are not notable. You appear to believe that if you find a criticism of astrology in a book published by an astronomer or critic, then it deserves report on this page, and the book should be explored further in the hope of finding something else that is critical, to be added to the article as well. You don't know when to stop. There are certain notable persons whose works have defined the notable arguments - these are the ones that deserve explanation. I think I represent the concern of the reader who wants to be properly informed - who wants intelligent explanation of what the main criticms of astrology are, not endless snippets of irrelevant half-informed condemnations of the subject -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability is a requirement for articles not sources, see WP:N. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure lots of people agree that certain editors spend too much time rambling about nonsense, rather than constructive activities. That's why I quoted you and said it was ironic. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm beating my head against the wall, but please use the space below to propose specific concrete changes that you believe would "Fix" the lede. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@Zac, that this issue "directly affects the content of this article" doesn't make it appropriate for the talk page. Laws concerning violations of free speech may directly impact the content of this article (or WP's ability to operate at all), but they aren't appropriate here either. The demographics or background of editors on WP may impact the content of the article, but discussing it here would be entirely inappropriate. We need simple and direct suggestions for improvement of the article, such as "Sentence X is wrong, according to Y source, and it should be changed to Z". If your aim is to change WP policy, then you need to discuss that somewhere else. The one issue you brought up was discussed 7 months ago in an RfC, and was properly decided according to WP:Weight. If you want to throw WP:Weight out the window, then make a proposal on WT:Weight. You could also open discussion at WP:Village pump (policy). Trying to ram the discussion through here is only going to result in frustration, and no change. That's hardly helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Tippy... In terms of constructive activities, only one editor has made more edits to the article than I have, and no one has contributed more to the existing content or supplied nearly as many references as I have, to justify the content made by others, neutral or critical of the subject. It is not a nonsense point that so many editors who have tried to contribute useful content have been forced to give up, realising that it's become useless to even try anymore -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Hippocrite - read the discussion above and you'll see that many editors were unhappy with the suggestion which has been turned into content. Sctechlaw hit the nail on the head when he said:

the proposed wording (and the current wording) is a caveat of mainstream smugness and scientific elitism, something that WP should avoid as bias. The current lead identifies astrology as a belief system: right there that tells the reader it is not mainstream science. A better approach than the proposed change would be to treat the issue like any belief system is treated, and avoid such smug protestations of rightness or wrongness. For instance, something like -- "Astrology had a long history as a science, but today is treated as a pseudoscience by most of the contemporary mainstream scientific community." -- would be a less offensive description of the same sentiment.

I have pointed out that the content displayed in the lede is unverifiable and highly contentious. Three times the justifiable tag I placed has been removed without the issue being addressed. The lede is currently displaying false and unsupportable information. If one verifiable source could be found to approve the content I would not have a need to tag or raise the issue. It can't, but the editors here seem to think that tags designed to highlight problems only work one way on this subject. Who would want to be a party to working on this article whilst this attitude continues? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Heavy on rhetoric, light on "specific concrete changes that you believe would "Fix" the lede." Unless you can explain the problem by pointing out specific text, there's no problem. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem has already been explained in the two comments I placed in the lede section earlier today. For brevity, I'll reproduce a little. But the problems continue right through the article. I would be ashamed to admit to contributing to the article in its current state. This lede comment is a sympton, not a cause -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It is pure synth - and an outright lie to say that astrology is not taken serious by academic communities. And if scientific communities don't take it seriously, then why has the entire article been turned into an excuse to condemn astrology from a scientific point of view, with anything that doesn't rdidicule to the subject or presents its logic for what it is, reduced to the barest minimum?

Perhaps you don't understand. "specific concrete changes that you believe would "Fix" the lede." Provide them. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The final paragraph of the lede would be reliable if changed to:

Astrology has had a significant influence upon the history of science, but today is treated as a pseudoscience by most of the contemporary mainstream scientific community. Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, but no uncontroversial evidence has been found to support its claims.

The content in the 'Modern scientific appraisal' is completely unreliable, and that section needs serious attention. It starts off with a blatant lie: When specific falsifiable predictions from astrologers have been tested in rigorous experimental procedures, such as in the Carlson test, the predictions have always been falsified.

But I'm done, since I don't believe for one second that there is collective editorial will towards accuracy and reliability at the moment, and my feeling is only one of disgust at being a past-contributor to what is now appearing on the main page.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the reliable peer-reviewed research that says that is a "blatant lie" because without that your claim is WP:BULLSHIT. — raekyt 18:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal is worded in a way not reflective of the sources, in order to assign more significance and efficacy to Astrology than our quality sources give it. For example, the sentence "by most of the contemporary mainstream scientific community" contains a full 3 qualifiers. You're implying that there is a non-mainstream, as well as a non-contemporary, non-fringe part of the scientific community which doesn't view Astrology as pseudoscience. What part of the scientific community is that? I don't see that anywhere except in low-quality, primarily Astrological, sources. You've also said "no uncontroversial evidence has been found". Same problem; you're implying that evidence exists to support Astrology's claims, but it's controversial (presumably within the scientific community, considering that's the subject of the sentence). If I haven't been clear yet, here's the problem: I see no quality scientific sourcing suggesting that scientific experiments were conducted which support Astrology in the scientific community, but that's what you're attempting to imply, and you're backing that up with non-scientific literature. See WP:GEVAL, WP:PARITY and WP:FRINGE to understand why that's a problem. Again, if you disagree with WP:Weight, then you need to address that at a policy page, not here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) OK, taking your proposed wording in sections. "Astrology has had a significant influence upon the history of science". That isn't sourceable, and is meaningless. You don't mean that it has had an influence on how the progress of science has been described. You mean that it used to be considered to be part of science, but that's not what you've written. "but today is treated as a pseudoscience by most of the contemporary mainstream scientific community." More accurate is "but today is treated as pseudoscience by the scientific community". The scientific community is mainstream by definition. Astrology is treated as the essence of pseudoscience, not as one little one-off pseudoscience. "Today" and "contemporary" are tautologous. "Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, but no uncontroversial evidence has been found to support its claims." Better: "no evidence has been found to support its claims". At this point we we would have to add that Popper regarded its claims as untestable. In fact he used the example of astrology's claims to explain why he thought falsifiability so important. He knew that his readership would immediately see that the boundaries of scientific enquiry must be drawn to exclude astrology. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia approach is not to edit war over a tag for two hours.

• Wikipedia:Edit war

I see that for two hours, just recently, there's been an edit war over a tag, and mis-use of the edit summary as if it were a talk page. You will cut this out, now, or I'll start using administrator tools, starting with at the very least protecting The Wrong Version and working up from there. Edit summaries are for summarizing edits. I also proffer some wisdom from the Featured Article arena that writers here at this level should remember: issues must be specific and actionable. And with my reader hat on I say: Think of the readers, people! If you're going to cite (say) 249-page books, have the common decency to give us readers the page numbers. Uncle G (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Being rather new on this page, what strikes me is the mention of previous dispute over whether to include in the article an alleged refutation of Carlson's experiment. Does anybody have a link to that earlier discussion or remember what month it took place so I can search through the archive? Thanks, --Other Choices (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah I remember. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Search for Carlson in the Search the archive box. I found 16 results. You are probably looking for the most recent. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

ahhh, another newbie moment, thanks.--Other Choices (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The page states that the section on ‘Modern scientific appraisal’ “is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring”. Yes, it's already overloaded though the recent addition of reference to Popper is warranted; in fact it ought to have development since his influence in defining the argument is notable. But these are the problems that exist and need to be recognised -

For over a month (I didn’t bother to look further) a significant number of edits and changes have been made and every one has been an attempt to either reduce the information on what astrology is about, or augment the ‘Modern scientific appraisal' section. Often, without any attention to notability, reliability, or that fact that good quality references were being removed and poor quality, unspecific references were being added. Very few of these edits had prior discussion or explanation.

By contrast, apart from odd minor edits, any editor who tried to contribute content that was not obviously hostile to the subject, or rectify misleading critical additions, had their edit reverted with the demand that they must get approval on the talk-page first. In the process, consideration was not given to the need to balance the overall content of the article, nor to how pre-existing references and the list of cited works was being screwed up.

To put an end to edit-wars, which become inevitable under these circumstances, can I suggest a short term agreement for all editors to cease all but minor edits whilst the situation is reviewed and the recent changes and proposals for new changes are properly discussed? This is not because I don’t want to see a strong case made for the criticisms against astrology, but the opposite. We have far too many irrelevant and non-applicable criticisms which rely on dubious sources. What we ought to focus on is developing a clear and well written explanation of what the notable criticisms are and who they were made by. We should look critically at the comments we currently have and make sure the report is robust. If the text is weak or contested it can be changed until the page reports the situation correctly and appropriately.

In the past I have steered clear of making any kind of edit or contribution to this section. That’s not my interest. I think the page should simply be clear that astrology is a pseudo-science, not a science, and in the Western world it hasn’t been conceived as a science for a long time. But since the desire to keep driving the point home is now wrecking the credibility of this article and the editors who contribute to it, we need to sort this out. I’ll be specific so that each point can be properly addressed. My recommended approach would be to remove or improve the dubious content in that section, see what really stands up to scrutiny, and then develop those points so that we have clear and uncontroversial explanations of what the most significant and notable points of interest are. Does anyone object to this request that we review the content collaboratively? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a threat to continue edit-warring unless you get your way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

@Zac, it seems to me that the "scientific appraisal" section is currently going through a growth phase, adding reliably-sourced content without too much concern for integration, so it's a bit messy and disjointed at the moment. The logical next phase will be one of digesting the new material and weighing the relevance of all the individual examples to the section as a whole. If we can avoid a confrontational attitude (not always easy to do around here), then other editors should be open to constructive criticism and will recognize that you and I are part of the consensus on this page. My personal view is that this article was weighted too heavily in a pro-astrology direction in the past; now things have gone too far in the opposite direction; but in the long run a better balance can be achieved. Part of what you and I find grating is the "pseudoscience" label because the clear trend in astrology is away from any attempt to explain astrology as scientific. However, there are still a lot of astrologers out there whose desperate craving for "respectability" leads them to eagerly latch onto any hint of scientific support, so the "pseudoscience" tag is still relevant. The culture is changing (as astrology slowly and uncertainly crawls back into the academic world in the west), but part of the nature of wikipedia is to be behind the curve, so I will do my best to graciously accept that I am often going to be part of a minority view around here.

Moving ahead, if and when things calm down (and please understand I'm in no hurry), I'm going to revisit the issue of the criticism of the Carlson experiment, paying careful attention to WP:PARITY. Even if I don't get my way, I'll learn more about the proper application of relevant wikipedia policies.

Further along, if I can get my hands on the various "reliable" histories of astrology, I intend to work on expanding the Western Astrology article. I know, for example, that the Sun Sign astrology columns emerged as a deliberate attempt to popularize astrology in American culture back in the day. This should be mentioned (in this article as well, especially if we're going to keep the Theodor Adorno criticism), but we need a source. And the story of how western astrology coped with the emergence of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto (and then Chiron) should be covered as well.--Other Choices (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi OC, thanks for commenting. I agree with most of what you say, especially the point that this page has swung between being too pro and now too anti (and before it was too pro it was too anti: it's a cycle - maybe it's following some aspect pattern ? :). Re the digesting of new material - this needs to be done, which is why I am trying to isolate the problematic comments. Editors should not cling to every point just because it is on the page - let's get rid of the rubbish that wouldn't be accepted by anyone else's standards. I have no problem with the pseudoscience definition. I argue to ensure that definition is clearly stated. As far as scientific sources go, it's a reality so it needs to be reported as such. And it should be explained properly. Researchers and students come to this page for reliable information which should capture the notable issues succintly. This topic has long been in desperate need of editors that can contribute to the history and cultural theories of astrology. Since this is the main page for astrology, the content here should be summarising the information given in its spin-off articles, and a lot of those have areas that are badly in need of development. Your contributions are very valuable and very welcome as far as I'm concerned. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 04:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Appraising the content of the ‘Modern scientific appraisal’ section

Looking critically at the introduction to the ‘Modern scientific appraisal’ section:

Astrology is a pseudoscience[73][74] that has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity.[75][22]:85 When specific falsifiable predictions from astrologers have been tested in rigorous experimental procedures, such as in the Carlson test, the predictions have always been falsified.[75]

Personally, I think it’s too extreme to say that astrology has no scientific validity. Astrology is a huge field; it uses many ways to gain practical information from the passages of celestial cycles, with some elements clearly containing scientific validity, and some of the sources used in this section actually make this point. But I accept that this point needs to be made clearly and firmly. I only suggest a small, and hopefully non-controversial edit to remove reference 75 at the end of the first sentence. We don’t need this because we have reference number 22 to support the comment. Zarka’s paper does not say that astrology has no scientific validity (it actually begins by pointing out the opposite) - what it says is “astrological practice is by no means scientific”.

The second part of the comment is more problematic. This is also attributed to Zarka, but again Zarka does not make this claim. The only remotely relevant comments are:

p.423 - In all but one published analysis of astrology, condition ([b) is generally fulfilled, but conditions (a ) and (c) are not satisfied. As a consequence, all their results are invalid. The only exception concerns the double blind test of Carlson, agreed by a panel of physicists and astrologers, and published in Nature in 1985 (Carlson 1985): fulfilling scrupulously the 3 above conditions, it demonstrated that astrology definitely fails at characterising somebody’s personality from its birth horoscope.

p.424 - The notable exception is Carlson’s test (Carlson 1985), where predictions were falsifiable, and were falsified !

The point that Zarka makes is that only the Carlson test was found to falsify the reliability of astrological predictions, so our page content is very misleading by suggesting that “When specific falsifiable predictions from astrologers have been tested in rigorous experimental procedures, such as in the Carlson test, the predictions have always been falsified".

To say such as implies Carlson is one of many, rather than being the only experiment which is reported as reliably falsifying astrology.

Of more significance it that this was Zarka's belief when he wrote his paper, but his paper was not published in 2011 (as our source suggests), it is a republication (without changes) of one published in Paris in January 2009. That can be viewed online here.

Zarka would be unlikely to make the same point today. When he wrote his paper he was unaware that the statistical expert Suitbert Ertel, Professor Emeritus at Gottingen University, had re-analysed the data and the methods used by Carlson, and found the experiment to be deeply flawed. Ertel’s re-evaluation stated that Carlson's claims were untenable, and that the astrologers had actually selected the correct profile as either their first or second choice at a rate significantly better than that expected by chance. Concern that the criticism of Carlson's experiment might cause the mainstream view of science to collapse, editors here prefer not to mention it - so here is the info that can be found elsewhere: http://world.einnews.com/pr_news/56655410/famous-test-of-astrology-is-seriously-flawed

To omit reference to the known controversy regarding the unreliability of Carlson’s test, for the sake of not allowing credibility to fringe, is one thing. To omit reference to the criticisms and then make a big issue about it being a “rigorous experiment” makes our report dishonest. In any case, the latter sentence in the opening comment should go – it is not reporting how the situation stands according to modern scientific appraisal, but inventing a position that is not supported by the source, which is not up-to-date on this point anyway.

I will put tags on the problematic comments whilst these issues are discussed. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

1. No sources that satisfy WP:RS have called Carlson into question.
2. Only Zarka knows what Zarka might do today or tomorrow.
3. Refering to Carlson's experiment as "rigorous" is supported by Zarka ("fulfilling scrupulously").
4. No sources that satisfy WP:RS have ever shown astrology to have any scientific validity.

—ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No we don't know what Zarka would do today or tomorrow, but we know that on that particular point he wrote at a time when the controversy was unknown (which makes the point unreliable for being out-of-date). But I'm sure you can see that you points you are making are not the ones presented in the disputed comment. We certainly can't attribute this to Zarka:

When specific falsifiable predictions from astrologers have been tested in rigorous experimental procedures, such as in the Carlson test, the predictions have always been falsified.[75] -- Zac Δ ^talk! 02:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a counter example for the statement? If so, this would be a whole lot easier if you would simply give it. It almost sounds like you're trying to remove a statement you think is true. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? No, I think it's an unsupportable remark, best deleted for causing more problems than it's worth. Doesn't the first part of the comment cover the point sufficiently: "Astrology is a pseudoscience[73][74] that has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity". That's a very strong statement (too strong really, but there you go, I'm not making an issue about that if no one else objects to it). I would rather have the content of this section focussed on the main issues, robust and intelligent, than have endless petty debates because we're not reliably reporting what the reliable sources say. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 02:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

By no scientific validity, it is meant that it is not falsifiable. This is contained in the Zarka text. Zarka also mentions the notable exception to the lack of falsifiable claims. All this is captured in the following, taken from Zarka's 2011 "Astronomy and astrology":

From that point, astrology is purely deductive. Its do- main of application is very broad (from natural and political predictions to individual ones and personality characterisation), but its predictions and diagnostics are qualitative, fuzzy, and generally not falsifiable (as clearly seen when comparing several interpretations of the same horoscope). The basic postulate is never questioned, except in rare works by isolated people, more subject to biases than team works (Gauquelin 1955, 1960; Benski et al. 1996). The notable exception is Carlson’s test (Carlson 1985), where predictions were falsifiable ... and were falsified !

I hope that helps. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The issue about falsifiability is an important one and needs explanation in the article. It is highly relevant. I am not saying that Zarka doesn't raise the issue of falsifiability as many others do. In fact, more authorative sources exist to develop that point. I am saying that Zarka does not make any comment that we could say is accurately summarised by this: "When specific falsifiable predictions from astrologers have been tested in rigorous experimental procedures, such as in the Carlson test, the predictions have always been falsified". -- Zac Δ ^talk! 03:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph I gave can be summarized as exactly that and I've explained to you why. Moreover, you still have not given your counter-example. Or are you trying to remove a statement that you believe is true? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because it wasn't indented sufficiently and so fell in line with yours - you didn't notice the reply I made to you earlier? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 04:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

From my first point it would be safe to infer that there is no "controversy". —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

So Artifex, what do you suggest about the fact that the published comment is OR, not supported by the source? (At a time when the criticisms were unknown) Zarka was adamant that Carlson's test was the only one, a notable exception - so obviously we can't report plurals by saying "rigorous experimental procedures, such as in the Carlson test" ... and then puff it up with "always" for emphasis, to further imply there was more than one example cited. That is completely contrary to Zarka's point. The esiest solution is to cut this unreliable comment and develop the point by reference to what the sources actually state. Do you have a problem with that; if so, why? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 05:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the text is supported by the source and reliable. The status of astrology as a "non-science" devoid of predictive capabilities is not in doubt. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The status of astrology as a non science is not compronised and doesn't need us to falsely report what our sources say to make the point. Can you explain why you say our reference to plurals - supported by a reference that specifies the importance of the singular - is reliable? What is the procedure for a situation like this, where an editorial amendment is needed because the source is misquoted, but I am being refused the ability to mark the questionable comment with a dubious-tag? These tags should not be removed whilst the discussion is active, as it is. They are supposed to draw attention from other editors so that fresh eyes get involved. I'd like to hear fromn IRWolfe since he added the comment but wonder whether this is a point that should be discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me simplify this so that the uncontroversial problem doesn't get buried in words. The clear emphasis of our source is that the only experiment to fulfil the requirements of a statistical analysis of astrologers claims in practice was the Carlson test, and this was notable as the only test that was falsifiable. (Does anyone contest that this is what the source reports?)

We are effectively reporting that there have been a number of experiments that have fulfiled the requirements of a statistical analysis of astrologers claims, and referred to Carlson as one of them, and have emphasised the WP:OR by saying that these "always" falsify the astrologer's claims (again, implying more than the one notable example exists). So we are not reporting what the source says.

Ways to fix this:

• If Zarka is wrong then we should find a reliable source that contradicts him and reports that there has been more than one experiment where specific falsifiable predictions from astrologers have been tested in rigorous experimental procedures and found against their claims - this is why a'dubious' tag is necessary, to show where the dubious content exists.
• Simply remove this part of remark, since it's not reliable, doesn't report what the source says, and the point can be developed elsewhere.
• Change the published comment so it does report what the source says. Something like "There has only been one occasion when specific falsifiable predictions from astrologers have been tested in a rigorous experimental procedure. This was the Carlson test, which found against the astrologers claims and is notable for setting a precedent that astrological claims are able to be falsified by the scientific method". (This is an easy editorial fix and the only reason I haven't made it myself, is so that everyone understands that this is not a pro or anti-astrology concern).

I do believe that some kind of reference to the fact that, through re-appraisal, the Carlson results were reversed, but my bigger concern is that anything reported on this page should be an accurate summary of the information presented in authorative sources at this time. (By being careful to report accurately what the sources say, we free ourselves of concerns about bias or controversies) -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could just quote the key words from Zarka. "...its predictions and diagnostics are qualitative, fuzzy, and generally not falsifiable (as clearly seen when comparing several interpretations of the same horoscope). ... The notable exception is Carlson’s test (Carlson 1985), where predictions were falsifiable ... and were falsified !" Itsmejudith (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be a solution. Can you suggest how to tie the two sentences together? Something like this perhaps ?:

Astrology is a pseudoscience[73][74] that has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity.[22]:85 There are difficulties in testing the practice of astrology because [cut to quote …].[75]

-- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Absence of falsifiability is not the same thing as "difficulties in testing". Popper needs to be mentioned before Zarka, because Zarka's words rely on an understanding of the centrality of falsification in scientific method. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I agree that this needs development, proper explanation and that Popper's argument should be referenced first. I have proposed a quick fix until that happens. Maybe you can suggest alternate quick fix. If not, then let's just delete the remark that is inaccurately reporting what the sources say, as something that is standing in the way of reliably sourced information.

Judith, you might be a good person to explain the relevant issues. I would suggest dropping unreliable comment, bringing up the Poppper remark, and then building in a reference to Zakara there if necessary. Zakara's work is not notable as Popper's is, but if no one else has a problem with using his paper as a source I don't. In general, he seems to have a good grasp of the issues. However, if he is to be used as a source for our comments, then he does have to be reported accurately. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Zarka only states that this is the most notable one, he doesn't specifically say there aren't others but that the Carlson experiment is a notable exception (as in a famous exception). Also, Zarka statement that "astrology has none of the attributes of a true science." is exactly the same as saying it has no scientific validity. Zarka goes further than we do in the article by stating that: "It has been shown elsewhere that it is neither a humanity, that its psychological use dangerous and that its exploitation is alienating and mostly criticable." He doesn't explicitly rule out other studies, and neither should we. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The source is clear enough. I gave the link to the paper and quoted from it for the sake of transparency (see above): "In all but one published analysis of astrology, condition ([b) is generally fulfilled, but conditions (a ) and (c) are not satisfied. As a consequence, all their results are invalid. The only exception concerns the double blind test of Carlson" - in that comment he does specifically say that there aren't others. He is not saying "notable exception" as in this being a "famous exception" - he says "only exception" and elsewhere calls it notable because of this.

I am not pursuing the "no scientific validity" remark, though it is not correct to say that having none of the attributes of a "true science" equates to a subject having no scientific validity. You overlook that Zarka begins with reasons why the influence of celestial bodies on Earth has several obvious manifestations and "factual influences", and that its postulate "although very speculative, is not a priori absurd, nor supernatural, metaphysical, religious or anti-scientific". It is not the postulate that has been subject to experiment. Zarka is careful in his wording "We can thus confidently conclude that astrological practice is by no means scientific".

Also note the relevant comments of Zarka's conclusion. Some of these points are significant as explanations of why belief in astrology has not been eradicated despite its dissasociation from science. Zarka offers a far more thoughtful, balanced and accurate report of the real situation than we do (despite his reference to Carlson being out of date)

By deliberately focusing on the explanation of observational facts, science (since 19th century) has eradicated metaphysical speculations from its field of interest, letting humana free of its interpretation beyond the scientific explanation, but at the same time abandoning the subject of human destiny. In the 20th century, via sociology of sciences, science carried a self-critical analysis of its activity, tools and results. Its rapidly growing complexity and specialisation, and the lethal technology that it enabled (the bomb !) achieved to separate science from the public, who does not perceive any longer any global progress related to science. In other words this led to the “disenchantment” of science (Adorno 2000).

In parallel, the so-called “post-modern relativism” (not Einstein’s one !) that developed in the 1980s with the support of numerous scientists (e.g. Latour (1991)) pretended to relegate any knowledge to belief, and to consider all beliefs of equal value. Together with the increasingly rational appearance of astrology (computer ephemeris, imitation of the scientific discourse), this contributed to attenuate the apparent differences between science and astrology, at least for the public.

But together with its rational appearance, astrology has the immense advantage to proposes a global, holistic approach for apprehending the world, via a link between humans and the cosmos. Astrological belief is not a paradox in a world of generalised belief in scientifico-technological “black boxes” (telephone, electricity, etc). In addition, astrology seems to bring a psychological support to its believers, especially to “fragile” populations (unemployed, students, isolated people, etc) (Kunth & Zarka 2005; Zarka & Kunth 2006). It also benefits from a political economical “tolerance”, because it can be a tool in the hands of politicians, and its industry is prolific (Kunth & Zarka 2005; Zarka 2005).

-- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the obvious answer to the issue is to look for a review of all of, or most of, the tests and see what they conclude. They being a more reliable source for the validity of tests: it's been mentioned a few times that reliability depends on what you want to do with it. I was merely using Zarka in his capacity as a secondary source for some non-controversial points. We could simply change the wording to "When specific predictions from astrologers were tested in rigorous experimental procedures in the Carlson test, the predictions were falsified." IRWolfie- (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that seems a suitable fix which removes the concern over OR. It allows us to keep the reference to Zarka as a support for the comment, and leaves the option open for the issue of falsifiability to be raised be at a place where it can get a better explanation. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

We have the Cosmic source which states

In hundreds of scientific tests, astrological predictions have never proved to be accurate by a substantially greater margin than expected from pure chance. Similarly, in tests in which astrologers are asked to cast horoscopes for people they have never met, the horoscopes fail to match actual personality profiles more often than expected by chance. The verdict is clear: The methods of astrology are useless for predicting the past, the present, or the future.

— A cosmic perspective, 5th edition, pp86

That should suffice as a broad interpretation of the single studies. SÆdon^talk 21:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think that is sufficient. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Noting for the record. Your basis for an "authoritative" criticism of Carlson's test is by the same individual who is also a defender of the flawed Mar's effect which didn't adjust for the multiple comparisons and (which also failed independent verification where Gauquelin tried to get them to add/remove entries!). I also can not find any evidence that Suitbert is a statistical expert: In fact he appears to have done things that no statistician would do, including picking what to look at after the fact (remember those points raised by Zarka?). The news report you link to also contains well known misconceptions: "Another concern focused on publication of the research paper in Nature's Commentary section, the only articles section of the journal that is at the editor's discretion. Content published here is not subjected to the peer review process." This is actually just just flat out incorrect, Nature peer reviews the commentary section (Carlson states it included a notable psychologist) as well. Suitbert's paper also had no significant peer review since it was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration: A journal which does a poor job of sorting the wheat from the chaff. In fact some of Suitbert's claims on the study seem to be just plain wrong. See [18]. These are some of the reasons why it is not authoritative or suitable for the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggested re-arrangement of text for intro to Modern Scientific appraisal section

The first four paragraphs in the Modern scientific appraisal section are:

Astrology is a pseudoscience[73][74] that has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity.[75][22]:85 When specific predictions from astrologers were tested in rigorous experimental procedures in the Carlson test, the predictions were falsified.[75]

Those who continue to have faith in astrology have been characterised as doing so "in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary."[76] One well-documented and referenced paper, for instance, which conducted a large scale scientific test, involving more than one hundred cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, found no support for astrological accuracy.[77]

Philosopher of science, Karl Popper, regarded astrology as "pseudo-empirical" in that "it appeals to observation and experiment", but "nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards."[78]:44

In a lecture in 2001, Stephen Hawking stated "The reason most scientists don't believe in astrology is because it is not consistent with our theories that have been tested by experiment."[79]

Editorially, the comments seem disjointed, and visually it's ugly. Having four stubby paragraphs together makes it look like snippets of disconnected points being listed, rather than an explanation of what matters in this section. Without making any text changes, a simple re-arrangement would allow one point to flow more naturally into the next. For example:

Astrology is a pseudoscience[73][74] that has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity.[75][22]:85 In a lecture in 2001, Stephen Hawking stated "The reason most scientists don't believe in astrology is because it is not consistent with our theories that have been tested by experiment."[79] Philosopher of science, Karl Popper, regarded astrology as "pseudo-empirical" in that "it appeals to observation and experiment", but "nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards."[78]:44 Those who continue to have faith in astrology have been characterised as doing so "in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary."[76] One well-documented and referenced paper, for instance, which conducted a large scale scientific test, involving more than one hundred cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, found no support for astrological accuracy.[77] When specific predictions from astrologers were tested in rigorous experimental procedures in the Carlson test, the predictions were falsified.[75]

Does anyone envisage a problem with this? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 19:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The paragraphs are stubs because I do intend to expand them (the first three at least). putting them together like that looks a bit SYNTHy. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it's not Synthy is it, if each one is accurate and is reporting reliably. It's just explanation, which is what we are supposed to be doing as editors: See WP:SYNTHNOT:

"SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. If you're just explaining the same material in a different way, there's no new thesis."

This doesn't prevent you developing and expanding. In fact I hope you do. It's a short term measure for what is on the page right now, which is all we have to work on until changes are actually proposed. No disrespect but I keep coming across comments from last year where I kept promising to expand "next week". -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind putting them together as a temporary measure (they would still be disjointed either way), but I would say that the current ordering is significantly better. I would just put together the first two paragraphs into one, and then the third and fourth paragraphs into one. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

a more serious approach to editing this article

I think it's disturbing how much freely-expressed ignorant contempt about astrology there is on this talk page. This type of poisonous bias spills over into the editing procedure, and leads to edit wars and headaches for administators. Perhaps the policy that wikipedia talk pages are not forums for general discussion of the subject should be strictly enforced here, because the editing process has clearly broken down. Perhaps wikipedia administrators will agree that editors who feel extreme disdain for a particular subject should make a point of not editing articles related to that subject.

Perhaps it would be useful to mention the view expressed by a reliable source, noted scholar Richard Tarnas, who took the trouble to work his way through the premises of astrology from the inside:

"I decided to examine the history and principles of astrology in earnest by reading carefully through the canon of major astrological works, from Ptolemy's summation of classical astrology, the Tetrabilios, and Kepler's On the More Certain Fundamentals of Astrology, to modern texts by Leo, Rudhyar, Carter, Ebertin, Addey, [Charles] Harvey, Hand, Greene, and Arroyo....I found the symbolic principles associated with the planets at the core of the astrological tradition unexpectedly easy to assimilate, since they proved to be surprisingly similar--indeed, essentially identical--to the archetypes of modern depth psychology familiar from the works of Freud and Jung and their successors in archetypal and transpersonal psychology." (Tarnas, Cosmos and Psyche, p. 65)
--Other Choices (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the editing with respect to the article appears to be civil and productive. I don't think anyone has said they have contempt or disdain for Astrology, but that is irrelevant though. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to think Astrology is nonsense as long as they edit and discuss in accordance with wikipedia policies and guidelines; you appear to be of the opinion that only Astrology supporters can edit this article. I don't think it's acceptable to refer to the views of other editors as ignorant though as you have done. As has already been indicated earlier, the cultural impact of astrology (which is a different matter and unrelated to the scientific section) shouldn't stop us clearly stating in the wikipedia tone, the scientific consensus about astrology as a predictive tool etc, as we would do for any topic per WP:VALID,WP:BALANCE and WP:FRINGE. Edit: Also I'm not sure why you have moved this to a separate section when you are repeating the same points of the original. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, IRWolfie, for your civil response. It is clear that we have some differences of opinion, and also that you have misunderstood my opinion about who can edit this article. Being opposed to something is different from making personal rants on talk pages. I suppose you're correct that I shouldn't have used the word "ignorant." That tends to be unhelpful, even if many opinionated editors have absolutely no idea about what professional astrologers really do and talk about. I have no problem with clearly and forthrightly reporting the scientific consensus about astrology as a predictive tool. But my point was that focusing on the predictive element of astrology mischaracterizes the subject -- hence my citation of the "canon" of astrological works, which few of the editors on this page are familiar with. The major trend in astrology in recent decades has been toward its use as a tool for psychological counseling and personal reflection, NOT as a method of fortune-telling. The international astrological community has its own journals, publishing houses, and professional associations, and a lot of this material meets the wikipedia requirements for reliable sources. There seems to be a question of balance in the article, and that is why I decided to move my post to a new section. And please understand that I have no interest in arguing that astrology is "scientific."--Other Choices (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're hung up on the word "predictive" here. Predictive does not necessarily refer to the future. One can predict present or past events or conditions as well, as is, in fact, most often the case in science and academics.

And modern astrology is nothing but a form of divination; it has no other aspects independent of divination, except perhaps entertainment and fraud. When used in "psychological counseling" or "personal reflection", it is used solely as a form of divination, i.e., as a means to make predictions. Furthermore, it has no demonstrated value or validity in any of those fields, or any other, except entertainment.

The characterization of astrology as a form of psychology and self-improvement is nothing but the same sort of special pleading as calling it a form of religion. It is merely a ploy to deceive the gullible and uniformed public by deflecting criticism from the scientific and scholarly community.

As for "the international astrological community" and its journals, publishing houses, and professional associations, they are recognized by no one besides themselves, and are merely a fraudulent attempt to give astrology some form of academic/scientific legitimacy. Sadly, you've been taken in. Their journals and publications are completely worthless as sources, even about themselves because of their self-serving and in-universe nature.

The term "astrologer", when applied to modern practitioners, is also indefinable. Anybody can call themself an astrologer, and their claim is exactly as valid as anyone else's. Membership in a "professional" astrological association or completion of a course in astrology adds exactly zero to one's qualifications. A "professional astrolger" who has completed a university course in astrology at, for example, Trinity St David has no more legitimacy than a washed up circus fortune-teller.

I myself can make up a completely bullshit form of astrology based on the position of Uranus, for example, and validly claim to be the best astrologer in the world in total seriousness, as no one has ever been demonstrated in any sense to be a better astrologer than me.

Your claim that there is, or that there must be, anything whatsoever of value to modern astrology (besides entertainment) is not born out by the reliable sources. Like any other form of divinition, astrology remains complete nonsense until proven otherwise, and as yet, there is absolutely zero evidence.

As for calling skeptical editors like me "ignorant", that is certainly not called for. I have spent the last year sifting through the astrological literature and learning about the "astrological community", and I have a pretty sound idea of the topic, far better than most "astrologers". I have yet to see anything published by modern "astrologists" that is not complete and arrant nonsense, except perhaps some historical or lieterary analyses of classical and medieval astrology. And I have yet to see anything in independent reliable sources that characterize astrology as anything but complete and arrant nonsense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Try reading what Kuhn says on astrology in The Essential Tension. He's very good on the subject. He thinks it's wrong, sure, but he doesn't think it's "complete and arrant nonsense." Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he does call it nonsense from a scientific point of view, in that he considers totally non-scientific. His comment about astrology "particular failures did not give rise to research puzzles, for no man, however skilled, could make use of them in a constructive attempt to revise the astrological tradition" basically jives with what I have stated above, that anyone is as qualified an astrologer as anyone else. In a field where anything is permitted and it is impossible to distinguish arrant nonsense from anything else, everything is arrant nonsense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu, perhaps now is an opportune time to review WP:TPG, which says: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." This wikipedia guideline is being blatantly ignored around here by people like you. You are, of course, entitled to your personal opinions about astrology. One of the tricks to making wikipedia work is for people with strongly-opposed opinions to learn to at least grudgingly cooperate. The referenced wikipedia guideline has the effect of hindering chest-beating pompousity, which helps to preserve a spirit of cooperation.

Regarding your blanket disapproval of reliable sources (according to wikipedia standards) from within the astrological community about the topic of astrology, I don't think that your point of view will stand up to impartial review. It'll be an intersting discussion when somebody introduces a reference to such a source.--Other Choices (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering that Polisher of Cobwebs made the first statement not directly about the article it's hardly fair to call another editor up on WP:NOTFORUM etc for replying. As far as I can see people are in fact cooperating, I have found things to be remarkably peaceful on this article page, I think the discussions while sometimes heated are civil. Also considering you haven't made any suggestions for article content I'm not sure what you expect references to show. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

uh, Polisher of Cobwebs made a brief reply to an extended off-topic rant by Dominus Vobisdu. If we can get DV to behave himself, I'm sure we won't have any problems with PofC.

It seems that you failed to notice my suggestion for article content: Richard Tarnas's correlation of the symbolic meaning of the planets with psychological archetypes. Beyond that, Tarnas is a reliable outsider looking into the astrological tradition and providing us with a list of "top-quality" works within the corpus of astrological literature, many (if not all) of which meet the wikipedia criteria for reliable sources. I think that the wikipedia article on astrology should be open to inclusion of content from these sources listed by Tarnas. Finally, I provided a link to a scholarly treatment of Kepler's take on astrology. That is my first step in entering the current dispute over Kepler; I haven't said anything more at the moment because I want to think it through carefully -- haven't made up my mind who's right yet, probably won't get to it until this weekend.

--Other Choices (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Starting the discussion by an attack only served to divert the discussion, I don't think anyone has denied that content should be there describing Astrology or any cultural impact. Cosmos and Psyche, by Tarnas an american astrologer though, appears to make claims on astrology that are at odds with the mainstream assessment though and should be used with extreme caution: per the other wiki article which states: The core argument of Cosmos and Psyche rests on the claim that the major events of Western cultural history are consistently and meaningfully correlated with the observed angular positions of the planets. He is not the reliable outsider you have described. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I intervened on this talk page by pointing out the routine flagrant violation of wikipedia policy around here, which doesn't seem to bother you. Your characterization of the editing around here as "civil and productive" flies in the face of the fact that this article is under temporary protection (yet again) because of persistent edit warring. As an outsider on this page, it seems reasonable to suppose that this persistent edit warring is related to the routine violation of wikipedia policy on the talk page. I don't expect to be able to do much to improve this article until the ingrained dysfunction over here is addressed.

You refer to Richard Tarnas as an astrologer, but that's clearly a mistake. His wikipedia page identifies him as a professor of philosophy and psychology and a cultural historian. He is clearly "reliable," for wikipedia purposes, in areas related to his expertise. He has never been a practicing astrologer, and his book Cosmos and Psyche has nothing to do with traditional astrological techniques of horoscope interpretation. His expertise and training and career are all outside the astrological profession, which is why I used "outsider" to describe him in relation to astrology. His earlier book on the entire span of western philosophy, The Passion of the Western Mind, was a best-seller, so he is eminently qualified to look into the astrological tradition and identify the core writings of the field.

--Other Choices (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If you "don't expect to do much to improve the article", as you say, then this discussion is a waste. This is not the place to discuss editor conduct, or to change or clarify policy. RFCU, WQA and ANI are for the former, and the Village Pump or Reference desk for the latter. I have to agree with others that you're being unnecessarily confrontational. A lot of high-profile pages are semi-protected due to vandalism or persistent edit warring; PP is not directly correlated with the editing environment, as you assume. I think it's time to either make some concrete proposals for the article (and let others comment on them), or to let this go. There's no reason we need yet more drama, particularly when directed at specific editors.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I propose that the article mention Richard Tarnas's correlation of the symbolic meanings of the planets with psychological archetypes.--Other Choices (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Is there any specific wording you had in mind?   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my personal inclination would be to draw from the quote from Tarnas that I posted at the beginning of this section. I suggest inserting a sentence after either of the two locations in the current article where the phrase "psychological astrology" appears, with a sentence something like: Psychologist and philosopher Richard Tarnas has found that "the symbolic principles associated with the planets at the core of the astrological tradition" are "surprisingly similar--indeed, essentially identical--to the archetypes of modern depth psychology." (Tarnas, Cosmos and Psyche, p. 65)

--Other Choices (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's helpful. Thanks. If we included any content like that, we'd probably have to word it differently. For one thing, I'm not sure what that means. "The symbolic principles [of the] planets are identical to the archetypes of psychology"? What "principles of the planets"? What "archetypes of psychology"? How can planets be identical to psychology? This seems to be comparing apples to oranges, and at best we'd need more context to make this valuable to the reader. Second of all, we'd probably want to do a better job of attributing the claim. Saying "Tarnas has found that these things are true" is to say that they are, as a matter of fact, true. Instead, we'd probably want to say that Tarnas believes that they are true. We need to make sure we're assigning proper weight to the passage. Within Astrology, is Tarnas' view a majority view, a minority view, or a fringe view? What does consensus within Psychology have to say about Tarnas' ideas? I'm not incredibly familiar with Tarnas, so anything you can point me to regarding those questions could be helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Tarnas is extreme fringe both within astrology and within academia. He is one of Campion's clique, and, like Campion, champions an astrology that does not yet exist yet, but needs to be invented. He has a high level of disregard and disdain for astrology as it is curently practiced, which he believes is deeply flawed and causes harm to people.

In academia, his views on astrology are beyond the deep end- new agey to the extreme, and his views in "Cosmos and Psyche" have been widely rejected when they have not been completely ignored, as he himself states. He is a professor at the extremely wonky and woo-woo California Institute of Integral Studies, which had it's accreditation by the APA yanked.

I've listened to lectures by him, and it's like listening to that guy who gets stoned at the party and starts "philosphizing". Incoherent and embarrasing blither, worse than Campion when not constrained by peer review. Here's a good example, where he discusses "Cosmos and Psyche" and modern asrtology: [[19]].

I would remind Other Choices that psychology is a science, and that any discussion of the psychological aspects or uses of astrology would require real academic and scientific sources. Cosmos and Psyche does not fit the bill by a long shot. Here's the Wall Street Journal review on the book [[20]]. As far as this article goes, it is only reliable as a source about Tarnas' own views, which are so idiosycratic that they are basically useless. Any quote by Tarnas on the scientific aspects of astrology, including psychology, would have to come from a serious academic scientific source, preferably peer-reviewed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

An introduction to the psychological archetypes is here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Archetype#Jungian_archetypes. The "symbolic principles" of the planets is simply their astrological meanings; see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Planets_in_astrology

Tarnas is given a very serious ear within the astrological community. He has appeared at many astrological conferences, per the list here: http://www.cosmosandpsyche.com/pages/calendar/

As DV points out, Tarnas is definitely "fringe" within psychology. However, because of his definite notability, I think Tarnas's view is worth mentioning, together with a mention of reliable sources that disagree with him.--Other Choices (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that he should be used as being representative of the views of astrologers? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

He is definitely not representative of present-day astrological practitioners, for whom he has very low regard (a fact that is blithely overlooked or perhaps itnentionally ignored by his fans in the astrological community). And sorry, but the fact that he is given a very serious ear within the astrological community is irrelevant, as none in that community have the expertise or competence to evaluate scientific (psychological) statements.

We write wikipedia articles based on reliable sources written by independent experts that are recognized by the mainstream community. Especially with topics related to science and history, including psychology, we rely on REAL academic sources published in REAL academic outlets. If Tarnas has something to say about the psychological aspects of astrology, he is obligated to publish them in genuine academic outlets subject to genuine academic review. What he says elsewhere carries no weight outside of the astrological community, and most importantly withing the relevant scholarly (not-pseudoscholarly) community. As such, it should carry no weight here in WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

er, I'd hesitate to point to anybody as being representative of the views of astrologers, that's sort of like herding cats. But I think it is fair to say that Tarnas's association of planetary symbolism with archetypal energies corresponds closely to the views of psychological astrologers, who are as "mainstream" as it gets in the world of astrology. More generally, Tarnas's correlation of planetary aspects with historical events and shifts is completely mainstream among astrologers; he is sort of a "leader of the pack" in this area because most astrologers don't do historical research -- this whole area of astrology is outside their bread-and-butter of interpreting horoscopes for clients.--Other Choices (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: I wrote the latest post before DV's latest. In reply to DV: I think that the question of Tarnas's weight within the astrological community is immediately relevant to the wikipedia article on astrology.--Other Choices (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

But not regarding material related to science, where the opinion of the astrological community carries no weight itself, and their expertise is not recognized by anyone other than themselves. WP is not a platform for astrologers to present their version of astrology as they would like to see it presented. We present it as it is presented in reliable, INDEPENDENT sources, just like we present Intelligent Design or other forms of creationism.

Two big problems are that there is an absolute dearth of reliable sources on modern astrology, as few in the real world have bothered writing about it except to debunk it, and the lack of any figure within the "astrological community" who can be regarded as representative, as it's a free-for-all, every-man-for-himself type of field.

Tarnas is extremely unrepresentative, and belongs to a tiny clique of wannabe "serious" astrologers. Despite his academic background and the fact that he wraps his product attractively in pseudo-scholarly and pseudo-scientific language, his astrological "theories" enjoy no more support in the real-world academic community than those of a totally incompetent circus fortuneteller. They just look more mainstream. Don't be taken in by appearences. He's a garden variety crank and crack-pot. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I seem to be getting two things from this discussion. 1) Tarnas is accepted and respected within the Astrology community, and 2) Tarnas is fringe within the Astrology community. I don't know how both could be true; perhaps I've misread something. @OC, if Tarnas is a majority view within the Astrology community, then it should be easy to list common reference texts (such as discussions of the history of Astrology) which prominently feature Tarnas. If Tarnas is a minority view within Astrology, then he should be listed prominently by sources independent of him. Do we have either of those types of sources?   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Weirdly, both are true. Tarnas himself expresses deep disgust with modern astrology as it is currently practiced. Watch just about any video interview with him on YouTube, and you'll see that the disgust is quite viceral, accompanied by undisguised dsipesia. (See this video, for example: [[21]]) He violently LOATHES the masses of astrological practitoners. He's trying to get astrology taken seriously as a legitimate science, and here are these ignorant charlatans pissing in his swimming pool. He wants nothing, but nothing, to do with them. Except for the attention and, let's face it, the cash it brings him.

The weird thing is that those ignorant charlatans bend over backwards to kiss his ass and sing his praises. They blithely brush aside the fact that Tarnas thinks they are charlatans that are hurting people, and are more than satisfied with the patina of "legitimacy" that Tarnas brings to astrology. They definitely have a vested self-interested reason for branding him as one of their own, whether they actually agree with him or not.

We've been over this before with Nick Campion, a close associate of Tarnas who likewise is disatisfied by modern astrology and believes that a new astrology needs to be invented on a "scientific" basis. Both Tarnas and Campion, however, have no qualms about wading neck deep in shit with the charlatans they despise if it butters their bread.

In fact, a swarm of Campion's minions held this article hostage for a year before a whole bunch of them were mass banned. The clique Tarnas and Campion belong to is quite small, at most twenty core individuals, if that. Most of them have genuine academic qualifications, and publish (legitimate, non-controversial) work on astrology (mostly historical or literary anaysis) in real peer-reviewed academic journals. Turn off the peer-review, though, and they turn into frothing lunatics, like Jeckyl and Hyde. It's embarassing to watch. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If we look at the comment that Zac made about the treatment of Pluto and Uranus by astrologers: Where are the astrologer claiming that all planets are equally important? Most argue that Neptune, Uranus and Pluto are 'trans-personal' planets and not of the same standing as the seven classical planets. , contrast this with the importance Tarnas places on Uranus and Pluto: [22]. Then it appears the position of most astrologers is at odds with Tarnas. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

--@DV: the astrological community's attitude toward science, and their rebuttals of "scientific" debunking of astrology, are certainly relevant to the wikipedia article on astrology. Furthermore, WP:BALANCE requires that mention of such rebuttals be included in the article. There is an abundance of sources within the astrological community that meet the wikipedia guidelines for reliability and notability. As time permits, I'll start introducing them into the discussion.

--I'm going to share a thought on the "pseudoscience" tag here: Most astrologers don't even try to claim that astrology is "scientific" in the strict sense of repeatable experiments, etc. The mainstream view within the astrological community is that astrology is a symbolic language, and horoscope interpretation is more of an art than a science. Astrologers, individually and collectively, often do use an empirical approach when studying the endlessly shifting kaleidoscope of symbols, but this is balanced by the assumption that horoscope interpretation must take into consideration factors outside the realm of astrological phenomena, such as an individual's cultural background and his/her degree of spiritual development. It seems to me that "the "pseudoscience" tag is inappropriate unless somebody can demonstrate that the mainstream view among astrologers is that astrology is "scientific," which is definitely NOT the case.

--@DV and Jess: I agree that Tarnas is both respected and fringe within the astrological community, but I definitely disagree with some of DV's sweeping statements. The astrological mainstream embodies a strong urge to professionalize the discipline, combined with a thirst for respectability and an acute discomfort at the all-to-common opportunistic fortune-tellers and "pop" Sun-sign prognosticators who tend to give astrology a bad name. Once again, I strongly object to DV's over-use of pejorative opinions and generalizations. This habitual insertion of contempt for the subject serves to poison the discussion.

--@IRWolfie: You might be misinterpreting Zac's statement, which may have been poorly phrased. "Not of the same standing" is different from "less important," although astrologers typically consider people who are spiritually unevolved to be less likely to have consciously integrated the energies symbolized by the trans-personal planets. With that said, in recent decades there has been a clear sense within the astrological community of a difference in astrological function between the visible and the "transpersonal" planets. However, the recent discovery of Eris and the demotion of Pluto by astronomers of Pluto to the status of "dwarf planet" has caused a lot of (ongoing) re-evaluation by (western) astrologers, who are used to this sort of periodic upheaval in their system. A more recent trend is to lump the four gas giants into one grouping, subdivided into visible (from Earth) and invisible pairs. This, by the way, is something that might bear mentioning in the article, or perhaps in the article on western astrology.

--Other Choices (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification guys. It seems to me that this boils down to sourcing. I asked about sourcing in my last message for a reason; our first job is to assign weight to Tarnas, and the best way to do that is to examine how he is treated within the literature. @OC, you mentioned that you'll be introducing some sources. That will be helpful. Until then it's hard to tell. When you're looking through the literature, keep in mind that sources independent of Tarnas are important for us. Reference texts or academic literature would be ideal, but aren't entirely necessary.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I find Dominus Vobisdu's tendency to make sweeping and in some cases highly inaccurate statements offensive and out of place in this environment. I notice when IRWolfie said, 'Most of the editing with respect to the article appears to be civil and productive', it was prior to Vobisdu's posts. For example, 'none in that community have the expertise or competence to evaluate scientific (psychological) statements'. Really? So DV is aware of the qualifications, or lack of, of the entire astrological community? I think few of even the most sceptical of people would try to claim something so blatently untrue. Another factual error on the part of DV is in the statement that the practice of astrology is taught at the University of Wales Trinity Saint David. DV - can I refer you to the TSD website?

DV also refers to Richard Tarnas as 'one of Campion's clique'. What is your source for this uncivil remark? And in what way does Campion champion an astrology that does not yet exist but needs to be invented? You don't explain your rationale for this statement.

Like Other Choices I find your rant on 13 June offensive and unacceptable and in breach of the WP guidelines. I have heard of editors being banned from WP for less than this. Minerva20 (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Minerva, we don't need to personalize this dispute, and doing so will not make the conversation more productive. Editors are allowed to have opinions about the topic, and they're also allowed to express them. WP:TPG warns us against discussing the topic of the article here, but short of that, there's no serious problem with explaining the topic (particularly with links to sources included). Attacking other editors, on the other hand, serves little purpose but to inflame the discussion, and is dramatically off-topic from article improvement. It would be good of you to strike the comments. Short of that, let's please keep this civil and on-topic going forward. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Jess, I'm happy to take your advice. Bearing that in mind, what would be my best course of action when someone posts blatantly false information? How would you deal with that?Minerva20 (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking, you have a couple options. One is to bring the issue to the editor's attention at their talk page. That's usually a good thing to do first, before escalating a problem. Assuming good faith is always ideal when addressing these matters, and often you'll find that contention can be resolved just by discussing the issue civilly one-on-one. If that fails, you may wish to ask the advice of another seasoned editor you trust on their talk page; a neutral editor dropping in to provide advice can often help, especially if it's someone the "problematic" editor trusts too. If the problem is long-term, recurring and disruptive, it may be best to go to WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI. If the issue is a dispute about article content, see WP:DR (including WP:DRN). If it's a breach of civility, then WP:WQA. We have a lot of noticeboards for dealing with editor conduct, as you can see, which are intended to pull these issues out of articles and address them properly. In this particular case, I wouldn't personally recommend escalating the problem elsewhere, as I don't think there's been a serious breach of any policy. You're welcome to disagree with me, in which case you could start by following the steps I outlined above, beginning with a discussion on DV's talk about the matter. I would recommend, however, to consider whether this is a recurring problem likely to create further issues in the future; if it is not, then escalating it now, and creating more drama after the issue has already subsided, probably isn't the best way forward. Then again, that last part is just my opinion. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No jess - I've read through the above text and for my part I want to state here that I'm shocked by it, and do not want to be seen as someone willing to turn blind eyes to legitimate concerns. DV was completely out of order and most clearly acting against WP policiy in making unfounded allegations against living persons on this talk page - read that WP:TPG link again. You are out of order too, by implying that the editor bringing this problem to our attention is the one with the troublesome attitude, and the one who should strike through his/her remarks. Don't you understand that by implying that Minerva is personalising a dispute, when it is clearly Dominus Vobisdu who has done that, and Minerva is quite rightly bringing our attention to it, you are endorsing the out of policy remarks that DV has made and serving to perpetuate an attitude of selective bias in the application of WP policies? If you are concerned about editors going "dramatically off-topic from article improvement", well, why didn't you say something earlier when DV was making his long rants - noting that you were a part of the discussion and could have pulled DV back into line just as quickly as you replied to Minerva here. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't editing WP at the time this discussion took place, but I agree that they are are out of order, apparently without subtance or foundation, and abuse the Wikipedia system by using this talk-page to make personal attacks. This comment was especially disgraceful:

We've been over this before with Nick Campion, a close associate of Tarnas who likewise is disatisfied by modern astrology and believes that a new astrology needs to be invented on a "scientific" basis. Both Tarnas and Campion, however, have no qualms about wading neck deep in shit with the charlatans they despise if it butters their bread. In fact, a swarm of Campion's minions held this article hostage for a year before a whole bunch of them were mass banned. The clique Tarnas and Campion belong to is quite small, at most twenty core individuals, if that. Most of them have genuine academic qualifications, and publish (legitimate, non-controversial) work on astrology (mostly historical or literary anaysis) in real peer-reviewed academic journals. Turn off the peer-review, though, and they turn into frothing lunatics, like Jeckyl and Hyde. It's embarassing to watch.

I am not within any of the "cliques" of astrological academia, but I am unaware that Tarnas and Campion move in similar circles - where is the support for the view that they are close associates?

DV, has done this several times now. See this link for when he repeatedly made similarly fanciful allegations - completely unfounded; and added others that falsely represented the activities of other astrologers and astrological associations. See my comments of 6 Dec 2011 on that page for how his reports are easily shown to be grossly misrepresentative when page diffs are checked.

DV - you report that you have spent the last year "learning about the "astrological community"". What do you mean by that? Has that learning come from study or personal involvement? If the former, it should be easy for you to show the verifiable sources that support your claims. If they have come from personal involvement, then can you clarify what relationships you have with these persons, to clear up any concerns about negative WP:COI. For example, are you a disgruntled student? Your willingness to infiltrate the inside details of a subject that you have only ever expressed deep hostility towards is troubling. Why invest your personal time and effort in such a deep-level connection with a topic you abhor, when WP doesn't require report of anything more than the reliable sources report? If you have reliable sources for these comments please provide them to show that you are representing known public opinion, or redact/remove in line with the instructions here.

If, on the other hand, your "insight" is based on nothing but your own unreliable subjective analysis based on personal experience, then WP is not interested. This only causes concern that your efforts to maximise the sceptical views on astrology and redue anything that is non-sceptical are not rational, but emotively driven, and pursued against the WP's interests to build objective and reliable details into its pages based on a neutral reports of what the sources say.

This is not the first time you have done this; but it has to be the last and it has to be put right quickly. WP has strict policies against repeatedly inserting unfounded allegations about living persons and they apply to talk pages just as much as front end pages. To spare the agonies of long controversial disputes, I will not be commenting again on this matter here. It is for DV to put the matter right and I hope he acts quickly to remove potentially defammatory material from this page. If not then we need to take this to the judgement of adminstrators to ensure the proper procedures are followed -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank You Jess, for the list of options available to deal with false statements. I note the post by Zac saying that this has to be the last of them by DV. If it is, I am happy to follow your advice and not escalte the issue this time. If more false and misleading statement are posted however, I shall the course of action you advise above. I understand that editors are entitled to voice opinions, but it's not DV's opinions I took issue with. Minerva20 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have left a notice on DV's talk page, alerting him to this and asking him to readup on WP:TALKNO -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)