This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please read before starting
Welcome to Wikipedia's Astrology article. This represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:
These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are 'No Original Research' (WP:NOR) and 'Cite Your Sources' (WP:CITE).
Since the nature of this topic has been deemed controversial, all contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Also remember this "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article; it is not to be used as a soapbox, or for comments that are not directly relevant to the content of article.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
I saw that this article is nominated for good article status, so I began reading the article to see if it is ready for a formal review. Before reading very far at all, I saw a strange statement: "Among Indo-European peoples, astrology has been dated to the 3rd millennium BCE," but the cited source refers to Babylonians and Assyrians, neither of whom are Indo-European. The time period should also be specified differently, as neither Babylon nor Assyria existed as a distinct nation much earlier than 2,000 BCE (barely into the third millennium BCE, in other words). The editor interpretation and use of cited sources will have to be much more consistent with the known facts of history reported in other sources (which have been used correctly in the Wikipedia articles about Babylon and Assyria) to convince me that it's time for this article to move on to good article review. I'd be glad to hear from other editors here about how to fix this and other aspects of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we keep removing garbage like that, but people keep putting it back in. It's a difficult article to keep stable. — kwami (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It would be helpful if the discussion were to remain free of language that might be interpreted as critical of editors. The text and citations in the body of the article clearly support 'at least 2nd millennium BCE', and there is a discussion in the text which shows weak and not very persuasive evidence for an earlier date. I've therefore updated the mention in the lead. For such a controversial topic the article is not particularly unstable, with a modicum of good-faith interventions that are quickly reverted. The text itself has changed little in the last few months. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)