Talk:Astrology

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: Pseudoscience ♦ Due and undue weight ♦ Making necessary assumptions ♦ Giving "equal validity". 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.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience (2006)
In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. 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.
The four groupings found at WP:PSCI Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more consideration. 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. 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. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Find sources: "Astrology" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Academic research in astrology / online links suggestions

Some good online sources of reliably researched/academic papers on astrology (besides what can be accessed via Google books and Google scholar):

• THE 9TH HOUSE - Recent Academic Research on Astrology - http://www.the9thhouse.org
• Online theses: http://ethos.bl.uk/Home.do (type in 'astrology' or whatever. Some require payment, but many are free to access if you register)
• JSTOR - http://www.jstor.org - many good papers about various aspects of astrology, though a university account is needed for access.

Another link that is useful for access to historical texts is:

• CURA's Digital International Astrology Library - http://cura.free.fr/DIAL.html

I would like to propose adding the 9th house and Cura links to the 'external links' section of the article? Currently that has been stripped down to 1 entry - the astrology section of the Open Directory. Does anyone object to this? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:ELNO - "Any site that misleads the reader by use of ... unverifiable research." I do not believe an unverified repository of MA thesises is appropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the links section, I would like to understand your objection better. Could you be more specific about why you believe the site misleads the reader? The site states that its content is limited to

• Ph.D. or M.Phil. theses from accredited universities.
• Selected M.A. dissertations from accredited universities.

Why do you think it is an "unverified repository" when the university involved and year of submission is given on the papers? What form of verification do you feel is lacking and needs to exist to make such a site suitable for WP's standards -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Review WP:V. No reliable source has published those documents. Hipocrite (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This would only place a question mark over the reliability of the Masters dissertations for reference. There is no suggestion of misleading anyone by including this site in the external links, since the site is clear about their status. The site -fairly new - is featuring PhDs that are directly relevant to astrology and more are to be added soon. Therefore I still do not understand your objection to this site. WP:RS states:

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

Although this question is mainly directed at Hipocrite (and I'll leave a note on his talk-page), are there any unresolved concerns or objections to the inclusion of this site in the external links section? Since there is no commercial angle attached to it and its content is transparent and of interest to anyone wanting to know about theses in astrology, it seems an appropriate, non-spam-like link that offers a good "further reading" suggestion. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The page includes masters thesises that have no scholarly influence. Hipocrite (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll make the link directly to the page that offers the PhD theses. I don't think it matters that the masters theses have no established scholarly influence, since neither the site nor we are claiming that they do. I think the external links section should aim to give some good quality references to sites that offer resources for further reading on various aspects of astrology, from popular through to historical and specialist. This seems to be the most accessible site of its kind for the moment but we can replace it if another is found to be preferable. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The DIAL site is a keeper, and a good find on your part, I might add. It will be helpful not only to WP readers, but to editors looking for sources as well. Some of the sources listed on that site clearly meet WP reliability requirements, although there are some that clearly don't as well.

Ethos and Jstor are general and generic search engines that have nothing to do with the topic. Yes, they are useful tools, but neither is astrology specific. They are simply not relevant, and thus can't be used as external links here as specified in WP:ELNO, points 10 and 13.

The Ninth House site is a self-promotional website by Patrick Curry. He was the advisor on two of the dissertations listed, and is a subject of the third. One of the upcoming works listed is his own dissertation. Besides, as Hipocrtite has mentioned, masters theses and doctoral dissertations are not considered high-quality reliable sources in the academic community, especially if the material they contain has not been published in peer-reviewed journals or monographs. In the 450-odd articles and monographs I have written, translated or prepared for publication, I have seen dissertations cited maybe half-a-dozen times, and then only very cautiously and for very limited purposes (for the experimental data they contain, not for their conclusions). Our own policy states: "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." And that is provable only if they have been widely cited in real academic peer-reviewed journals. The site, therefore, does not provide reliable and verified information to WP readers. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I want you to understand that I did not ignore your post but was unaware of it until after adding the links. Give me a few minutes to answer your points and then if it is deemed to be a cause of potential editoral conflict remove it. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I do understand, and that's what I assumed, as well. No problem. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you had already removed it, so this is for the record. I think the argument that the PhD theses are not considered high-quality reliable sources is untennable. WP:RS sets out the defining view of them on WP "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community". Since we are discussing an external link the only effect is to deny an opportunity for the interested reader to know about these PhDs and areas of astrology that are being explored. It's irrelevant that Patrick Curry hosts the site and has acted as an advisor. He is notable for his role in furthering the exploration of astrology in academia, and will be, because of that, well placed to receive permissions and submissions. I offered the suggestion in good faith and if it doesn't meet consensus I've no problem with its removal, but I would have welcomed a more sensible reason for not including it than arguments which smack of intolerance, and cast suspicion on anything which does not treat astrology as a disreputable subject unworthy of serious exploration. Can either of you suggest an alternative site that is equally objective and offers something similar? If not, I'll leave it with you to consider how it looks that we are not allowing reference to a non-commercial site that is obviously of interest to anyone researching astrology and wanting to know about recent research projects.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Zac here. Ph.D. dissertations are certainly vetted by the whole academic process. They can't be used as reliable sources, but they are reliable enough for WP:EL. Yworo (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I just re-reverted the addition of the PHD paper here. Yworo, you said that the discussion was only opposed to the masters thesis. I don't believe this is true. Hipocrite posted that the papers have not been published elsewhere, and that the source "has no scholarly influence". DV posted that the site was self-promotional in nature, and said "doctoral dissertations are not considered high-quality reliable sources in the academic community". These appear to be proper objections to the link being added. I can understand you may disagree with the objections, but they are there. I have to agree that this probably isn't great to include in the EL, since it hasn't been printed elsewhere, and is a bit dubious in nature. I'm open to changing my mind (it would help if you could show it had some influence, somewhere), but I'd ask that the link not be reintroduced without forming consensus first. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, my last edit summary was intended to read "(I) read it again", not "Read it again(!)". Didn't mean for that to come off as combative.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear. The only comment on WP:EL that is being interpreted as relevant is this one (from the list of 20 reasons why links may not be suitable) - we should avoid linking to:

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.

If I am mistaken on that please correct me. (For example, although the question of scholarly influence is arguable, there is no requirement for this in WP:EL anyway).

There is no justifiable reason for any editor to suggest that this link to a simple list of PhD studies in astrology "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". AS WP reports, PhDs are considered publications by scholars because they have been vetted by the scholarly community. It is not necessary for PhDs to have been published elsewhere to be considered verified and not "factually inaccurate". It is only necessary, when they are used as sources, that they are publicly available.

I am not strongly attached to the link, but am concerned about the way that WP policies are being stretched beyond reason again, with baseless suggestions that even the scholarly community is not to be trusted if it endorses material of interest to astrology.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not opposed to the link because of any bullet in WP:ELNO, and I'm not sure other users are either (at least primarily). It isn't appropriate to include every possible link which passes ELNO; they are simply guidelines for the most common links generally described as inappropriate. External links should be included when they meet certain positive standards, and when their inclusion is supported by consensus. In this case, I don't personally believe it meets those positive standards. One such standard in WP:ELYES is "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". I'm not sure editors feel that the link is "neutral" or "accurate", nor is it necessary for "an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", since it is just one student's dissertation that received no outside coverage. To my mind, a published book or lengthy article which covered further details of Astrology which was (for some reason) not able to be integrated into the article would be a good external link. A student's research paper is probably not. Once again, I'm open to changing my mind, but I'd like to see that the paper was significant first.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I can relate to this sort of reasoning easily, but I don't understand why you think it was only to one student's research paper. The link went to a collection of completed PhD's in astrology see here. The reason I'm not too attached to the link is the site is new, it promises more additions soon, but currently it only presents three theses. I can think of better sources of astrological information in various forms, but I suggested that link at that time because there had been a lot of discussion about the need to reference academic papers. What worries me now is that suggesting a link that gives a comprehensive collection of articles, texts and resources, which would be really useful for the reader, seems doomed to start an argument - how can we talk about material that is 'accurate' when we are talking about a fringe subject that is intrinsically concerned with 'alternative' ideas? Any thoughts on that Jess? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, when I was referring to "one student", I was talking about any of the papers examined individually. If none of the papers individually qualify for inclusion, then a collection of them probably doesn't either. I'm not opposed to a "comprehensive collection of articles" generally, indeed I think that might be useful, but in this specific case I'm not convinced that this list is. As I mentioned, it's troubling to me that the list was compiled and hosted by an adviser who was involved in nearly all the papers listed, which almost guarantees a certain bias. A bias isn't necessarily a show-stopper - even a pro-astrology bias could be acceptable - but since the papers haven't (to my knowledge) received outside coverage or acclaim, that indicates to me we're dealing with a small, non-notable, biased list of student research papers which have not been examined, verified or critiqued. That doesn't seem like the type of quality encyclopedic link we want to be including in our article. I think it's a mistake to generalize from that opinion that any comprehensive list would be problematic. If, for instance, we had a broad list of papers published in academic mediums, some of which had received peer review or news coverage (similar to pubmed for astrology), I would very likely support its inclusion. I simply don't think this list reaches that standard.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that seems fair enough. Let's agree to that and not waste more time on this then. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Indian and southwest Asian astrology

I find the few lines about sidereal and tropical astrology more confusing than informative. I attempted to clarify/define sidereal astrology as best I could. The mention of Western astrology relating to tropical astrology does not give me an understanding of tropical astrology. I can keep trying to work on this but it would really be helpful if an editor who is knowledgeable on the topic could explain this in a clear, simple, and informative way. Right now, the wording is very technical and/or vague and is not helpful to someone who does not already know astrology.Coaster92 (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a couple sentences to help clarify the difference between Western and Hindu astrology. Even more clarification would be helpful.Coaster92 (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

The lead stated that astrology believes in the influence of 'visible astronomical phenomena' on earthly events, I have amended this to 'astronomical phenomena', as some astrologers believe in the influence of invisible planets. See Fred Gettings' Dictionary of Astrology, p. 158, in the entry on 'Hypothetical Planets': "Some astrologers have claimed the existence of a number of planets in our own solar system which are neither visible nor recognized by science, but which have been located (largely) by such psychic means as clairvoyance. Some astrologers have postulated the existence of over 1,000 such planets, called AROMAL PLANETS, while Blavatsky claims that there are six ETHEREAL PLANETs. At least 25 of the more widely used hypotheticals have been accorded ephemerides by various astrologers, while information regarding position, revolution and supposed influences has been furnished for some 35 such bodies.' (caps as in original) Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that needed changing. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello sir our website is http://www.futuretocome.com/ and if you find it useful, link it on this page. Site Title: Astrology & Horoscope — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.12.228 (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In my reading of astrology resources I found references to the influence of visible astronomical phenomenon with the corresponding reference that any influence of invisible phenomenon is negligible. I think the original lead was correct.Coaster92 (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"planetary object"

I was reverted for changing "planetary object" to "planet", ostensibly to include asteroids, but what is a "planetary object" if not just gobbledygook for "planet"? Does the phrase have any meaning re. the current Solar system? If so, we need a link here or to Wikt. — kwami (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.greatdreams.com/1950DA.htm. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Planetary object seems like a concept that would include planets, dwarf planets, etc, but I don't think the concept includes things like asteroids. Perhaps "celestial objects" would be more inclusive. N^oformation ^Talk 10:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the link above ("Incoming asteroids and other planetary objects")? It indicates that "planetary objects" is indeed a term used by astronomers, and one that specifically includes asteroids, thus contradicting what Kwamikagami asserted in his edit summary here reverting me (" 'planetary objects' would also exclude asteroids, and in addition is essentially meaningless"). Frankly, it looks as though Kwamikagami didn't know what he was talking about. I think Kwamikagami's latest edit to the article here is unhelpful and should be reverted. There is no advantage to changing "Astrology’s origins in Indo-European cultures date to the third millennium BCE" to "Astrology’s origins among Indo-European peoples date to the third millennium BCE" and the justification given for the change ("cultures don't invent things, people do") is spurious. ("Peoples" no more invent things than "cultures" do). Likewise, calling the sun a "planetary object" in the lead simply makes the article look ridiculous; astrologers may see the sun as a planet, but this article is not written from an astrological POV. The hidden message Kwamikagami placed in the lead ("in astrology, the sun and moon are planets") is useless and does nothing to help readers, most of whom will never even see it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never heard the phrase "planetary object" before for anything but a planet, proto-planet, fragment of a planet, unidentified object which might be a planet, etc. I'm happy to accept it, though I think we either need a redirect to an article that explains what the term means (are comets "planetary objects"? are moons? rings? brown dwarfs?), or at least add an entry to Wiktionary. We don't need to link to it, but it should be there, since phrases are often not defined in dictionaries.

One point of precision, though: Cultures do not invent things, people do. Those things constitute cultures. No "culture" ever developed astrology. (Your counter-argument is a straw man: I didn't say what you claim.) Petty, perhaps, but we are an encyclopedia, not a blog. No point in being inaccurate when it's just as easy to be accurate.

As for the sun and moon being planetary objects, that depends on what a planetary object is, and so far you have not provided a authoritative definition. They are not just planets in astrology, but classically as well. You say the article is not written from an astrological POV, and that's true in the sense that we do not proceed from the assumption that astrology is correct, but I don't see why an article on astrology wouldn't use words with the meanings they have in astrology. Astronomical articles use astronomical definitions, articles on chemistry use chemical jargon, theological articles use religious terms—why should this article be different? Perhaps that's something we should agree on for the article as a whole: do 'house', 'sign', etc. etc. have their astrological or general definitions in this article? — kwami (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Kwamikagami, I simply don't accept your reasoning for changing "cultures" to "peoples". We could argue until the end of time about whether or not you're right that "Cultures do not invent things, people do", but fortunately there's no need, because the reason given for your change wouldn't justify it even if it were correct. You say I'm misrepresenting you, but I can only go by what you say, and if you have some other reason I don't see it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't change "cultures" to "peoples". Please read what I actually wrote. — kwami (talk)

Ah, the Moon is a planetary object, so the 'other' is justified:

"Aside from the Moon, Mars is the only other planetary object which can be observed from Earth with ..."

"More than 1600 maps of the planets and satellites have been produced [by the USGS etc.] organized by planetary object."

"Combined with the various young flows observed on the surface [of Io], volcanic plumes indicate a highly active planetary object".

—Ronald Greeley, 1994, Planetary landscapes, 2nd ed.

— kwami (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC) For H. Jay Melosh (Planetary Surface Processes, 2011), large satellites are planetary objects, but small satellites and asteroids are not. Perhaps this corresponds to hydrostatic equilibrium?

Indo-European is incorrect here, isn't it? Astrology seems to have developed in cultures speaking Semitic languages and others. Indo-European is primarily a linguistic term, not necessarily a group of cultures. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I read that as "among IE peoples", not that astrology originated there. But you're right, the wording is at best ambiguous. — kwami (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, why don't you read what you actually wrote? Your edit did indeed change "cultures" to "peoples", and anyone who looks through the edit history of the article will see as much. As for "why an article on astrology wouldn't use words with the meanings they have in astrology" - that's because it might imply that astrology is correct, which obviously we aren't going to do. It might help to include an explicit statement in the lead that in astrology the sun is considered a planet, but not a hidden message please - again, hardly anyone will actually see it. Regular Wikipedia editors, yes, but not ordinary readers. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) Ah, you're right about "peoples". Sorry about that. I read your paraphrase of what I wrote, and got that in my head in place of what I had actually said. Very sloppy of me.

We've got the other problem, though, which is that the wording does suggest that IE-speakers invented astrology. IFAIK that is not justified, though I may be wrong.

(2) I disagree about terminology. Using astrological terminology in an article on astrology does not imply astrology is correct, any more than using theory-dependent terminology in an article on a scientific theory means taking sides in favor of that theory. We speak of "signs" and "houses" without (IMO) implying anything of the sort. If it does mean taking sides, we need to change our wording for every topic that is not universally accepted, which would mean a major policy change for WP. But according to astronomical sources, the Moon is a planetary object, so the 'other' is correct regardless of whether we are using astrological or astronomical definitions.

(3) As for the hidden message, that's why I requested that we either link to planetary object (perhaps a redirect), or create an entry at Wiktionary. Have you been able to come up with a definition? — kwami (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created a provisional Wiktionary entry based on what I've seen in the lit. It would appear to be a poorly defined term, so I have three competing definitions. Please correct as needed. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, if you were right about the terminology issue, then AIDS denialism would be called something like AIDS reappraisal and it would refer to "AIDS dissidents" rather than "AIDS denialists." Try making that argument there and see where it gets you. There are good precedents for not using terminology accepted by advocates of minority or fringe positions in articles about their views. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between spin or propaganda, intended to shape people's opinions, and the normal terminology of a field, which are simply labels. That's why I've objected to all attempts to remove the term 'pseudoscience' from the article, but have no problem with astrological definitions of 'planet'. Besides, I've demonstrated that this is correct for astronomy as well as astrology. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead again

Noformation reverted a change I made to the lead, commenting, "Cultures is inaccurate; astrology can be part of what defines a culture, not a product of it." I'm sorry, but I find that comment to be completely meaningless, and I fail, in any case, to see its relevance. How is it supposed to show that "peoples" is more appropriate than "cultures"? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording to reflect the other objection (IE-speakers d n invent astrology), and as it now stands, I don't think it would make much difference if we used 'cultures'. — kwami (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Astrology as a science

There is a problem with the lines: While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience because it makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations.[4][5]

To keep this in, you need to provide references that show that astrologers do generally consider their subject to be a science. My experience is that generally they do not do this, in the same way that a Christian or a Muslim or a novelist or a painter would probably not consider their subject to be a science. Dharmaruci (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been amply talked about in the talk page archives, and yes, modern astrologists often make claims of scientific validity for astrology. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, whether they think or say that is irrelevant. It's pseudoscience because it makes scientifically testable claims which are not scientifically tested. Intelligent Design is also pseudoscience, but generic Xanity or Islam are not, because they do not make scientifically testable claims. — kwami (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I blocked the user after warning not to vandalize the page again (blanking whole section a 2nd time after POV edit had been reverted twice). — kwami (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, I accept that these edits should have been discussed on the talk page. WP:TALK However, we have to accept that new editors do not know the procedures for editing or how messages on the talk page work especially if it goes to an IP when you have opened a new account. WP:NEWBIES If Dharmaruci were to look back at the edits since September, he will discover that many were done without discussion on the talk page and almost all were without consensus. Various editors including myself had some false warnings on our User Page WP:HUSH. This was the time when you should have been using your administrative powers. What you have described as vandalism, other editors here would consider bold editing. WP:BOLD I trust that you will allow Dharmaruci to contribute to the talk page and will be unblocked from editing within a reasonable time frame. (The OTT use of links is mainly for the benefit of any new editors.)

Even if a number of editors have been unreasonably blocked or frustrated by POV wikilawyering WP:LAWYER, there is still no consensus on the contents of this page as it is not neutral WP:NPOV or Encyclopedic.

With this in mind, I plan to make a minor edit and will discuss it here if people disagree. Robert Currey talk 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't intend to play with the pseudoscience statement, again. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I also hope he's not recruiting shills from his social media networks, again. Skinwalker (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Off-site, the blocked user has confirmed that he had made the edits in question in direct response to Robert Currey's recruitment drive last March. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think not - since my advice to would-be editors last winter was to learn and follow WP rules and not go to the Astrology page unless they were already an experienced WP editor. If anything, I think it put him off editing for 10 months and his claim is that he was prompted by the current state of the Astrology page.

Blocking editors without justification is the most powerful recruiting drive. Robert Currey talk 20:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)