Talk:Astrology

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience 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.

Please read before starting First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Astrology article. This article 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: NPOV: Pseudoscience NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines. 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). Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

This article is undergoing revision. A proposed draft is located at Talk:Astrology/Workpage.

Where is Dean's Time Twin Study?

No policy, guideline or source-based reason to continue this discussion. Closed by WLU Reopened Robertcurrey (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In the Research section, it states "...For example, when testing for cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, one study of 2000 astrological "time twins" born within minutes of each other did not show a celestial influence on human characteristics. ..." and refers to Dean and Kelly's paper

So, at the time of publication of Dean and Kelly's paper in 2003, Dean's Time Twin study had not been published. p.188 "A more powerful test was made possible by data from a study unconnected with astrology (Dean, forthcoming) involving 2,101 persons, born in London during 3-9 March 1958." In Kelly and Dean's 22 page paper, there is only a page and half of information devoted to the test. It contains a very general outline, some conclusions and a small table. There is no other data, analysis or explanation. This is clearly a 'trailer' prior to publication of the full study.

Could anyone direct me to Dean's published Time-Twin test as I would like to review it for a paper for a Journal or update me on the status?

RobertCurrey (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting but flawed study; the reason being that it is entirely based on the presumptions linked to a simplistic application of western sun-sign astrology. A key assumption of the statistical part of the study is that births reported on the same day, from 5 or more minutes apart, can be assumed to be meaningfully comparable. Contrast this with hindu astrologers, which practice horoscopic astrology that relies critically on the rising sign in interpreting and predicting the karmic expression over the life time as seen in the birth chart (kundali). In this effort, the exact rising degree is critical. For them, the key assumption of the study would be seen as a ridiculous one. This is because they know that the ascendant, which begins the description of a persons attributes, moves on average 1 degree every 4 minutes. Even if the time is close, the location also has an influence on the ascending degree. Hence, both an identical time and place are needed for the horoscope to be identical and valid for such a comparison. In some of the cases compared, the subjects compared would have different rising signs and dramatically different karmic expression. Even with a difference of a few degrees in the ascendant for the same rising sign, the divisional charts, planetary periods and aspects involving house degrees could be sufficiently different to expect a very different outcome for each subject. Horoscopic astrology is a study of human beings, which in real life tend to be amazingly unique, such that no two persons are really identical. Even twins who have close apperance reveal a range of subtle differences. Why should we expect identity when the difference in rising sign exceeds even one degree? To assume astrology yields identical results in such cases is stretching what astrology is or can be. Until scientific studies take such critical factors into consideration, they fail to give meaningful insight into the validity of astrology. Despite such failures, the authors proudly conclude "A large-scale test of time twins involving more than one hundred cognitive, behavioural, physical and other variables found no hint of support for the claims of astrology." Erekint (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Erekint. Have you seen the study or are you assessing it from the synopsis in Dean & Kelly (2003)? I don't yet have enough information to form a judgement. If you have seen the full paper or if anyone knows of its existence, please could you provide a link or details of the publication. Robertcurrey (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The subjects were born 5 or less minutes apart (not 5 or more...) and many of them were born at virtually the exact same instant and thus had identical charts in every way. And astrology wouldn't need to show "identical" results to prove its efficacy--just similar enough to be statistically significant. IOW people with identical charts should at least be more similar to each other than to a random sample of the population. Without that being true it debunks the entire field of astrology. I.e. if the charts don't mean anything then they don't mean anything. Mystylplx (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Dean's paper has not yet been published but I anticipate that it will happen imminently.

I emailed Dr. Dean requesting detailed information on his Time Twin study. On 14th June 2010 he responded: "The data you refer to has now been updated, with a more-than-doubling of its number of subjects and number of variables. But putting this huge database into a form that can be analysed (not every variable is available for every subject) is taking huge amounts of time. Until this stage is completed, and the analyses finished, there is essentially no results that can be reported."

The highly cited preliminary results of Dean's time twins study, which were touched upon in little more than two paragraphs in his lengthy psi article, leave a lot of questions unanswered with regard to scientific premise, method, and analysis. I don't think Dean ever intended such a minor, indirect reference to become the icon of scientific refutation that many astrology critics have tried to make of it.

Dean's correspondence suggests that he is attempting to develop the complex parameters required to capture the results of astrologically associated outcomes. For a fair test, this would be the necessary method over the crude approach involving only a few very specific outcomes that were suggested in his psi article.Apagogeron (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Apagogeron, two points regarding your statement "I don't think Dean ever intended such a minor, indirect reference to become the icon of scientific refutation that many astrology critics have tried to make of it." First, the authors offer a rather firm conclusion in the 2003 article, as cited in my comment above. It is therefore hard to suggest they meant nothing by it. It would be good if they considered in their present work to make their methodology sensitive to the traditional horoscopic astrology of the hindus, which has remained unchanged for thousands of years. Importantly, as described in my comment above, Hindu astrology is very sensitive to the exactness of time. Second, you are right about the grasping for straws of astrology critics to denounce astrology, including this flawed study. It is evident in this dictionary article, for instance, that many editors here gladly accept the statement of the 186 scientists as one more nail in the coffin of astrology's credibility while at the same time ignoring Feyerabend's thoughtful criticism of it. The key point being that ignorance suffused by arrogance is not a helpful approach for the acquisition of knowledge.

To study astrology, it is helpful to know what it really is. In a few words, astrology can be seen to be a study of human karma and consciousness. As such, causality in astrology is seen to be sensitive to human conduct, including acts or thoughts aimed at appealing to the the grace of the divine through e.g. penance, sacrifice, chanting, meditation and prayer. In other words, it is believed that the expression of negative karma can be modified by our own conduct. This is why hindu or vedic astrology (jyotisha) is considered the sixth limb of the Vedic scriptures, also known as the science of human enlightenment. How can that interaction be scientifically captured by simplistic correlation studies? Due to the complexity of astrology, it does not lend itself well to a study of simplistic mecahnical causality, like it were supposed to be a part of the physics of crude matter as some preceptors of materialism preach. Astrology is a study first and last of human consciosuness. In some sense, while mass and energy form an identity in modern materalist physics, we can say that energy is one qualitative octave above matter. Consciousness, the domain of idealism, while in some sense a part of an identity triad including matter and energy, is, in turn, one qualitative octave above energy. While the three are fully integrated and cannot be separated, in some sense, the qualitative distance between matter and conciousness is signficant. Citing one great vedic master (and expanding) "as matter and energy cannot judge mind, but mind can judge matter and energy, it is the mind that is most important." The conclusion: "idealism is superior to materialism" as an epistemological framework for understanding the universe. In short, a more nuanced approach is needed to either gain confidence in or the rejection of such a rarified field of study as astrology is. This is brought out by the fact that in life, an unkind word can have greater negative and long lasting impact on a person than a physical blow. One can sense some crude beginning of a comprehension of this fact in the Dean et al study, but even it is full of shortcomings as noted above, suggesting a rather typical limit in the understanding of the subject matter. Finally, astrology, as a field of study and practice, is full of contradictions and confusions, giving ample scope for misuse and error by lesser practitioners. In this a determined effort to enhance the rules of interpretation and prediction through scientific study would certainly be very helpful. Precluding effective cooperation seems be the important episemological gap, which is based on the fact that competent astrologers of the east are beholden to idealism while scientists of the west have a materialistic outlook on life. An amuzing afterthought, who should really subject the other to the test of the natural laws of human consciousness? Erekint (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Dean himself was an astrologer and 'true believer' who wrote a book about astrology where, among other things, he advocated the scientific study of astrology because he believed it would be proven accurate in this way. After 40 years of various studies into astrology Dean is no longer a believer. Mystylplx (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be unwise to assume Dr Dean’s position on astrology, Mystylplx. He is now a CSI (formerly CSICOP) fellow – an organisation where the party line has a history of being uncompromising with subjects like astrology even in the face of evidence (see Ertel & Irving The Tenacious Mars Effect, 1996 or sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins (co-founder of CSICOP)). However, many astrologers have found Dean to be very helpful and none of his own studies including his very promising study Unaspected Planets, have been completed. A case in point is the phantom Time Twin Study (forthcoming) – which is still much trumpeted and widely cited by sceptics – but it now turns out that seven years after it was originally promised in a paper on Astrology and Psi, it was never published and will not be published, but that he will submit entirely new results with new additional data. Robertcurrey (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless anyone can present a valid objection, I propose that all references to the Dean’s Time Twin Study (unpublished) here and anywhere else on Wikipedia are deleted and that Dean’s new test is considered for inclusion after it has been peer reviewed and the data published in an appropriate journal. Robertcurrey (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to Robertcurrey's proposal. Dean's "time twins" is minimally reported (essentially only two paragraphs) and it lacks the proper qualifications of full disclosure of where the source data came from, possible issues with the astrological premise, alternative hypotheses, visible analysis, and so on. It's an unfair claim.

My concern is that Dean's claim is already so well known and loved by astrology critics that, despite its obvious flaws and lack of credibility, there will always be many people who will see it's not included and put it back. There aren't any fair studies to replace it with and no one wants to wait for the promised article.

The "time twins" is an interesting, and perhaps unique, case where the study is so lacking in substance that it has managed to slip though the cracks of normal scientific discourse, which gives the false impression of acceptance. The whole astrological time twins belief, as well as the famous Dean time twins anti-claim, may have no relevance at all to astrology other than their dubious quality of good urban legends. As I've mentioned to Dean, I'm sure there are skeptics on both sides of this issue concerning anything as highly deterministic as time twins, especially as Dean conceives of them. Any mention of Dean's time twins should at least mention the anticipated complete study on which it is based, which is still forthcoming. Apagogeron (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that the main criticism I'd offer to Dean's time twins test is that the design does not take into account astrological "eminence." The matches were made on the basis of things such as illnesses, marriage, etc., which from a planetary perspective would be nearly random because numerous factors could contribute to them. You'd need a ginormous amount of data to even come near finding an astrological effect. To overcome this problem, the study should test for a convergence of eminence, as other successful astrological research has done. At this point in astrological research eminence criteria should be a requirement. A good design would be to have each subject take a standard personality test, such as the CPI, and see if there is a convergence of scores that co-varies with convergence to twin state. This would show an eminence effect, if there is one. However, we don't know if the participants ever took a personality test because Dean doesn't say and he does not reveal his source. He must cite his source to avoid this criticism and the possibility that he's just making it all up! He should find a way to test for eminence, or else the test has very little value because the known methods that produce results need to be part of the design. Apagogeron (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As discussed above, I intend to amend the Research Section by removing the sentence "For example, when testing for cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, one study of 2000 astrological "time twins" born within minutes of each other did not show a celestial influence on human characteristics.[59]" and the words "other" from the following sentence. If anyone has an objection, please state your case. Robertcurrey (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Divhide discussions

Per Griswaldo's extremely apropos comment, I've hidden much of the discussion. This is truly a waste of time. Please demonstrate your consensus by keeping it hidden and dead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So by consensus(?) Bravo! above is the last thread worthy to keep alive for everyone's time and emulation? Please see my comments there. Apagogeron (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It truly is a waste of time when detailed discussion, aimed to establish and obtain consensus, is hidden from view. I have unhidden the latest discussion on the collaboration of the lead, not that I consider the previous versions irrelevant, because all those sections include the discussion that has generated the consensus behind the comments detailed in the latest version, but because with all the diversion tactics going on here, it may be useful to have only the current version more clearly on display. Note that the discussion here is about the general introduction, and that controversy has focussed on only one word within that - that's a great shame but no need to prevent the inclusion of all the other delicately explored points that have been discussed to find the best general agreement.Costmary (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Important reading for everyone here

• Ocaasi has addressed a few common misunderstandings on Robertcurrey's talk page, and I think it's very informative.

• WLU has described how Wikipedia reflects current opinion rather than true opinion. (Ocassi's description.) Brilliantly written.

Thanks to both of you for taking the time to write so clearly about important concepts. There are many long time editors who don't understand these things as well as you do, and many who understand them but who can't write about them so clearly. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking the cue from Brangifer, Ocaasi has suggested the following to Robertcurrey:

"1.Push to have the lead changed to "Astrology is widely considered a pseudoscience". That's the best you can do."

Is that edit change in the lead acceptable to others? Erekint (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to me. In our PSCI policy, we state, 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. It even gives astrology as the prototypical example! The current lede categorizes astrology as pseudoscience. I consider phrasing such as "widely considered" to be an attempt to water down that consensus, to portray it as less absolute than it actually is. Such qualifiers are used when there is legitimate debate. There is a hollow-Earch "theory", but it is also pseudoscience, and we don't say the Earth is "widely" believed to be solid because of it, even in the Hollow Earth article. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I also do not support the addition of "generally considered" to the lead. There is ample evidence that astrology should be labeled a pseudoscience, I don't think there's any actual scholars in real educational institutions who give astrology any credit (or if a small number do exist, they're the tiny minority mentioned at WP:UNDUE). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Briefly, I proposed this earlier and it was not accepted. My comments at Robert's page were more generally about reflecting RS rather than Astrologists when it comes to scientific matters. On the merits of this change, it's my personal preference that we don't label things in a definitional way, if possible. I don't believe Astrology is a pseudoscience; I don't believe anything is a pseudoscience--and I mean that linguistically. Pseudoscience is a word that characterizes a set of practices, and also a ranking of something's credibility. I wouldn't expect WP to say that Saving Private Ryan is a first-class drama, but I more that it is widely considered to be a first-class drama. That's the spirit in which I meant the suggestion. To me they're virtually the same thing in meaning but I find their spirit differs. It's the difference between 'Intelligent Design is nonsense' and 'Intelligent Design is widely considered nonsense'. To me, the latter is no less significant, it just sounds like Wikipedia itself isn't speaking.

@Kwami, I don't take the ArbCom reading either way. "...generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience" seems consistent with my version as well.

@WLU, I said 'widely considered'. Ocaasi (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've adjusted, but consider both inappropriate. I believe astrology is a pseudoscience and there's no real debate on the matter, to the point that it's even more of a pseudoscience than intelligent design. Because science has an empirical touchstone I don't think a pseudoscientific topic or label can be compared to an aesthetic judgment about a film. Also, since the consensus on astrology is even more pronounced than the pseudocontroversy of intelligent design (astrology has been considered by more scientists for longer and is better understood than intelligent design, which is really a recent extension of creationism and most scientists aren't even aware of it) I think the flat "is pseudoscience" is best. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

WLU states "I believe astrology is a pseudoscience and there's no real debate on the matter" (italics mine). In other words, it ultimately boils down to what we believe and there is no absolute truth in the matter. Given this conumdrum, why can't we all agree to say something like "astrology is believed to be a pseudoscience", "is widely believed" as Ocaasi suggests, or is "generally considered" as Petersburg suggests? It would put the matter to rest. Erekint (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be going nowhere, but for the record. my suggestion was "widely considered a pseudoscience". There's no belief involved; it's a broadly held assessment and conclusion. Ocaasi (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"Widely considered" is a good formulation (sorry for misquoting). If we have an agreement on a wording like that or what Petersburg has suggested, we can make the change and put an end to this debate. Erekint (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Popular astrology is widely accepted by the public. "Widely accepted as useful" is much better than "widely considered pseudoscience." Scientists are a very small minority, and a grossly uninformed one at that (to put it mildly). Aquirata (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand all the fuss. Why not simply go with the guideline? It is a consensus representation by many experienced editors. Why try to reinvent the wheel? This has been settled already. If one doesn't like the guideline, change that and not try to swim against the current. Petersburg (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I see lots of discussion without much progress (which is not necessarily a bad thing). My impression is that the main sticking point currently is the p-word. So let's try to take an objective and unbiased look at this issue. Astrologers and pro-astrology editors insist that astrology cannot be labelled a pseudoscience because it is either not a science (art, divination, etc) or it is a science with verifiable claims (and it can actually be both at the same time). Skeptics claim that astrology is pseudoscience because even WP policy states it is so: 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. The current wording of the article is as follows: It is a classic example of pseudoscience, as it makes predictive claims and connections which either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved.

Now it seems to me first of all that editors of WP are bound by the first statement, i.e. (1) astrology may be categorized as pseudoscience, and (2) the article may contain the information that astrology is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. These two points are given at the current state of WP and futile to argue about. If pro-astrology editors wish to remove the categorization or the statement from the article, they will have to work on changing relevant policies. Even if all editors were convinced that astrology was not pseudoscience, they could not state this in the article without first changing at least the Fringe theory guideline.

On the other hand, and to be fair, it also seems to me that the case of pseudoscience in the first paragraph is overstated. There is a difference between IS and GENERALLY CONSIDERED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. It would be a nearly impossible task to reliably verify that astrology is pseudoscience (due to the complexity of even trying to define what astrology is) while it is a simple fact that it is generally considered so by most scientists. For this reason, the obvious and only possible way forward and out of this deadlock is to replace the offending statement with the proper one according to the Fringe theory guideline.

What I propose is this: Replace the wording It is a classic example of pseudoscience, as it makes predictive claims and connections which either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved with this: It is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. This is the truth, it is easily verifiable, adheres to WP policies and guidelines, doesn't overstate the case and will remove the sticking point with pro-astrology editors in order to move forward with the rest of the article. All other points can then be dealt with properly in the main body of the article.

I would like to ask that everyone put away their warrior selves for a moment and consider this proposal at face value. Do you want to do the right thing or keep arguing ad nauseam? Come on guys, belief has nothing to with this! Petersburg (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That needs to be addressed at the policy page. If they agree that classic examples of pseudoscience may be described that way, so be it, but that's a decision that would have ramifications far beyond this one article. — kwami (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Which policy states that astrology is a classic example of pseudoscience? Petersburg (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. We attribute opinions ("politician X is incompetent"), but established facts are simply reported. We don't say "according to scientists, the earth is round", and we don't need weasel words in this case either. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Where in WP is it an established fact that astrology is pseudoscience? I'm striving to be a neutral editor (as I'm sure you are), and my belief has nothing to do with how a subject must be represented here. Petersburg (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The PSCI policy was set by the arbitration committee in a herculean effort due of chronic attempts of True Believers to deny claims of pseudoscience in many many articles. I think therefore that if the policy is not clear, we should clarify it there, so as to not encourage those who would game the system on individual articles. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What is in the policy pertaining to astrology in addition to the fringe guideline I quoted already? Is there anything more specific? Anything better? Is there something you don't like about the guideline? This is not easy for me either but we cannot represent anything we cannot back up with verifiable and acceptable sources. Petersburg (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much it AFAIK. "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. 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." Above that (not part of the Arbcom ruling), they say, "If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. This is not, however, as bad as it sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."

That is, we may call pseudoscience "pseudoscience". We don't need to hedge about it, or use weasel words, we can just say it. What we can't do is say it's "false" because it's pseudoscience. In the lede we say it's pseudoscience, and we do not say it's false. (As for the "scientists have received" part, that's mostly to do with scientific articles where PS enters in for some reason or other. That's not the case here: most of the article is objectively descriptive about astrology, with only one section (summarized in the lede) about the scientific interpretation.) — kwami (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm familiar with, too. However, I can find no reference within WP policies and guidelines stating that astrology is pseudoscience. We might believe that it is but this has no relevance in the article. Astrology is distinguished from "obvious pseudoscience" as "generally considered pseudoscience" (2nd rung). Therefore I can find no basis for stating that it is, strange as this may seem. Petersburg (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

They say that we can "categorize it as pseudoscience". That's what we do. That differs from psychoanalysis, where we can say that some consider it to be pseudoscience but shouldn't categorize it as such. The astrologers here are trying to move it from the 'astrology' treatment to the 'psychoanalysis' treatment. As for it being pseudoscience, apart from it being the example given, it's easy enough to verify with RSs that that's how it's classified. We've already done that, over and over. — kwami (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, we can categorize it as such, which is why Pseudoscience is listed under Categories. However, it differs from rung 1 pseudoscience, which is the obvious case. And it differs from rung 3, which cannot be stated or categorized as such. Astrology is in-between the two: it can be categorized as such but can only be characterized as generally considered. There must be a difference between rung 1 and rung 2 cases, and this is what I believe the difference is. Do you see it differently from my understanding? Petersburg (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I read "categorized" as "characterized". Do we know they were talking about WP categories when they said that, or were they using normal English? (As in "priest-craft has categorized sacrilege as the greatest sin".) As for the diff from rung 1, they "may be so labeled and categorized as such without more consideration". We give this more consideration: we do not simply say it's pseudoscience and leave it at that, but describe how it achieved that label, who says so, as well as the objections and the attempts to prove astrology. With a purported perpetual motion machine, we can say it's bogus without any references to that effect because any perpetual motion machine is bogus. (I'm reading the WP:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience section.) We're not taking that approach with astrology. — kwami (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. However, I believe that if policy makers had intended us to both categorize and characterize astrology as pseudoscience, they would have spelled it out and not left it ambiguous or open to interpretation. Astrology is clearly distinguished from "obvious pseudoscience" and the description here should reflect that. As for rung 2, you do not go to rung 1 and suppose what we need to do for rung 2. You go to rung 2 and read it. It says two things: (1) it can be categorized as PS, and (2) it can be described as the majority of scientists considers it PS. Nothing less and nothing more. The reason why this policy is there so that the PS question is not avoided and made clear. Applying a single-sentence policy should be a no-brainer. Petersburg (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, nice try. You read something as something else when it suits you. Aquirata (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:REDFLAG and WP:BURO. The first says that extraordinary claims (future events for everyone born at a certain time all follow a similar pattern and can be predicted) need extraordinary evidence. The second says that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: policies describe principles and do not attempt to specify every detail such as whether a particular topic is pseudoscience. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The first policy has no bearing on this. When there is a clear description of how to treat astrology, we simply follow it. It is spelled out for you at WP:FRINGE/PS, second point. Read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersburg (talk • contribs) 15:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly is an extraordinary claim? Two of the three bullets would argue the opposite. Aquirata (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I made this exact same argument in this exact same article a couple years ago and the consensus went against me. I too don't like the phrase "astrology is a pseudoscience." Simply because it's bad writing. "generally considered" seems more truthful and less dogmatic. Mystylplx (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving towards consensus

A few things are clear.

• First, verifiability is not truth

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Conclusion: a claim needs to be sourced but its truth can remain open to debate.

• Second,Wikipedia is clear about the role of bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice...While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.

Conclusion: bureaucratic obfuscation is not the way to go.

• Third, this is what the guidelines say on astrology as a 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.

Conclusion: "Generally considered pseudoscience" is the right formulation.

• PROPOSAL: do we have agreement on the following formulation by Petersburg

"Astrology is generally considered to be a pseudoscience by the scientific community."

Erekint (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

For the eighth time, no. Proposing the same thing eight times does not change the fact that you're trying to obfuscate the well-referenced classification of astrology as pseudoscience.

Take pseudohistory instead of pseudosciece. The premier example of pseudohistory is probably Holocaust Denial. We don't say that it's "generally considered pseudohistorical by the academic community", we just say it's pseudohistory. We're an encyclopedia: we don't compromise with the demonstrably wrong in order to gain consensus. — kwami (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Arguing by analogy is very... pseudo-scientific. Holocaust denial has nothing to do with astrology. Thank you for showing off your blatant lack of knowledge about the subject you are purporting to edit. Aquirata (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to be too sophisticated. Should have said, blatant disregard and colossal ignorance. Aquirata (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Erekint, I must confess that I didn't feel particularly flattered when you lumped me in with other, pro-astrology editors. However, I appreciated the gesture behind it. It's nice to see you come around to a more reasonable stance. Petersburg (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Petersburg, I referenced editors who have argued for improvements in the present formulation. No meaning beyond that was inferred. Thanks for injecting moderation and common sense into the discussion. If we are to have a compromise both sides must yield ground. Compromise is often a solution that neither side likes but both can live with. This debate has convinced me that if a body of Wikipedia editors has already developed a certain formulation, we need to live with it. Editors on both sides have expressed unhappiness with this formulation, which suggests it strikes a fair balance. Those editors, however, need to go the source to argue for changes to the given formulation. This article talk page is not appropriate for that and holding up the needed edits as a strategy to preserve the status quo appears to be in situ. The question is if it is possible to bring the few editors who are responsible for the current controversial edits, and who fight toot and nail against the adoption of the Wikipedia formulation, around to this realisation through reasoned debate? So far, they have resisted all appeals for moderating their stance to reach a compromise.

RESOLUTION OF DEBATE: I've tried to develop consensus, but it appears to be headed for deadlock. To break a deadlock requires at least a 3/4 majority of the votes cast. It appears we will need to call for a vote on the question of adopting the Wikipedia guideline or not. In doing so, we can hope that other editors see the wisdom of making a change, in order to prevent a recurrence of debate on this single point. Do others agree with that approach to resolving the debate? Getting beyond this point should be a relief for all concerned.Erekint (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, we're not a democracy. Voting only matters for matters of style, not of substance. The only thing that matters for that is sourcing. — kwami (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Did somebody say "offsite coordination"?

This is an interesting read: I'm beginning to wonder (again) if Wikipedia is where we should be putting our efforts..
Enough is enough. We've had huge volumes of POV pushing, TLDR rants, and what looks suspiciously like meatpuppetry. There have been repeated warnings about the arbcom ruling. I realise that astrology didn't get where it is today without the ability to bulldoze on despite the facts, but now is the time to stop. Stop now. bobrayner (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A blog post? This upsets you? And please be specific about who you are accusing of "meatpuppetry" Mystylplx (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Offsite coordination is a very bad thing, as is extensive pov-pushing. Need I explain why? bobrayner (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that someone following this discussion has removed the posting. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This does indeed look like a deliberate attempt to manipulate Wikipedia to push an agenda. This is not only disturbing but also cowardly and disgusting and I would ask whoever is responsible to look at their motives and attitudes. We can only converse and co-operate in an atmosphere of honesty.Slatersteven (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Bobrayner, please describe what you read there. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Three blogposts, in March, discussing this article, this talkpage, and how to further the astrological cause. Including a message to somebody called "RC". That's as far as my memory goes, sorry; I should have kept an offline copy (which is a good habit to have). Since it was taken down so fast, it's reasonable to assume that the author is either in this debate right now, or was contacted directly by somebody who is in this debate right now, to hide the evidence of offsite coordination. bobrayner (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We do have a professional astrologer on this page with those initials. See if you can determine if RC is him. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Aha: Google has a cached copy of all three posts. bobrayner (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at some very crude textual comparisons, I think I know which wikipedian writes the blog; and it's somebody who hasn't commented here in the last few moments. Perhaps a compatriot told them to remove the evidence; perhaps not - we won't get far with such speculation. I would merely point out the blatant attempt at subverting the debate - and the fact that somebody knew it was a bad thing and tried to cover their tracks. The debate has been poisoned; any apparent support for astrology here is an artefact of cheating, not evidence that a significant proportion of grownups still take it seriously. bobrayner (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that its clear that the debate is now tarnished, and that the claim of support for inlcusion of the caveat of gneraly regarded is tainted by this.Slatersteven (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Slatersteven, please note that the sceptics have benefitted by the announcement of this debate on the sceptics noticeboard on March 14 (see below), which likely attracted other sceptics to the page. That announcement seems to fit the description of meat puppetry. Erekint (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

By characterising the use of wikipedia noticeboards - a vital part of the community - as meatpuppetry, you are only discrediting yourself further. There is a very clear difference between open cooperation on wikipedia, and sneaky off-site manipulation (followed by the deletion of blogposts). Either you do not believe there's a difference, or you know there's a yawning gulf but pretend not to see it; I do not know which is worse. Either way, it's time to stop. bobrayner (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Google cache will soon be updated, I've copied the 3 posts here. (Copy & paste; no editing apart from cropping extraneous non-blog text on the page: "0 comments", "Links to this post", and the search labels. The links have been lost, of course, as well as highlighting of the paragraph "I'm beginning to wonder (again) if Wikipedia is where we should be putting our efforts" (end of 2nd post).)

Center of the Universe at the Edge of the World: Astrological theory and perspectives from Ken McRitchie: relevant blog posts

Sunday, March 6, 2011 Remove straw man and authoritarian arguments from the Wikipedia Astrology article The Wikipedia Astrology article is riddled with straw man arguments and authoritarian decrees and the Talk page is filled with silly discussions over these rational fallacies. Editors should remove these fallacies.

Astrology is a very old discipline and unfortunately it has outgrown, and is now misrepresented by, some of its own language. In a similar way, the branch of astrology that became meteorology is a misrepresentation because it is not the study of meteors, but rather of weather. The use of ancient terminology leads people who are ignorant of astrology, or people who are just deviant literalists, to accuse astrology of having pseudoscientific claims. For these people to set up these terms as straw men and require astrologers to defend the literal meanings is a fallacy that violates the rational criterion of relevance.

The study of astrology connects the modern world with ancient traditions. The word "astrology" derives from "star" but astrologers will study whatever celestial bodies they wish to study, just like the meteorologists are not confined to the study of meteors to forecast weather. That astrology must only study "stars" is irrelevant and to argue over this is silly and irrational.

To insist that astrology is a pre-Copernican view that equates to belief in a flat Earth, is ignorant. Astrology uses a relativistic frame of reference that no scientist would argue with. It maps the celestial bodies relative to the person or thing to be studied, which is placed at the center, and this is neither the Sun nor the Earth. What we know as stars have always been stars. All other bodies in the solar system, including the Sun and Moon, are considered to be, for want of a better word, "planets" of the person or subject to be studied because these bodies all move in some interesting fashion around the subject, which is at the center.

Imagine now that you are at the center of your own universe and the planets and stars around you are your planets and your stars, because this is your universe. If you think this sounds New Age, then you've come to the right place. This "new" point of view is also very ancient. To say that astrology is Earth-centered, or must not call the Sun and Moon planets, is a straw man designed to start a silly, irrational argument.

The same goes for the difference between the signs and some of the constellations that have the same names. Astrologers have known about this and made their choice more than 2000 years ago. Signs are measured from the vernal point and are unrelated to the starry constellations. To confuse signs with constellations because of the similarity in names is silly and irrational.

Planetary or stellar "influence" is not a causal effect emanating from the planets and stars that astrologers directly measure. Everyone knows that the meanings in astrology are inferred from empirical observations, despite the mechanical implications of word "influence." Similarly, in some new sciences ordinary words fail or are used metaphorically and even whimsically. To argue over the semantics of this is silly and irrational.

The "symbolic language" of astrology is not a mystery or ambiguous. It has followed the same development that any syntactical representation of symbols such as used in chemistry, mathematics, or any written language uses and the results can be seen and understood in any astrology text. To argue over the analysis of "symbols" or the speaker of a "language" with regard to astrology is a straw man and is silly and irrational.

Astrological "rulership" does not mean that the planets manipulate people by remote control. "Rulership" may not be the best word, but it is the tradition and astrologers know what it means. It is a non-judgmental observation of one property or thing regarded as a set that typically indicates the presence of other properties or things as members, often theorized as a correlation. To argue over the literal meaning of “rulership” is silly and irrational.

These are all straw man and red herring fallacies and editors should not be drawn into semantic arguments and silly, irrational debates over them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Throughout the Wikipedia astrology article, astrology is conceptually misrepresented as being some sort of "alternative" to science, as an absolutist, black and white, either-or situation of conflicting paradigms battling for scientific supremacy. This is not the case. Like other disciplines adopted by New Age thinkers, astrology is "complementary." It fills in the voids left by conventional, more scientific approaches, which are nonetheless necessary for healthy living and informed perspectives.To characterize modern science and astrology as adversarial is again a straw man designed to start a silly irrational argument.

Over the course of history, astrology has had its own reforms and revolutions in thought. Paracelsus understood astrology as a question of "correlations" between macroscopic and microscopic worlds rather than direct physical influences, because no causal connections could be determined. This was a radical theory at the time, but gradually the idea of non-causal correlations became adopted. Francis Bacon added to this with his suggestion that the stars "rather incline than compel." This represented a puzzle for astrologers and scientists interested in astrology to figure out and evaluate. The methods by which correlational effects can be mathematically measured and weighed to show inclinations is relatively new in astrology, and have been statistically demonstrated in falsifiable tests only within the past 30 years.

The Science section of the article is filled with a succession of the subjective beliefs of one scientist after another, from al-Farabi to Neil deGrasse Tyson. It directly emulates the controversial 1975 Humanist "Objections to Astrology" article signed by 186 leading scientists. Astronomer Carl Sagan objected to the "Objections" article because the scientists argued solely on the basis of their own authority and this gives the impression of closed mindedness. Physicist Paul Feyerabend compared the “Objections” article to the Malleus Maleficarum, which launched the Inquisition, only he regarded it as being worse.

These claims by notable scientists against astrology that Wikipedia has listed are more of the same thing. They are not scientific at all, but are arguments from authority by people who have not studied astrology and have no idea what they are talking about. Editors should be mindful of these fallacies and allow only factual objective information where science is concerned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

To declare that astrology is a pseudoscience from the outset is detrimental to legitimate scientists who may wish to investigate it. Scientists have a right to study and test whatever they want and to challenge other scientists based on their evaluations and discoveries. Because of recent empirical assessments, in particular the reversal of the renowned 1985 Shawn Carlson study, which in 2009 was found to support astrology, and improved methods of ranking and rating data, there is an expectation of further scientific advances in astrology.

No one, least of all astrologers, expects all of astrology to be amenable to scientific evaluation. For example, there has been a lively proliferation and discourse of psychological theories among astrologers, such as those postulated by Carl Jung. Yet only a few of these theories may ever be scientifically evaluated. The theories of astrology are complex and its practice requires intuition to deal with the combination of many variables. For these reasons and others, such as the scarcity of accurate data and the lack of funding, astrology has not been easy to scientifically investigate.

Posted by Ken McRitchie at 1:50 PM

I find it somewhat amusing that they maintain that scientific evidence supports astrology at the same time as claiming that astrology is not amenable to scientific evaluation. Also weird that, even after all the discussion on this page about "reading the stars", they still think that the astro- in astrology means "star", and even that the meteo- in meteorology means "meteor"! — kwami (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The arbitration committee

The arbitration committee WP:PSCI came up with 4 groupings but only two concern us here--Obvious pseudoscience and generally considered pseudoscience. They specifically mention astrology as an example of the second grouping yet many are trying to treat it as if it were the first grouping. BTW, I personally believe that astrology is clearly pseudoscience. I also believe GWB was the worst President in history but I wouldn't put that sentence in the George W Bush article, and this in spite of the fact I could find plenty of wp:rs to support it. It's a question of accuracy and editorial integrity. Bluntly describing it as a pseudoscience comes off as arrogant and dogmatic to me. I guess I agree with Sagan on this one--a little scholarly caution in our use of language is not a bad thing. Mystylplx (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I will be removing the offending statement until a consensus can be reached on proper wording - unless anyone objects to it. Aquirata (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I object. There is clearly no consensus to remove it either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

How many different threads do you need to say the same thing? There is a proposal above, it has no consensus to change, and the points about the wording from the ARBPS has already been addressed. Creating new threads stating the same thing over and over is very frowned upon. Yobol (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets restict this to one thead.Slatersteven (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

Added this tag to the controversial 'pseudoscience' statement. Clearly there is no consensus on how to present astrology with respect to pseudoscience, so it's the least we can do. You will need to discuss this here rather then reverting. Aquirata (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And I removed the tag. There is no consensus that the content is dubious. The article is properly sourced and the lead reflects article content. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You cannot remove the tag without discussion. There is no consensus on the wording which is why the tag is needed. The other alternative is to remove the statement altogether. Aquirata (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You cannot restore the tag without consensus per WP:BRD. You are edit warring. Stop it. I'll let others remove it. If you do it again you will be reported. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. You cannot remove a tag without discussing it first. You and Yobol are edit warring. How the heck did you notice a change on the page so quickly? What prompted you to revert something so quickly? There is no consensus in the wording, this is not clear to you after pages and pages of arguments? Aquirata (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop pov-pushing. You are surely able to read the very lengthy debate above. Reliable sources agree that astrology is pseudoscience. Wikipedia is an ecyclopædia; it must reflect what reliable sources say. Drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. bobrayner (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Aquirata. You ask how we noticed? Surely you jest. Haven't you heard of a watchlist? Currently I "have 5,713 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)", and over 32,000 edits. I have been around the block a few times. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool it, everybody! This is getting out of hand. I've moved the Proposal page to the end as voting is still ongoing. It is clear that views are very divergent on this issue and the proposal stands to be rejected. I would urge the sceptics to reconsider their votes. If the motion is carried for a modest compromise on the wording, I believe it would for once create a communal consensus where both the sceptics and pro-astrology page editors would protect the lead. It would go a long way to create an atmosphere of mutual interest and respect, which is essential for ensuring a decent and informative astrology page. Peace. Erekint (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Compromise susgestion

Lets say what the siutation is "It is regarded by the scientific community as an example of pseudoscience, as it makes predictive claims and connections that either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved."Slatersteven (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We are already dealing with this matter below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Astrology#Proposal -- Brangifer (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Repetitive proposal, proposer banned

Editors are asked to signal below if they agree or disagree with the following formulation for the lead:

"Astrology is generally considered to be a pseudoscience by the scientific community."

• Disagree, does not need "generally considered to be a" or "by the scientific community". Astrology is pseudoscience. Wikipedia is not a democracy, the policies, guidelines and sources are clear. Astrology is textbook, obvious pseudoscience. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  Stop pushing your POV. Aquirata (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not that we assert a POV, we must demonstrate that "our" POV is supported by reliable sources. I've provided, to date, 35 sources that explicitly and casually indicate astrology is pseudoscience - in fact, holding it up as an exemplar of pseudoscience. The POV given precedence on our pages is based on the number, reliability and quality of sources that exist to support a particular statement. It's not POV, or a "wrong" POV because an editor disagrees with it - it's a majority or minority POV because of the ability of editors to substantiate a statement with reference to sources. Again, astrology loses not because it has more passionate "skeptics" but because of the avalanche of sources that can be found that explicitly state "astrology is pseudoscience". POV pushing occurs when an editor attempts to change the page to a preferred version in the absence of adequate supporting sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - This is ridiculous and useless. This question is being posed because presently every astrology happy SPA on Wikipedia has gathered at the talk page here and someone thinks that they can create a pro-Astrology consensus out of these numbers. Prior consensus about pseudoscience and astrology's place in it reflects a much larger community decision. Someone needs to warn you all about the pseudoscience arbitration decisions and about discretionary sanctions. It is also quite obvious that at least some of the present group of astrologers and astrology supporters are here because of off-Wiki activity of some kind. User:Aquirata is a pro-astrology SPA who hadn't edited since 2007 until entering this discussion. User:Erekint is a brand new account as of February, also thus far a pro-astrology SPA only. User:Petersburg had 10 edits in 2010, 4 in 2009 and then some more in 2007 prior to jumping into this debate. User:Apagogeron is a pro-astrology SPA who hadn't edited since 2009 until he appeared in this debate. User:Costmary is another pro-astrology SPA dating back to February, and perhaps the instigator of the present situation. User:Robertcurrey is an astrologer with an admitted COI. Did I leave someone out? You all are starting to push the envelope of disruption and need official warnings. I assure you if you continue down this path it will not end well. The community at large does not have tolerance for this kind of disruptive POV pushing.Griswaldo (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I see my name has just been added to the list as a "pro-astrology SPA" with the suggestion that I am "perhaps the instigator of the present situation". Presumably because I tried to make some agreed upon edits earlier today. I take exception to that, but encourage you take this to mediation or arbitration if you want to question my involvement. I welcome the idea of discussing this with others who are not biased towards or against astrology. What I have publicly instigated here is the call to revise the lede, to remove the nonsense comments and bigotry that prevented the subject from getting an appropriate introduction to what it essentially is, and to remove the inaccurate comments that sought to highlight someone's idea of "irony". I joined in February in the belief that Wikipedia welcomed input from those who are informed enough to comment, and that my efforts to improve the weaknesses of this article would be welcomed. It has been a disheartening and eye-opening experience for me. I now realise why most reputable scholars would not dirty their hands with the attempt to make this page credible, and why it is likely to remain shamefully innaccurate - to the detriment of all who have made genuine efforts to pool collective knowledge and provide an honest overview of the subject. Yes I know a lot about astrology but I am not pushing a pro-astrology POV. Take the trouble to read my earlier comments and the supporting arguments, and note that I have made various suggestions to try and obtain consensus, ranging from omitting the pseudoscience word in the introduction, or incorporating it in various ways, including the suggestion "Astrology is now defined as a pseudoscience for reasons such as being unprogressive, lacking falsifiability and being unconcerned with the need to evaluate its theory in relation to other modern sciences.[1]" - so how is this "pushing an astrology-POV"? I have pushed for consensus - please point me to the areas where you have striven to make recommendations that might possibly find consensus on this highly contentious issue or where I have recommended anything that is not scholarly correct and properly supported? It is those who are simply criticising, undoing, and failing to discuss, that are acting destructively hereCostmary (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Trolling and similar disruptive behaviour are not tolerated within the Wikipedia community. Aquirata (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  Ironic statement that. Are you suggesting that I am trolling? You've decided to escalate to personal attacks now? Not a good idea. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  Regarding your allegations, Griswaldo, I can only speak for myself. I have not communicated with other editors, for or against, outside of this talk page. I entered the discussion after following this article and the talk page out of concern for what I perceived to be one-sided edits to this article. I assume other editors joined in for similar reasons or after noting the activity. All editors, irrespective of their views, make up the Wikipedia community, as long as they respect the objectives, rules and integrity of Wikipedia. Do you think that the Wikipedia community is just sceptical editors, yourself included? That is not so. By the way, I went to this page Yobol, who has not patticipated in this debate before, mentioned, WP:FTN#Pseudoscientific_status_of_astrology. It seems to me that sceptical editors are rallying like-minded editors to the debate here. Are such vote-getting practices accepted at Wikipedia? It seems dubious to me. Whatever, it is my hope that editors can lift themselves out of the foxhole to see this vote for what it is, an opportunity to gain closure on this contentious issue here. I am heartened to see Mystyplx reach out for a compromise and want thank others for their contributions to the debate. Erekint (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  I posted a notice about a discussion affecting an article mentioned in the 'Fringe theories' guideline at the 'Fringe theories' noticeboard, and I have no way of knowing who is watching the noticeboard. Why do you consider that to be a questionable action? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yobol is actually the one who informed about the discussion at the sceptics noticeboard, where you opened up a heading "Pseudoscientific status of astrology" with the following information. Erekint (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"There is a proposal at Talk:Astrology to revise the current introduction of the article.

I have not been extensively involved in the discussion, but my opinion of the proposed changes is that they obscure the pseudoscientific status of astrology by cherry-picking information, presenting disputed or misleading statements as fact, and giving more preferential treatment to the pseudoscientific viewpoint than to the scientific one.

I am posting a notification here to invite participation by other, as-yet-uninvolved editors. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)"

• Disagree with the suggestion to introduce weasel words that support a fringe POV, of course.Griswaldo (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  You are pushing your own fringe POV against accepted Wikipedia policy. Aquirata (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree It is not unusual for those who have knowledge of a subject to be interested in what appears on the pages of Wikipedia in their subject. These SMEs should be welcomed by the more general and veteran WP editors. The problem is that Wikipedia seems almost as a policy to make no distinction between good science and bad science, and to disregard rational fallacies such as straw man arguments and argument by authority, the same way that biblical scholars overlooked blatant inconsistencies and fallacies in the Bible. In either case, mainstream science journals or the Bible, it is only the citation of authority that counts and the godlike authority of the publication in both cases is taken to be equally infallible. This is a serious flaw, passed down from Biblical creationist scholars to fundamentalist WP editors, that does not help forward motion in the resolution of disputes. There is no substitute for critical thinking and the diligent consideration of scientific discourse. Given a critical approach, there is no good scientifically verifiable evidence that astrology is a pseudoscience, but there is some good scientific evidence that goes contrary to this fundamentalist belief held by the majority of scientists. More and much better quality research is needed and the pseudoscience claim in this article certainly does not help the global effort to do so. "Classic" is very overreaching because in classical times astrology was a science. If anything astrology is a protoscience technology because it has generated many scientific concepts used today. Astrology is very under appreciated and this article needs a lot of work to improve it. My two cents. I have read the discussion above and I can see that both Petersburg and Erekint have made a great effort to bring the sides together based on the current WP polity. This demonstration of impartiality is something we should all emulate as best we can going forward and I will support it. Apagogeron (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree. If I were naïvely turning up at this page for the first time, the suggestion might attract a bit of sympathy, but in reality this suggestion comes at the end of years of POV-pushing, and patience has long since been exhausted... and the epic pov-pushing texts will continue regardless of how this vote turns out. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  Yes it will by the likes of you who have been doing it for years. Aquirata (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  Eh? I cannot fathom what you're trying to do. Your comment is wholly fictional, but it's still a personal attack. Please try to assume good faith and please don't make stuff up. bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. This is what Fringe theories:Pseudoscience says. Why argue with that? If you want to represent astrology differently, go and argue with the policy. Petersburg (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree. I've been watching this from a distance after a recent posting on WP:FTN. Suggestions like these and in the multiple threads above show a clear (? willful) lack of understanding of our policies here on Wikipedia and I echo Griswaldo's suggestion that these WP:SPAs drop the stick and should receive formal warnings should they continue to waste everyone's time here with these types of suggestions. See also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Yobol (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  It is you who should receive a formal warning by suddenly appearing in a vote out of nowhere. Please recede to that distance you have come from. Aquirata (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  It is generally considered a good thing to get outside opinion on issues that are in dispute. I should remind of you of our expectations that editors behave with civility, and note, on a talk page of an article of all places, it is against our behavioral guidelines to ask people to leave a page purely due to their stance on a subject. Yobol (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. In any case, this 'proposal' (or the attempt to implement it by a vote) has no validity within Wikipeda policy. If you wish to change such policy, this isn't the place to do it. And no, astrology isn't a 'protoscience', and nor is it a 'craft' - it is an obsolete and meaningless pseudoscience kept going by the faith of its proponents (and no doubt by the profits earned by the 'prophets'). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  What in the world are you talking about? If you're not familiar with pseudoscience policies or astrology, this is not the place for you. Nobody is trying to change policy, we're trying to implement it against the wills of pseudo-skeptics such as yourself. Aquirata (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree Though if the "scientific community" is to be directly referenced then I'd say the adverb should be stronger than "generally" ... something at least more like "widely." Mystylplx (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  Further note: The arbitration committee said "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information [that they are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community] and may be categorized as pseudoscience." If we are simply going to ignore the advice of arbitration committees then why bother to have them? Mystylplx (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  What the arbitration committee said about articles like this one, was that "they may be categorized as pseudoscience". They did not say "they may be categorized as something scholars generally call pseudoscience." Opposing this suggestion, and insisting that we categorize this as pseudoscience (and not as something scholars generally call pseudoscience) is much more faithful to the arbitration decision than what you are suggesting. When the arbitration comittee said "generally considered pseudoscience" they were not offering any directives, simply opining on a large category of subjects. When they said what they said about categorization they were offering a directive. In other words this line of reasoning that you and others are suggesting is completely off the mark. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  "Categorized as pseudoscience" obviously refers to the Wikipedia category Pseudoscience, other wise they wouldn't have needed the "and." There's two things being discussed, whether or not the article belongs in the category pseudoscience and the phrasing of a sentence in the lead. The arbitration decision says it should go in the Wikipedia category pseudoscience and that the article should properly include the information that the scientific community generally considers it a pseudoscience. It's the only way of reading what the arbitration committee said that makes any kind of sense. Otherwise why would they need a second grouping at all? Mystylplx (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  You need a reminder on what categorization means. It means belonging to a category, in this case the Pseudoscience category. See the bottom of the page if you haven't noticed it yet. It is already there. Aquirata (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  Yes and things belong to categories because of what they are. An apple is a fruit, for instance. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  No. First, arguing by analogy is pseudo-scientific. Second, belonging to a category and "is" are two different things in Wikipedia. Read the policy. Aquirata (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not going to argue semantics with you. The arbitration decision has no clear directive on this. The one directive it does have suggests that calling it pseudoscience is not out of bounds at all. What you all are quoting is not a directive at all. Case closed. That's my last reply to you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. While I don't believe astrology is pseudoscience, it's hard to argue with the fact that most scientists consider it so. It's also a fact that most scientists know dick all about astrology because they reject it out of hand and they would jeopardize their own career if they studied it. I don't like that fringe policy that a few people are quoting here, but agree with Mystylplx that this wording was decided by higher-ups and the best we can do is follow their guidance. Aquirata (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  Note: Editors such as WLU, Griswaldo, Bobrayner, Yobol (where the heck were you until now?) and AndyTheGrump should be ashamed of themselves for going directly against policy. They should all be sent back to the sandbox and let out only after their temper tantrum is over. Aquirata (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  If you are going to accuse editors of 'going against policy', can you at least explain which one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  The fringe science one everybody has been quoting WP:FRINGE. Of course if you're not familiar with it, you shouldn't be here at all. Aquirata (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  What, the one that specifically states that astrology "may be categorized as pseudoscience"? I'm familiar enough with it - and you don't get to decide who takes part in this debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. Without rehashing old arguments, I have put my case why pseudoscience is no longer appropriate or relevant in connection with astrology. However, I have been repeatedly reminded by editors that Wikipedia guidelines must be followed right or wrong and this proposed statement is doing precisely that. Hard-line sceptics who wish to ‘sex up’ Wikipedia’s guidelines to impose their personal point of view are sowing the seeds of an endless and unnecessary dispute here and elsewhere. Please consider the example of outspoken astrology sceptic, astronomer Carl Sagan who warned that “statements contradicting borderline, folk or pseudoscience that appear to have an authoritarian tone can do more harm than good”. Robertcurrey (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Absolutely disagree. Astrology is an unequivocal pseudoscience - this is amply backed by reliable sources. I will revert any change to the article that dilutes this characterization. I am dismayed by the proliferation of single purpose meatpuppets on this article. It is starkly obvious that these people are coordinating offsite. Skinwalker (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you that "it is starkly obvious that these people are coordinating offsite." Just how did you suddenly appear here in the middle of a vote without prior discussion? Aquirata (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Becasue its been rasied at a notice board, I mean how unfair is it to ask the whole of the comuity to come here and comment?Slatersteven (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. Astrology is a pseudoscience according to science (one question do any astronemers aay its not?).Slatersteven (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  It looks to me like you are agreeing while disagreeing. What meaningful difference is there between the statement "Astrology is generally considered to be a pseudoscience by the scientific community." And your statement "Astrology is a pseudoscience according to science...?" Mystylplx (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  Not at all the scietific community regards Astrolergy as a psedoscience. That is not the same as saying that its generaly rearded as such. If there is no differance then why not then say that "The scientific community regards astrolergy as a psedoscience" if tehy are the saem, can we all agree to that?Slatersteven (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  Slatersteven - you asked (one question do any astronomers say its not?) I have debated astrology with two sceptical astronomy professors - both of whom had some surprisingly out of date beliefs about astrology. However, I have also met a number of astronomers who don’t regard astrology as a pseudoscience, but to reveal any support for astrology is unlikely to be a good career move given the groupthink. I used to attend lectures by Dr Percy Seymour. He was Senior Planetarium Lecturer at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich (1972 – 1977) and later Principal Lecturer in Astronomy at the University of Plymouth (1977 – 2003). His special area of study was magnetic fields in the Milky Way Galaxy. He wrote eight books on astronomy and cosmology. One of them entitled The Scientific Basis of Astrology: Tuning to the Music of the Planets. Robertcurrey (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you rather then arguing form personel beleife you have tried to find a source. What does he actualy have to say on the subject? Does he says its a psedoscience or a genuine science, or just that there is some basis of science behind some of its assumptions or methodology?Slatersteven (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Slatersteven Dr Seymour developed a model to describe the mechanism behind astrology. This interview from 1989 may not include his more recent research. In outline, his model is based on the tidal tugs of all the planets in addition to the Sun and Moon which disrupt the Earth’s magnetosphere which affects the human neural network. It works through the gravitational effects of the planets which are magnified by what Seymour calls ‘magneto tidal resonance’ to affect the sunspot cycle. There are more recent studies including one by a NASA scientist: Chin Cheh Hung Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity & Solar Tides caused by Planetary Activity (2007) and Wainwright Jupiter's influence, New Scientist Issue 2439, (20 March 2004). Current theory indicates a correlation between peaks in the sunspot cycle and planetary line-ups. I have commented on this earlier and was informed that because these studies do not specifically mention astrology, they cannot be cited as this obvious connection as a possible mechanism for astrology would be considered OR.

To find out more read and see a list of sources read my post on this page dated Robertcurrey (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2011 in the thread Proposed introduction - does it have consensus or is it breaking policy? I am delighted to respond to your question, but I don’t want to inflame an argument as it is now time to find a solution. You are most welcome to correspond on my talk page and if it is not too long, I will get back to you as soon as I can. Robertcurrey (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. Although I could support the addition to the lead of a bit more information about astrolgers' perspective on the issue, I oppose any wording that obscures the pseudoscientific status of astrology or attempts to treat equally the scientific and pro-astrology viewpoints. They are not equal and should not be treated equally. Would we, I wonder, every say that "the Earth is generally considered by the scientific community to be not flat" or that "Homo sapiens is generally considered by the scientific community to not have been constructed from maize by Kukulkán and Tepeu"? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Black Falcon, as you entered this discussion quite recently, you may not have read much that had been discussed before. (I see we now have a lot of new sceptics coming into this page who might be even less informed of the arguments.) However, I don’t propose rehashing arguments, but this is the most concise way I can respond to your comments.

First, your comparisons of astrology to the Flat Earth belief and a creation myth are weak analogies. Though these beliefs have ancient origins, to use astrology in this analogy, you need to find a field where there are schools, conferences, thousands of book titles, software programs and peer reviewed research journals. This field should also be supported by many academics like a senior astronomer and astronomy author (as discussed above). Contrary to popular opinion, astrology is not a belief system. It is falsifiable and research in the last fifty years and especially recently, has resulted in scientific evidence supporting astrology and no studies contesting this evidence despite many attempts by sceptical groups. I have documented this earlier in this discussion. See my comments on this page at 14:18, 14 March 2011.

Second, any question of pseudoscience is in my view now redundant in any description of modern astrology (for reasons explained on this page). So, if the scientific view is to be included, the wording should be no stronger than ‘belief’’ since there is no evidence that many in the scientific community have studied astrology or are familiar with recent research and there are no valid tests and no superior alternative theories to support this belief. However, the correct word belief has been exaggerated to consider – suggesting an informed opinion which is manifestly untrue. However this extra spin more than justifies the conceit of giving popular 'scientific' opinion the unequal advantage that you seek. Robertcurrey (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. Astrology is a classic example of a superstitious pseudoscientific belief and practice. We have numerous policies and an ArbCom decision that justify calling it what it is, and we have ample RS backing for such an assertion. It will take more than this truckload of astrologers who have suddenly met up here to overturn this. It would require policy changes. The astrologers here who have ridiculed the ArbCom decision and say ArbCom made a mistake need to take their campaign elsewhere. Use your own websites to make your claims and advertise your services so you can continue to fraudulently collect money from hapless victims of this superstition. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. When RS consistently declare it to no longer be a pseudoscience and declare it to be scientifically legitimate, then this article will be revised according to the sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

*Disagree. Reliable sources clearly show that astrology is pseudoscience; so that's what the article should say. It's simple and precise. It really doesn't have to be difficult. I'm quite happy to have a separate statement of what astrologers believe; and if any astrologers dare to propose a mechanism for their belief, I would happily mention that in the article too, contrasted against real, evidence-based physics. bobrayner (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is your second vote... ;)Mystylplx (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies; because somebody bizarrely moved an older thread to the bottom of the page so it came after the thread I created, I thought it was yet another new thread on the same subject. It's an easy mistake to make given the large number of similar threads & restarts. Will happily strike either of my !votes if it'll actually make a difference to anyone... bobrayner (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I figured it was something of the sort. No harm no foul. Mystylplx (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Stricken. bobrayner (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree Astrology is not a science at all. We don't put in the article on Hinduism that "hinduism is generally considered pseudoscience". Astrology is not in a category where the pseudoscience/science distinction makes sense.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Astrology is about the clearest example of pseudoscience known. It makes predictions based upon objective criteria and is therefore testable and falsifiable, and it has been falsified over and over. We have lots of great sources showing that. People who refuse to accept that are just playing word games to try to promote a view. DreamGuy (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Generating falsifiable predictions does not in itself make something a science. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to this page DreamGuy. I agree that astrology is falsifiable. If it has been “falsified over and over”, please could back up your claim with a citation of what you consider to be the best test as we have not had one so far. Please note that anecdotal evidence, magic tricks, sun sign tests and tests with small sample sizes that could produce random results are not relevant here. This has been discussed at least twice before (see my comments at 17:56, 8 March 2011) – please check previous discussions so time is not wasted and please no links to lists – a citation of a single test or two are sufficient. If you find in your quest that the tests that you believe existed do not exist, you should vote to accept that astrology is considered a pseudoscience rather than the unsubstantiated and authoritarian claim that it is a pseudoscience. Robertcurrey (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology is a pseudoscience. Just because one or two scientists embarrass themselves and pretend that it has a legitimate foundation doesn't change reality, and weasel words won't help the editorial quality of the article. The best way to deal with scientific dissent on the matter (there is scientific dissent on every matter, that's the point) is to introduce astrology definitively as a pseudoscience, then cite specific examples where scientists have disagreed with the overwhelming majority. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 05:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Refuse to vote again in this process, which is turning into a joke. This needs to go to arbitration! The informative content of this page is being vandalised by editors who are fixated on the importance of one word and have hidden previous discussion that explored more relevant issues concerning the lede, which had obtained consensus. In the process the views of myself and other contributors such as Fsolda, ninly, Gary PH, Robertcurry and Hans Adler have been ignored, as if the great deal of time and effort involved in trying to find a suitable point of agreement means nothing.

The reason for this whole discussion was to find a consensus on a more appropriate lede to the article – it was not to start an edit war amongst those who either do or don’t want the word pseudoscience mentioned; as if that is all that matters. As a reminder this is being proposed as the lede, which includes amendments which have a consensus of agreement (in the detailed discussion above) for being more informative, more elegantly expressed, and better supported by credible references:

Astrology is a set of systems, traditions, and beliefs founded on the notion that the celestial bodies can explain destiny, personality, human affairs, and other earthly matters.(1,2) Emphasis is placed on the relative positions of the sun, moon, and planets; with the system also allowing reference to stars(3), visible phenomena such as comets, and mathematically calculated points of interest. A natal chart, also known as a horoscope, is a map of the universe centered on the 'native', which is the subject whose environment is to be studied. This shows the relative positions of the celestial bodies within the zodiac signs and astrological houses, with reference to their astrological aspects, and various other mathematical frames of reference which are used for astrological interpretation.

Astrology combines information from the studies of astronomy, numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism and mysticism, and is traditionally described as “a mathematical art, subject to the principles of natural philosophy”.(4)Historically astrology was regarded as a very technical and learned tradition, sustained in royal courts, cultural centers and medieval universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.(5)

Because of its ancient history and legacy of cultural influence, Eastern nations consider that astrology is entitled to respect as a trusted body of knowledge.(6) However, astrology has always been a controversial subject, because the extent of its determinism has been questioned and debated, as well as the limits of its reliability in practical application. Astrology lost its standing as a science in the 17th-18th centuries when it became disowned by Enlightenment thinkers.

1) Pingree, David (1973). "Astrology". In Philip P. Wiener. The Dictionary of the History of Ideas. 1. New York: Scribner. ISBN 0684132931. http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaBook/tei/DicHist1.xml;chunk.id=dv1-20. Retrieved 2009-12-02.

2) Price, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Classical Myth and Religion. Oxford University Press, 2003

3) The Greek phrase plánētes astéres 'wandering stars' was applied to the seven visible planets (including the Sun and Moon) because of their observable movement against the 'fixed stars'. All were 'stars' in the Classical sense.

4) Lauren Kassell, ‘Stars, spirits, signs: towards a history of astrology 1100–1800’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41 (2010) 67–69 (quoting John Dee’s definition in the preface to Henry Billingsley’s translation of Euclid’s Elements of geometrie (1570)), See also 17th century astrologer William Ramesey’s similar definition , set out in the introduction to his Astrologiae Restaurata (1653), where he refers to the older definition of Averroes, saying “he affirms Astrology to be a Mathematical Art; and this is acknowledged by all the Judicious and learned; neither do any but Fools and Novices make it a distinct Art or Science of itself, but a part of Astronomy, Physics and Natural Philosophy, which make up one entire Liberal Science; this is well known to the Learned; yet for the satisfaction of some weak headed Momuses have I thus plainly delivered my self, who carp and rail at what they are ignorant of.”

5) Lauren Kassell, ‘Stars, spirits, signs: towards a history of astrology 1100–1800’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41 (2010) 67–69.

6) Astrology is a science: Bombay HC - The Times of India, online at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Astrology-is-a-science-Bombay-HC/articleshow/7418795.cms (retrieved 08/02/2011); Astrology is a Trusted Science rules India’s Supreme Court – What is the Significance for Western Astrologers? APAI, Spring Bulletin, 2011, #66; online at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/astrology_a_trusted_science.html (retrieved 08/02/2011).

At this point we have a choice between adding an extra comment which says something like “Astrology is now defined as a pseudoscience for reasons such as being unprogressive, lacking falsifiability and being unconcerned with the need to evaluate its theory in relation to other modern sciences. Or we can link this through to the existing comment which currently states “Eventually, astronomy distinguished itself as the empirical study of astronomical objects and phenomena. In 2006 the U.S. National Science Board published a statement identifying astrology, along with ten other practices or beliefs, as "pseudoscientific".[7]

These are sensible suggestions for edits that give a more rounded and informative introduction to the subject. All have been discussed in detail previously, with justification for the finer points. But it looks to me like many here don't care what the page says as long as the focus remains on one controversial word. So please someone, take this to arbitration, I earlier requested that this should go to mediation but the other editor involved refused to participate in mediation so arbitration seems to be the only way to go now.

(Earlier today I tried to make some of the generally agreed changes - these were simply undone by Kwami, just as he has undone all the previous edits that found consensus. I would be very happy to have my own history of edits put forward for arbitration if Kwami's thoughtless 'undo' edits can be reviewed as part of that process). I will now try to make the edit again in the hope that Kwami does not follow his usual habit of undoing everything that amends his own preferred content.Costmary (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

I've posted at AN/I with the hope that an admin or two might have a look at what is going on here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE may be a more optimal venue - these people would probably be issued official warnings per discretionary sanctions. Still, let's see what plays out at ANI. Skinwalker (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I was also thinking arbitration; could be quicker, less drama. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure mediation offers much hope, given the way things have gone, and it would just create even more reams of the stuff we've already seen on this talkpage. AE may be more appropriate where the line has been pointed out and somebody has unambiguously crossed it. bobrayner (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take this to arbitration. I would be more thanwilling to submit to that. I asked for administration help earlier and the response we got was to thrash this out through discussion (hence all the discussion which has now been hidden as a "waste of time"). I also proposed mediation, but that was denied. I would like to suggest that the history of undos and hides by Kwami and WLU be examined for showing their bias against allowing informative corrections and amendments, whilst others are straining hard to find proposals that might break through the deadlock to find common agreement. Costmary (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that both sides are getting entrenched in their positions. Another edit war is looming on the horizon simply because we are unable to interpret an existing policy on the most contentious issue. Therefore I am in support of arbitration on the matter in order to save us from useless arguing. Petersburg (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The pseudoscience issue is largely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned but it is blocking the ability to edit the introduction - by those who insist that this point must be raised to priority importance. We can initiate an arbitration request for clarification on the pseudoscience ruling, and hopefylly gain external clarification on whether the term must be used in the article, may be used in the article, must be in the lede (twice), and whether we must say astrology "is" a pseudoscience or can flow with approved text by saying "generally considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community."

The request template asks for a "List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request". I am willing to be a party - anyone else willing to be named to help bring this point of confusion to an end?Costmary (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Full arbitration is not necessary, and I am pretty sure a case would be rejected as premature. However, arbitration enforcement, or if that doesn't work a motion piggybacking on an earlier pseudoscience case should be enough. Hans Adler 15:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology bannings

Please see [1]. Moreschi (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

PS - do people want this unprotected now? Moreschi (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you think would be best, considering we should probably restore some of the deleted content (see next)? — kwami (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Give it a try, but semi-protection should remain in place. If more meet up and behave the same way, just revert and move on. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things on the bans - first, it is childish, but I am not surprised that it has once again happened on this topic.

One of the problems with those who say they are anti-astrology is that these are the people most unqualified to write on the topic.

It is odd that those with knowledge of the topic, mainly astrologers who have studied the subject, or those who are historians of astrology, would be 'banned,' citing POV. Is not Wikipedia an encyclopedia?

Those citing 'pseudoscience' have not proven their case against Astrology at all. Opinion is one thing, but facts are another. Astrology has plenty of history to include, so those who complain loudly are those who are pushing personal views onto an encyclopedia - which has no place.

Moreover, the subject can be argued on the Talk Page, but the constant POV and personal bias on astrology has disrupted the Astrolog Page. Moreover, if Astrology was a pseudo-science, we've seen no evidence, nor proof on this matter, but conjecture and opinion.

That is because astrology is not seriously studied by scientists, because the assumption is that it is not worth researching. No one researches the virgin birth either. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Another thing is that arguments 'for' or 'against' astrology, including those who have obvious POV on this topic belongs elsewhere and not on the Astrology Page. The point of any Wikipedia page is to provide as much knowledge as possible on any subject, again, in encyclopedia form.

These 'bans' clearly show that the person who instigated and enforced the bans should be removed since they obviously are not well-informed on the subject, nor on Wikipedia's guidelines on POV. Eagle Eye 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the fact that you haven't edited the encyclopedia for 2 years I'm assuming one of your buddies was banned and now you've come here to express your opinion on the matter. Please do not pick up where they left off. On the other hand, now that you're back here please do put yourself to work on any of our millions of articles that all need attention. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually Griswaldo, you assumed wrong. You see, this is the problem here. You make a presumption, then run with it as if it were true when it is not. I do not know any of the people you assume are my 'buddies.' This is a clear example of POV that does not follow Wikipeda's guidelines of being neutral. This is an encyclopedia Griswaldo, it is not a place for you to rooster sit on a topic you obviously have problems with yourself. The Astrology page is also one of those 'millions' of articles on Wikipedia that need attention. What is your point? Cheers.Eagle Eye 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we save some of the pro-astrology contributions?

Given that many of the editors above have been banned, and that the article is protected for a month, can the rest of us agree that some of their suggestions are nonetheless worthwhile? I trust that I won't be seen as having a COI if I add an astrologer's perspective to the article! Basically, I was thinking of treating this as, say, the MOS, which is protected but which people edit after proposing new wording on the talk page. How about I propose some changes here; if they're not acceptable, just reword them or delete them entirely. (That's one way of preventing this discussion from ballooning out of control: We agree from the beginning that any of these suggestions that does not improve the article is simply deleted, with the justification in the edit summary rather than on the page.) Or support or object to them in whole or in part. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede

I think these are all from Costmary:

• changed: fate – given the link, it maybe should be destiny
• changed: the placement of the seven planets – we need to link this (seven planets or classical planets), and maybe explain it on the page. (It's also only historically accurate, and perhaps should be reworded.)
• changed: relative to each other and to the signs of the zodiac – link signs and add houses?
• changed (partial): a combination of basic astronomy, mysticism, and divination – add some or all of the following (don't want it too wordy, though): numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism, and remove divination
• add: some mention of horoscope in the lede, though the proposed wordings have been heavy on jargon and not very informative.
• added: Historically astrology was regarded as a technical and learned tradition, sustained in royal courts, cultural centers, and medieval universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine. [ref Kassell]
• deleted: Some astrologers see astrology as a broadly symbolic language, one in which only general themes of life, love, and death are implicated; others see more direct and specific influences on human and mundane affairs. – I have never understood what this was supposed to mean, and the astrologers don't seem enamored with it either.
• added: Astrology has always been a controversial subject. Even within the field, the extent of its determinism and of its application have been debated. – Add a note on the opposition of various religious traditions (free will, etc.).
• added: Astrology lost its standing in the 17th–18th centuries when it was disowned by Enlightenment thinkers / the Age of Reason.
• added: In the latter half of the 20th century astrology experienced a resurgence of popular interest as a founding component of the New Age movement.

---

This is a great idea. Both fair and good for the article. Thanks for extracting it. I support adding them, and any other non-pseudoscience-related information, either through draft/admin addition or non-protected editing once the PP is lifted. Ocaasi ^c 22:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems good to me, apart from the last - we need a source that (a) shows evidence for the 'resurgence' and (b) states the significance of astrology to New Age thinking - though that might be difficult, given the difficulty of establishing what 'New Age' really means. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I know sources were supplied somewhere; I remember reading that astrology was fringe even in the popular conception as late as the 1950s. — kwami (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking to source in that regard? The the New Age movement is intimately tied to astrology as the term "New Age" refers to the astrological Age of Aquarius. Griswaldo (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. (Silly me.) [2] — kwami (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, there are proposals to completely rewrite the lede, but only agreement to these changes themselves, so I added most of them in. I didn't add the Kassell ref, since there are comments below about too many refs in the lede. — kwami (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Lede

Thanks kwami. Before addressing costmary’s and your proposals for an enhanced version of the lede – in which I was not involved, I would like to propose an alternative. In my view though the proposed joint changes were mostly great improvements, the original lede is confusing, too wordy, inaccurate, contentious (even among astrologers), cumbersome and confusing and appears to be the result of years of argument and compromise. And here I am not even considering any issues of bias.

I would like to put forward what I consider a clearer description that embraces astrology initially in a very general way. The second paragraph would describe the role of the planets, houses, aspects and the zodiac within the horoscope. This is followed by the history to modern times. It is in this section that Sun Sign astrology and the pseudoscience issue should be addressed.

Astrology is the study of the correlation between celestial phenomena and life, entities and geophysical processes.[1] The field is a combination of astronomy, meteorology, philosophy, numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism, mysticism and divination. For most astrologers, the practice of astrology is more of an art and a craft than a science. Such astrologers work with a model of what they consider a coherent and meaningful pattern within the Cosmos. By translating this symbolic language, practitioners analyze the potential within any birth or launch moment and forecast on the basis of the solar, lunar and planetary cycles.

1) Pingree, David (1973). "Astrology". In Philip P. Wiener. The Dictionary of the History of Ideas. 1. New York: Scribner.

I don't believe that the original opening line was a verbatim quote from Pingree, but I believe that my comments are in line with his. I would like costmary's advice and ask that she contact me directly on my talk page on this and other matters.

Other than the Pingree quote, most standard references seem to follow an outdated model which states that the planets ‘influence’ which enables ‘predictions’. However, this does not fit with current practice which tends to favour the Hermetic maxim – as above, so below or the Jungian/Pauli model of synchronicity.

At this stage kwami, given the controversial and specialist nature of this field, I can only see advantage in your proposal of having editors post onto the talk page before editing. This does not solve the problem that the experts who might be able to contribute to any prior discussion have been banned and if I am not banned, acting as a 'guardian' of this and other astrology pages is not part of my life plan. I hope that others with expertise in astrology can get involved in the future. Robertcurrey (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence presupposes that there is a correlation, and I think it's a little too general - there are significant celestial phenomena which affect "life" but are very much the domain of real astrophysics rather than astrology. bobrayner (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

bobrayner I take your point that correlation is debatable. However, such correlations exist: Besides objective evidence for the Sun/Moon/tidal connection and other areas of natural astrology (that you classify exclusively as astrophysics, though has long been part of astrology) and the Gauquelin studies show a correlation between planetary positions at birth and eminence in specific areas that have been replicated.

How about: "Astrology is the study of and search for correlations between celestial phenomena and life, events and physical processes on Earth?" Robertcurrey (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Reality check

Since Robert Currey has proposed an alternate lede, and since you all seem geared up to discuss the lead let me post some intro paragraphs from other tertiary sources here as a point of comparison.

• Encyclopedia Britannica - "Astrology - type of divination that involves forecasting of earthy and human events through the observation and interpretation of the fixed stars, the Sun, the Moon, an the planets. Devotees believe that an understanding of the influence of the planets and stars on earthly affairs allows them to both predict and affect the destinies of individuals, groups, and nations. Though often regarded as a science throughout its history, astrology is widely considered today to be diametrically opposed to the findings and theories of modern Western science."
• Oxford's A Dictionary of Astronomy - "The supposed influence of the relative positions of the planets on people's personalities and events in their lives. In its modern form astrology is a pseudoscience, but in ancient times astrology and astronomy were intertwined. Often, the motive for keeping observational records was astrological. Ancient Chinese records of celestial events, from which the fortunes of entire dynasties were divined, are now of great value in the study of historical eclipses, novae, and comets."
• The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science - "Astrology is best defined as the set of theories and practices interpreting the positions of the heavenly bodies in terms of human and terrestrial implications. (The positions have variously been considered signs and, more controversially, causes.) The subject—and therefore its study—is fascinating, difficult, and often paradoxical. Although inextricably entangled with what are now demarcated as science, magic, religion, politics, psychology, and so on, astrology cannot be reduced to any of these. The historical longevity and cultural diversity of astrology are far too great for it to have been precisely the same thing in all times and places, yet it has always managed to reconstitute itself as much the same thing in the minds of its practitioners, public, and opponents alike. These points have particular relevance in relation to historians of science, who until recent decades predominantly analyzed astrology anachronistically as a “pseudo-science,” the human meanings of which could largely be derived from its lack of epistemological credentials."
• The Oxford Companion to Philosophy - "Up to the seventeenth century astrology overlapped with astronomy and cosmology . All studied the movements of heavenly bodies, assuming a Ptolemaic model of a finite universe composed of concentric circles with a motionless earth (neither rotating nor revolving) at the centre. Astrology is associated mainly with theories of celestial influences, understood as causal forces literally flowing down on to the static earth and bringing about all aspects of meteorological and biological change—winds, tides, and seasons, and generation, growth, corruption, and death. Astrology found a place in the deterministic view of nature woven into ancient philosophical systems—Aristotelian, Platonic, and Stoic—and their medieval and Renaissance derivatives. From antiquity, astrological practice supported fatalism , especially with the entry into medieval western Europe of Arabic sources. Casting horoscopes and ‘fortune-telling’, with its claims to relate a detailed pattern of the heavenly bodies at birth to all future events of one's life, was accused of denying free will, but condemnations did little to lessen astrology's popularity. Once the earth was shown to be a rotating and revolving planet, once an infinite universe replaced a finite one, and once genetics placed the causes for biological diversity and specificity within the organism rather than in the stars, there could be no scientific foundation for astrology whatsoever."

While none of these tertiary sources are identical in their treatment of astrology, I think there are some common threads that are worth noting. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I see several elements of those descriptions I think would be beneficial here. The EB calls it a "type of divination". That's an excellent opening. The DoA notes in its modern form it is a pseudoscience, and the OCHMS says similarly that scientists analyzed astrology anachronistically as a pseudoscience, a point we should perhaps make more clearly. I left out the free-will criticism above, but still think we should mention it. The OCHMS speaks of human implications, and clarifies that "The positions have variously been considered signs and, more controversially, causes." This is a point the astrologers here keep making, and which I added a token mention of when restoring CostMary's additions, but we should probably make the point more prominently.

I added those four points here,[3] in case you'd like to review them. — kwami (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• It is also worth bearing in mind that we are not really the place for innovative research, so to speak. Wikipedia aims to be a somewhat bland recounting of what reliable sources tell us - we are not the venue for the latest exciting theories coming out of astrological conferences (or whatever). Some style points for the lede - the current version is arguably too wordy and has too many paragraphs - three longer paras should do it just fine. Also, inline citations need to be kept out of the lede, which simply should be a summary of the main article content. Just in case anyone was tempted. Moreschi (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • <brain fart> In fact, we have 12 inline cites in the lede right now. They all need to go, this is stylistically horrid. Moreschi (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I realise it's not considered stylistically optimal, but that's simply a consequence of the ideal that a lede should summarise the rest of the article so it shouldn't need a cite for something which is discussed and sourced in more detail at a later point. Nonetheless, cites can be very useful where content is controversial/disputed; and this article's content has been subject to dispute for the last decade. If we could get Astrology to a position where the main problem is "Too many cites", then we would have achieved a herculean feat, and I'd be a very happy man.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talk • contribs)

Many thanks are due Griswaldo for supplying such excellent sources for comparison. In particular, the definition in The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science seems to be a superb model of relative completeness that manages to remain succinct and coherent. As Moreschi pointed out, the lede shouldn't exceed 3 paragraphs (without references), so it would seem prudent to adopt a similar strategy for this article. Perhaps a structure something like this:

• 1st Paragraph: Definition of astrology with a brief but clear mention of its status as a pseudoscience.
• 2nd Paragraph: General overview of history.
• 3rd Paragraph: Discussion of astrology's multiregional/multicultural nature and development.

The current lede contains some information that is specifically related to astrologers rather than astrology; this could probably be moved down into the body of the article as it seems less directly relevant. Similarly, the (current) last paragraph of the lede is really an Etymology and should have a small separate section in the main body. Finally, since astrology predates Christianity and isn't generally a Christian practice, wouldn't it make sense for this article to use the more academic BCE/CE dating system, rather than the Euro-centric/Christian BC/AD convention?

I'm hoping that some of these suggestions might be helpful, but either way the lede should almost certainly be rewritten for brevity as well as overall flow and coherence. Doc Tropics 16:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It was easy enough to separate out the etymology to its own section and rearrange the rest into 3 paragraphs when I restored some of CostMary's additions (discussion above). We could probably add a more universal coverage, as you suggest, and also remove the stuff specific to astrologers. Do you have specific suggestions? And I agree w converting to CE notation. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Any definition of astrology that is based on a causal model in which the planets exert an influence or that astrology is about prediction, fatalism or determinism is at least 50 years out of date. (Natural astrology operates on this basis but this is only one part of the entire field.) From the Modern Text Book of Astrology (1956) by Margaret Hone “Certain traits of character and certain types of events appear to correlate with certain planetary relationships. He (the student) will be wise to drop the word influence which implies direct action.” She defines astrology as “a unique system of interpretation of the correlation of planetary action in human experience.” However, this does not cover mundane and natural astrology. (Hone's book remained the standard textbook used by astrology students in the UK into the '80s even though it was considered out of date at the time). Here are a few more definitions to consider, though I find them a little unsatisfactory in different ways:

"Modern astrology might be defined as the study of the movements of the Sun, Moon, and planets in relation to events on Earth, especially human personality and behavior; or, conversely, as the study of human affairs in relation to their cosmic environment. The central assumption of astrology is that the positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets at the birth of an individual or the beginning of an enterprise are related in a significant and observable manner to the intrinsic character and later development of that individual or enterprise." Helen Weaver (translation) from Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology. Reference:- Brau, Jean-Louis, Helen Weaver, Allan Edmands, Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology. New York, New American Library, 1982.

"Astrology is both the study of the ways in which significance for life on earth is located in celestial objects and the resulting practices. “ Dr Nicholas Campion, A History of Western Astrology, 2008, Hambledon Continuum.

"In this book 'astrology' means the study of correlations between living organisms (especially man) and extraterrestrial phenomena. It does not mean Lucky Stars or similar absurdities masquerading under the same name. Astrology has been a respectable subject for millennia; hence today's popular misconceptions hardly justify terminological repeal." Dr Geoffrey Dean, Recent Advances in Natal Astrology, (1977), Analogic. However, Dean's book also includes studies of natural astrology: earthquakes, sun spots, radio waves, climate.

Robertcurrey (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that has been mentioned several times. The lede currently says s.t. to that effect. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I just reworded the first line, per Griswaldo's sources, to reflect the POV that these may be signs rather than causes, so that is now displayed much more prominently. — kwami (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We're exactly nowhere, so back to basics

Reading the most recent discussions about astrology I am struck by the evidence of a fervent desire by some of the editors here to plead for an understanding and accommodation of their personal beliefs. Knowing I'll be burnt in effigy for saying so, I'm nevertheless bound to say that this is not what encylcopaedia are about. It is telling that a recent post suggested that the 'pro-astrology' ideas of banned editors be resurrected! So that the same arguments will be mounted again and again? If that is to be the case, the entry for astrology should read only: 'it is such an arcane branch of knowledge, beliefs and practice that it cannot be adequately defined in clear, plain English'. Is that really what anyone here wants?

So let's go back to basics. It seems already agreed that astrology concerns a set of practices and beliefs. Beliefs begin with epistemological assumptions and taxonomy, which lead to ontological propositions, including those about praxis. Each step in the journey through these steps in determining the nature of astrology closes off avenues not chosen, and therefore not available as defining features as well as those that were chosen. White can't be white as as well as black because that would make it gray, and thus neither white nor black. Taxonomy alone tells us that astrology is other than scientific. This doesn't make astrology 'wrong' or 'right'. It just makes it a methodology to derive meaning about people and events that cannot label itself a science while also remaining aloof from scientific methodology. To argue ad nauseam that astrology should not be discounted as a science, or that it deserves the same status as science, is an ideological, futile claim analogous to arguing that Soviet communism was a branch of Western capitalism. If that claim were to be made nonetheless, it must be subject to a credible cited reference in an appropriate section about opinions or controversies or contradictions.

On that basis I propose that we stop being 'sensitive' to those who want to have their cake and eat it too, and we shorten the introduction considerably to remove from it the currently implied notion that there is still somehow some doubt about the scientific status of astrology, or some 'special' status that deserves endless semiotic hair-splitting.

I propose the following --

Astrology is a metaphysical belief system relying on a set of traditions and practices to derive from observed positions of planets and stars information or meaning about human personality and activities, and about natural events. Characterized as a pseudoscience because its methodology is counter-scientific, it is nevertheless a craft practised by astrologers from antiquity to the modern era.

The word "astrology" comes from the Latin term astrologia ("astronomy"), which in turn derives from the Greek noun αστρολογία: ἄστρον, astron ("constellation" or "celestial body") and -λογία, -logia ("the study of"). Originally astronomy and astrology were closely linked by many scholars in theory and practice until the emergence of the discrete scientific discipline of astronomy during the European Renaissance.

The intro shouldn't be much longer than this. Other controversies, facets, intricacies and variants on themes belong in the body of the article, and can be labelled as such there.

As a complete aside, I got to the Wikipedia astrology page by way of a search for Mayan belief systems completely unrelated to my activities as a Wikipedia editor, and I was disappointed to see Mayan civilization mentioned by name without any detail or sources to tell me why the Mayans had been invoked here at all. In other words, we are still debating the semantics of the introduction but we appear to have some other problems elsewhere in the article we haven't even considered yet.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 16:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Since a huge amount of astrological verbiage is dedicated to denying that it's a pseudoscience, we do need to be clear in the lede that it is a pseudoscience. — kwami (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Astrology Page is not for that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a place to conclude what is deemed a 'science' or what is deemed a 'pseudoscience.' Those arguments are more than specious and wholly ideological POV. It comes from those who need to clearly understand what an encyclopedia is - a vessel for as much knowledge as possible on any subject.

The so-called 'astrological verbiage' belongs on the subject of Astrology. Moreover, after a thorough review of the edits on the Astrology Page, I have found that not one editor on this topic has conclusively proven that Astrology is indeed a 'pseudoscience.' Not one.

Those demanding the 'pseudoscience' tag are clearly ideological and pushing POV that has no place on Wikipedia.

Moreover, the editors who were banned should be immediately unbanned as to allow the discussion to continue, showing Wikipedia Good Faith. One does not deny knowledge on any encyclopedia, but includes it.

Anyone who supports the 'ban' is therefore ideological and against the very concept of an encyclopedia and Wikipedia's guidelines of good faith. Eagle Eye 21:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs)

We don't need to prove that Astrology is a pseudoscience. We just need to show that this is the general viewpoint. This has been shown by the fact that 3 our of 4 encyclopedias refer to astrology as a pseudoscience. (the 4th uses a euphemism to the same effect). This is a POV that is true, but it is the dominant pov, and therefore according to WP:NPOV this is the viewpoint that should dominate the article. NPOV doesn't mean no criticism. It means weighing viewpoints according to their degree of general acceptance. It is generally accepted that Astrology is a pseudoscience. Therefore we write this.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, what are you getting at? Is my draft wording too unclear? Do you have alternative wording in mind? Maunus, you are persuasive, but I think it won't matter what you say to committed astrological contrarians. EagleEye, your argument didn't fly in December 2008, January 2009, and won't do as a recycled time-waster now. Complaints about user bans should be taken up in the appropriate administrator forum, but then you know that, don't you. BTW, your idiom has changed remarkably since December 2008. Been taking classes? It shows: much more elegant now than in 2008, but still not quite as crisp as it was in 2006. Regards - Peter S Strempel | Talk 00:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter, what my 'argument was in December 2008 has nothing to do with what we are talking about today. Moreover, you are in no position to tell me what my 'idiom' is? If you are to focus on the quality of the Page, then I suggest you focus on raising the quality of the page itself, rather than in member bashing - that fosters negativity, is rude, presumptuous and goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. Try maintaining good relations, assuming good faith, rather than using such specious comments which have nothing to do with improving the quality of the page. Cheers. Eagle Eye 05:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"Characterized as a pseudoscience" suggests that there's legitimate debate on the issue. The debate is framed in such a way that "consider" and "characterize" do not mean scientific consensus, but rather merely one POV out of many: Some scientists characterize it as a pseudoscience, but there has also been empirical support, and it's too early to know who will be proven right. There are innumerable variations on that argument, as when denying the validity of any consensus. What I've seen lately is that all of the empirical studies that have falsified astrology were based on misconceptions as to what it claims, that there have since been better-designed studies which support it, and that the scientific consensus is shifting toward support. So generally scientists consider it to be a PS, but their arguments are dated, and we are beginning to see the Truth. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, this debate has been put, resolved, disputed, and ruled on (see template at the top of this page). Unless and until your POV gains credibility through specific and credible references, the 2006 ruling stands. If you want to argue that ruling, do it on an administrator page, not here. Move on. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

...And if and when the scientific community recognises this 'Truth', we can revise the article. Until then, since astrology is making claims that are testable by scientific methods, but have not as yet been supported by such tests, it must be referred to as pseudoscience. You can't have it both ways. Saying it is 'True', and 'will later be shown to be by science' is a statement of belief, not of scientific reasoning, and basing claims of scientific 'truth' on faith is pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? — kwami (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You, kwami. Don't you recognise your own argument? Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I was showing why we shouldn't allow a foot in the door for that argument, not supporting the argument itself. But you see how easy it is to take "generally" or "characterize" to mean that there is legitimate debate. (Which, in case I'm still not being clear, there is not: Astrology is pseudoscience. Period.) — kwami (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The burden of proof lies on those who make claim that astrology works, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Noting that this article completely lacks any serious supporting evidence, that, in itself, supports the claim that it is pseudoscience. And since it is pseudoscience by any definition, I'm not sure what else there is.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The way I read it neither AndyTheGrump nor I were confused at all about what we said. Until you, kwami, are published in a credible source, we are, alas, stuck with citing sources that fit that description. Nothing in an encyclopaedia just is; there must always be sources to cite who said so. We have the citation for who said astrology is a pseudoscience and no one appears overly confused about that, or are you, kwami? The word 'characterized' can be replaced easily enough. Nominate your alternative. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Synthesizing comments above, what about altering my proposed first sentence to read -

Astrology is a pseudoscientific, metaphysical belief system relying on a set of traditions and practices to derive from observed positions of celestial bodies meaning about human personality and activities, and about natural events.

This phrasing asserts pseudoscientific status (which I think was what kwami required), and refers to celestial bodies instead of specifying stars, planets and detritus (which I think addresses the quibble kwami had about mentioning stars).

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We once worded it similarly,[4] but removed "pseudoscientific" as the first adjective after arguments that being pseudoscientific is not essential to astrology the way being divinational or about the planets is essential. That is, it is in essence astromancy, and it is the astro- (planets) and -mancy (divination) parts which are what it "is". Being pseudoscientific is a secondary matter. That was our one concession to the astrologers, as we thought they had a valid point in this case. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter, while I agree with you on being clear and concise, the above phrasing asserts something that has not be proved. It is conjecture that Astrology is a psedudoscientific..." I'm sure that a sentence, even a well-written paragraph could easily deal with the arguments about using this term, however, from the looks of it, what I understand is that those who want the term 'pseudoscience' placed high up are simply pushing POV - a clear sign of it. However, I do appreciate your work in trying to get common sense back into quality depictions that are concise and non-POV.Eagle Eye 05:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs) Eagle Eye 05:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

EagleEye: the matter of pesudoscience and POV has been adjudicated and arbitrated. We cannot address that decision here. If you feel it needs to be re-examined, go to the relevant administrator pages and raise your concerns there. Until the 2006 arbitration is overturned, 'pseudoscientific' stays as the correct phrasing. The scientific or other basis for that arbitration is not a valid subject for discussion here at all. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 05:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

17 edits, five users, less than 24 hours

This is insane, people. It's supposed to be an article, not quicksilver. So many edits so quickly, and yet the quality of the edits has done nothing to clarify the introduction. For example, what's this nonsense about astrology not really being about the position of the stars rather than planets, said in the same breath as emphasising the position of the planets in relation to the signs of the zodiac, which are incontrovertibly comprised entirely of stars? Pure internal contradiction, stemming from unclear thinking.

Why do we need to place the entire debate about astrology in the opening paragraphs? Every ill-considered wording tweak destroys the integrity of any sentence as a whole. Why rush into these edits? It's already clear that someone will undo/edit/revert soon enough if some kind of agreement isn't reached in talk first. Have you five recent editors read what the page now says? It's pretty close to meaningless gibberish, and will be different again by the time I finish this comment.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The signs of the zodiac have nothing to do with the stars, apart from being named after constellations. The ref under naming, from a well-respected astrologer, even goes so far as to say that "astrology" is a misnomer and that it should be "planetology". (A sign of the zodiac is 30° of space orientated relative to the vernal equinox. The names for the signs come from the constellations that happened to occupy them 3000 years ago. In Hindu astrology the signs are fixed relative to the stars, but they are not equivalent to the constellations, which are not 30° across.) The fact that so many people don't realize that is precisely the reason for presenting the issue up front.

Anything else you see that is gibberish, and wasn't before? — kwami (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So the zodiac has nothing to do with stars, except for being named after them, and being based on 30 degrees of arc relative to one of them (Sol), and being based on the movement of the planets relative to Sol and therefore all the stars in our galaxy? Is that right? And all stars in every constellation associated with the Zodiac are 3000 light years away? Is that right? Otherwise it would be impossible to claim that the constellations we speak of are composed of 3000-year-old stellar positions relative to ours! Give me a credible reference for 'well-respected astrologer' and I'll accept that characterisation. Gibberish and sophistry. It goes to what I said last night: you cannot insist on non-scientific methodology as well as scientific status. Your POV has been put, tested, found wanting and ruled on. Move on. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you've misread what I wrote. If you think there's a connection to the stars, other than the trivial one of naming, and apart from Sol (that is, to the fixed stars, which is what non-astronomers generally mean when they say "stars"), please say what you think it is. — kwami (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct that: even astronomers are probably not thinking of Sol when they use the phrase "the stars" colloquially. In any case, that's how I intended the phrase above. — kwami (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I read what you wrote, not your mind. The more you write about this topic, the less clear your meaning becomes, and the less relevant the discussion becomes to this page. Move on. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Peter. He's right. There is no need to place the entire debate about astrology in the opening paragraphs? Correct. He's spot on. Finally, a person who gets what an encyclopedia actually is supposed to be.

Also, there's plenty of room on the Astrology Page to include arguments for and against, since this topic is historical as well as relevant. People can think what they want to, but the point of Wikipedia is not pushing POV ideology onto the reader. Let the reader make his/her mind as what to think about the topic.

This subject requires clear, concise writing that is neutral as possible, wholly inclusive, which also includes the history of astrology, its relevance to scientific, religious and theological streams, etc. Those who are exclusionary and biased should question their own reasons for banning those knowledgeable about this topic and stop with the games. It is against what Wikipedia is about and does not foster good intentions, or community.

Whether or not it Astrology is considered to be a 'pseudo-science,' by some is not the point of the Astrology Page, nor has it been proven that Astrology is one. This is not the point.

I agree with Peter in getting things clear and concise without the POV. He's right. Let's stop with the silliness and get back to the work of getting the best page possible. It would also help that the personality bashing and banning of Wikipedians with knowledge of this subject cease immediately. That is not practicing 'good faith' and is hypocritical to say the least.Eagle Eye 05:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs)

References needed

The 'citations needed' template I have just applied to the article in various places indicates that much of the description of what astrology was in the past and is today, what its practices were in the past and are today, is badly referenced. A corollary is that the needlessly wordy introduction to the article summarizes content that could be justly regarded as contrived or unfounded.

It appears that the sections on Indian astrology and scientific debate about astrology are indeed well sourced. That suggests to me that the debate about pseudoscience, scientific status and 'truth' has been settled some time ago by the principles of notability and credibility as recognized in Wikipedia.

If citations cannot be provided for assertions, these should be removed. This is particularly the case with a topic as hotly disputed as this one has been. I think it reasonable to allow a week before I start removing unreferenced assertions. I am going to do so openly, stating my reasons on this page before editing anything. In the meantime, I intend to bring any vexatious or tediously repetitive debate about the need for citations to an arbitration rather than to allow it to drag out the process of creating a creditable article here forever: three-and-a-bit-years is long enough. It is time to assert that this article is not subject to whim, fancy or subversion by edit warring.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 05:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, but first, the issues regarding the bans should be settled. It does not follow the practice of 'good faith.' The edit warring comes from those who aggressively edit before allowing what was edited to be digested. Moreover, how many 'citations' do you require before this page becomes cluttered to read more like a dissertation or legal document than an encyclopedia page? Let's not go 'citation crazy' here. References at the end of the page are wholly sufficient.--Eagle Eye 06:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs)

I could not disagree with you more. I have already addressed the issue of the bans. References are absolutely needed for every assertion in what is unarguably a controversial and hotly disputed topic. The page is not some fire-side chat, but an attempt to provide authoritative information that will bear all rational scrutiny. So, when someone tells me, for example, that 'there are many astrological traditions that are historically important, but which have largely fallen out of use', I want to know who, specifically, says so, and preferably also some examples. Making the bare assertion without a citation is the same as free invention, even if references exist but are not cited. If citations aren't given, assertions should be removed. This is fairly basic Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Verifiability: 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.' Let's get it all out in the open and cut out everything that can't be justified. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, this is obviously not the intent on the Astrology Page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and citations, references are included to enhance the information given on the page. It is not included mainly for verifiability. As a professional writer I know the difference. Readers can link to citations and references so they can enhance the information, not merely to assess it something is said to be 'true' or not. That assumes that anyone who writes anything on a page can determine what the 'truth' is or is not. That is personal and has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Readers can think for themselves. It is not the job of anyone to tell the reader what to think.--Eagle Eye 01:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs)

Yes, controversial topics should read like a dissertation, if people are willing to put in the work. Read the Israel & Palestine articles. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:PROVEIT, any unsourced information could be removed now. If information is controversial, it needs a source. If information is uncontroversial, it should be easy to provide a source. Either way - source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed 29 March edits from Peter S Strempel - now moved to workpage for editing and discussion

• See Talk:Astrology/Workpage. Moreschi (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just so no one can announce surprise at my proposed edits on 29 March, here's what I have in mind if no citations are added for the material I intend to redact.

Before responding, consider the following -- Arguments that references are provided in linked sections are not persuasive: what if those linked artyicles change? Besides, Wikipedia should not cite Wikipedia. If the references/citations are valid, repeat them on this page.

Any text referenced by a citation that throws an error for lack of necessary detail (see 47 in this example) will also be deleted.

Infoboxes and diagrams/illustrations are not being considered by me for any redaction at this time.

Proposed edit starts — - see Talk:Astrology/Workpage - Moreschi (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is some good info there, but it should all be verifiable. We need to ref things if they're "likely to be challenged", and nearly everything about astrology is likely to be challenged. — kwami (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology as belief

We have lots of information on Wikipedia about Christianity, another elaborate set of beliefs and practices. We do not, I think, have edit wars over whether the resurrection or the virgin birth are scientific fact, nor do we label Christianity as "pseudoscience". Likewise, debates over the scientific basis for astrology should be rather short and to the point, it is dismissed by the scientific community and not researched. (Although there are some psychological possibilities with respect to personality of those who believe in astrology or are influenced by it.). Thus the bulk of the article should be material about the beliefs of astrologers and drawn from books expounding those beliefs. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine: "astrology is a religion followed by astrologers and their followers. Astrologers believe that...": now tell us where we can find reliable sources on what these beliefs are, on what competing strands of the astrology faith there are, etc. Find sources that tell us what, if any, sacred texts astrology has. Most importantly, find external sources that also discuss astrology as a faith: from theology, sociology, anthropology etc. Actually, I think that it makes a lot more sense to analyse astrology as 'religion' than as 'science', but unfortunately, the 'faithful' have persisted in making claims about it that clearly assert its 'scientific' credentials, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Fundamentalist Christianity is religion, but creationism driven by fundamentalist Christianity is a pseudoscience - because it asserts that 'science' is wrong. I think that by analogy, one should look at our article on creationism, and not on Christianity if one wishes how best to tackle the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect to sources, you can start by searching for "astrology" on Amazon, "Showing 1 - 16 of 22,289 Results". As to creationism, I don't doubt there are similar problems there, but we are here now. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, not a rational point of view policy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Fred, there's a fundamental difference between astrology and Christianity. Christianity does not make predictions about the future based on an empirical method (if that is the right phrase). Astrology was a science. Christianity never has been. Your comparison is superficial. You also seem to have missed out on what happened here, which was a sustained campaign aimed at removing or de-emphasizing "pseudoscience" from the lede. See [5]. And yes, arguably the "astrology and science" section is too long, but it's not grossly so IMHO. Moreschi (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The nature of Christianity is not at issue here, but we do not hesitate to use the books of Christianity, a specialized press, if you will, to elaborate at length on the Christian world-view. As to missing out on the blow-by-blow, maybe, but I'm not new to the policy considerations involved, I drafted Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed decision. I will look into the editing history of the article and the talk page though. My notice of this dispute was here. Judging from the tone of this discussion, there seem to be issues with NPOV and reliable sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The nature of Christianity is at issue when you introduce Christianity as a point of comparison.Griswaldo (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Griswaldo, sorry I overlooked your comment. Here's how I answer that: the entirely honourable intentions of many of our ancestors (or us) to represent their opinions has never been challenged. What did occur was that for 30 years the Europeans (take note, Yanks, that incluees most of you) layed waste to their own homes and people. It was such a destructive war that it is estimated 2/3 of all people living in the area known today as Germany were killed (raped, tortured, slain). We will not repeat that horseshit here if I am still breathing.

The singular incidence of the 30 Years War entitles all who know about it to call the ensuing tendentious, sanctimonious bullshit exactly that.

I don't want to know what your faith or convictions are, and you insult me every time you assume I will change my mind if only you berated me some more. What I want to know is that I can trust you as a neighbour, friend, colleague. What I want to know is that I can leave children with you because you won't harm them. What I want to know is that I can trust you to look out for the best interests (not necessarily yours) of friends who come to my door and find me absent.

But Wikipedia doesn't care about that, so I don't waste sentimentality on it here. In my Wikipedia mode what I want to know is whether I could be confident defending your edit in front of any government in the world, and the highest courts in any land in Western civilization. If I can't be confident about that, the rest is indeed bullshit. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 00:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm 100% perplexed by this response. I was responding to Fred, who I took to be claiming that the nature of Christianity was not apropos to the discussion despite the fact that he compared Astrology to Christianity. I have no idea what you mean by your response or why you responded to me at all. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Certainly; where we do not use the Bible - or try to avoid it, anyway - is in establishing actual historical facts. It is obviously fine to apply the works of modern astrologers to our section on, well, contemporary astrology for an "in-universe" perspective on what they do. It is not entirely clear to me, however, why such people and their works get much recognition, if any, when trying to write about the history of astrology - as some here have tried to make out. Moreschi (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. Mr Bauder, we will not repeat the faith-and-religion shit-fight here. We have an extensive discussion history and an extraordinary editing history; read it and digest before anyone starts this bullshit again. References. Sources. Citations. Rationality. Definitely. If I was a good guy, I'd even cite you the Wikipedia policies, but I expect you to find and read at least the hisory of this chat page on your own before spending any more time on well-known mountebank diversions.

If we do it the way you suggest, anyone could publish some words like: 'Peter Strempel is an unbearable pedant but why do all the gorgeous girls go for him.'. I'm sure that's not really what you want to be saying to the world. References. Sources. Citations. Rationality. That's how we do stuff here.

Let me see some proposed prose, plus citations.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Christianity is a religion with a moral system that tells you what you should do. Astrology is an ostensible divination/prediction system that tells you what will (supposedly) happen. Different. A moral system doesn't make testable predictions, it doesn't even try. A divination system sets up testable predictions and purports to influence reality and thus an empirical system. Not to mention the astrologers who have attempted to test the predictive value of astrology through scientific research. I have no problem depicting astrology as a religion as long as we remove every and all mentions of astrology predicting or making claims about how the sun, moon, planets and stars can influence human personality and actions, and essentially any ability to exert a meaningful effect on events on earth in any way. Makes for a short article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fred, appreciate your opinion, but the specific context here matters. The debate was not about including details of what Astrologers think and do. I, and others, asked for more of that. The issue was how we should describe astrology's scientific status. They are completely separate, and being strict (or rational) about one, since that's what RS overwhelmingly support, means nothing against richly describing what Astrologer's believe, think, do, and even 'wish or falsely hold as true, against or without evidence'. Ocaasi ^c 14:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Science as a matter of law

This is truly remarkable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Astrology is a science, court rules" User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy for you that this makes your day. The quotation is 'it is "science" in India', which really means that it ain't anywhere else.

I hope you read far enough to note: 'Advocate for Maharashtra government, Bharat Mehta too supported the stand taken by the Union government. Mehta submitted an affidavit filed by the food and drugs administration (FDA) department which said that necessary action is being taken against the guilty under the Drugs and Megical Remedies Act.' In other words, separate action is being taken to prevent people from selling snake oil remedies.

Cite the article, but don't join the legal action in these pages.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia isn't bound by the laws of India. And neither is reality. Courts have tried before to make rulings on issues of scientific fact - and ended up looking stupid in consequence. We don't need to follow their lead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well.........in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the court ruled that Intelligent design wasn't science. I happen to agree with that ruling.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but they ruled that what was 'science' was determined by scientific consensus, not by the wishes of a POV-pushing minority. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Where in the case did that ruling occur? My own amateur reading of the case notes suggests that the citatiuon was a viepoint being represented to the court, not as matter of fact, but as opinion. Did I get that bit wrong?

Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We're getting off topic. Yes Andy, you're right. And I was also trying to be amusing.  :) Peter....again, way off topic, but Dover lost the case on the facts and on the law. In Federal Court, opinions=law, until overturned, and it was not overturned. The US has a long history of case law that prevents the teaching of creationism in public schools. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Orange, I was talking re the Indian case, not Dover. I shoulda outdented my comment. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Education section

Checking out the places listed at http://www.education.nic.in/circulars/astrologycurriculum.htm#List%20of%20Foreign User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And how about providing evidence that these 'places' have any recognition, rather than adding spam links to random astrologers? Seediff for an example of how not to do it. If Noel Jan Tyl's 'Master's classes' are recognised, or at least acknowledged by the outside world, they might be relevant, but you need to demonstrate this. Even the (stub) article on Tyl makes no mention of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The link is to the Department of Education, Government of India which lists them as sources of astrological education outside India. You can find his master class on his website. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Indian DoE list is just that - a "List of Foreign Institutions where Astrology is Beong [sic] Taught". It tells us precisely nothing about whether Tyl's course is recognised by anyone but himself. Without evidence of external recognition for the 'qualification' he offers, there can be no justification for including his course in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect to this edit we have an article about him and his master class is listed by the Government of India, Department of Education http://www.education.nic.in/circulars/astrologycurriculum.htm#List%20of%20Foreign User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have a stub article about Noel Tyl, with no real references indicating any notability, and no mention of this 'course'. I'll probably AfD the Tyl article soon, unless meaningful evidence about this course is provided. The Indian DoE list is just that - a "List of Foreign Institutions where Astrology is Beong [sic] Taught". It tells us precisely nothing about whether Tyl's course is recognised by anyone but himself. Basically, it looks like second-hand spamlinking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It does, and is, but it is published by a reliable source, The Government of India. As to Tyl, he is clearly notable if you research a bit, as an opera singer, if nothing else. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no point in discussing this in two places at once - please keep discussions to the astrology talk page, where others can see what we are debating. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

21 published books on astrology listed on Amazon. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Google him and master class and you'll find many hits from people who list his certificate. Also take a look at http://www.iiihs.org/confarchives/conf07/speakers2007.htm and you will see he is prominent within his reference group. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.iiihs.org/ User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Fred Bauder, if you are going to start cut-and-pasting other users comments from talk pages without indicating that you have done so, as above, I am going to play no further part in this discussion. This is a breach of talk page etiquette, and disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to carefully merge talk pages. I have other things to do, sorry. If you want it all on one page, I'm willing to put it there, but not fiddle around with it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr Bauder, what is your intent in pursuing these links? What, specifically are you trying to reference with them? Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish I knew too. It's kind of confusing.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I was exploring where one might learn to be a professional astrologer, and what that might consist of, especially the professional practice of astrology. To tie this in with Noel Tyl, who seems quite successful and prominent, how would one establish that for our purposes. For example, who are the dozen most prominent astrologers and what are their characteristics? Another matter is the question of astrological counseling; what is involved with that? How much is it used and by whom? User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, most of the educational resources on that Indian list are junk, but what differentiates them from one another; reputation, I think, but where and how does an astrologer establish a reputation? User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a pertinent point that Mr Currey and I have been discussing. If astrologers cannot make their oeuvres known in conventional ways, what are the credible references likely to consist of? As I ventured to Mr Currey, though, I believe the problem is one for those who want unconventional sources to be accepted as conventional. Without disputing the possibility that a rational argument can be made for this proposition I nevertheless think it's a tough ask. I would need to be convinced that the evidence of someone somewhere in the world pursuing a rigorous study of astrology translates into credible citations.

I commented recently on the article dealing with LSD mind-control experiments, not to decry Timothy Leary, but to question what, if anything, emerged from those experiments that said anything about LSD as an adjunct to interrogation. All I could see is that a bunch of scientists, keeping careful note of doses and frequency, could say that people dosed with lysergic acid diethyl amide were pretty 'fucked up' (stoned? hallucinating? irrational?). So, was that science or just Leary's pet project? In terms of astrology, if an Indian university offers a unit of study in astrology, what does that actually evidence? I submit to you that what it says is that Indian universities permit the study of astrology; no more, no less. (Oh, and in terms of Leary, its says he was allowed to experiment with hallucinogens, not that he reached any rational conclusions.)

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Apology

Dear all. It has been put to me that I have conducted myself uncivilly in these pages, that my words carried intimidating tone and intent, and that I have thus made Wikipedia a lesser place to visit and work.

To all who felt that this is what I did, I apologise unreservedly. This was never my intent, but I accept the need to ensure my words also don't create a doubt about this.

Following some reflection on comments made to me very courteously by Fred Bauder, I had reason to review exactly what I'd said and how I'd said it. Mr Bauder did indeed have a valid reason to tick me off. I did not assume good faith when I should have.

An issue that therefore arises is exactly what to do about preventing the relapse of this page into a fruitless and never ending spiral of circular arguments about metaphysical aspects of astrology. It is my intention to prevent that from occurring.

So allow me to state as a principle that discussions about faith, belief and truth are inherenctly tendentious because they seek to represent particular viewpoints as ascendant against others. If such discussions are enegaged in here, I will be a sharp critic. That said, I will attempt to be a little less brusque with newcomers who do not yet understand the highly charged environment of this particular page.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Peter. This is something that I hope to see from others. It takes a courageous person to apologize and this is a standup thing you have done. I accept Peter's apology because it shows that he is not being intellectually dishonest and intends to be less brusque while at the same time stating his principles without violating the good faith policy of Wikipedia.

We need to see the same from the admins who banned the writers on the Astrology page. Need they be reminded of Jimmy Wales policy - " There must be no cabal, no elite, and no hierarchy or structure to get in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who do occasionally affect us), should be implemented on the model of “strict scrutiny.” Strict scrutiny means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other." Eagle Eye 01:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Eagle Eye, thanks for your kind words, but don't confuse my apology as a reversal of my support for admin decisions, particularly not those by Moreschi, who has been completely open about his/her reasons. Moreover, discussion of those decisions should now be be conducted in the appropriate administrator pages.

To be absolutely clear about this, if I were one of the banned editors, I would make my appeal to Arbitration, quoting (not paraphrasing) each specific point of contention, and then citing specifically why specific (note the double emphasis on specific) Wikipedia policies are in question. I think the longer blanket demands for unbanning are made, the less credible those appeals will sound. To be absolutely clear about my intent here, I am not an administrator, I do not know Moreschi or the other involved admins except for my involvement here at astrology, and I'd be having a go at them if the available evidence suggested to me I should. In my opinion the evidence vindicates the decisions made, and actually exposes those decisions as being far more patient and reserved than I might have been.

Can we now move on from this topic of unbanning here? These pages are about an article on astrology. I have spent too much time in discussions and not enough actually contributing. I note that Robert Currey has been the only person since I started taking an interest to propose specific wording and references (except for the hit and run changes that were never discussed). If something is not clear about what I'm trying to say, consider my opinion of rationality, which can be safely assumed to underpin all my work at WP.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I was concerned about the banning, but after looking at the edits by the banned users, I can see the sterility of the edit warring involved. Particularly I am struck by the focus by them on the validity of the astrological world view, its rigor, akin to scientific rigor but nevertheless assuming that the lack of causal connection between astronomical objects and life is not be prominently and definitively noted. Nevertheless I am quite distressed by the lack of an adequate explanation of how astrology is practiced and its theories; a problem for me, as I have very little interest in buying astrological reference works and doing the work of crafting an adequate picture; someone with a passion for astrology will have to do that; certainly not skeptics or someone like myself who dismisses it out of hand other than as an annoying aspect of popular culture. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

May I amplify this comment to suggest that proponents of astrological practice work a little harder to provide encyclopaedic contributions about their craft. It looks to me that currently this is the most conspicuous weakness of the article. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 05:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology practice and theory discussed

It is not easy to come back after being banned. I am very aware of the extreme hostility that many editors have shown toward astrology. As I was doing before being banned, I'll continue to confine my comments to the Talk page only.

Mr. Bauder mentioned: "I am quite distressed by the lack of an adequate explanation of how astrology is practiced and its theories." I am not an astrologer but I can discuss this, having studied astrology for over 30 years. Most astrologers are amateurs. They "practice" for the most part on friends and family. They attend society meetings at libraries and community centres, they go to conferences. They'd rather learn astrology at universities, but universities don't teach it. Most learning is derived from patterns of case studies, which is to say extreme cases of personality and events. Because of its amateur status, this is about the only type of research that is open to astrology today.

Most astrologers believe that there is undiscovered science in astrology, provided you can accept that statistical correlations are "scientific." Since Paracelsus, astrology has been considered to be a question of correlations, which means it broke with causal science. This is when it really happened. Since Francis Bacon, these correlations are thought to increase in magnitude with extremity of cases. This is what Prof. Ertel, for example, successfully demonstrated with the Gauqelin (and the skeptic) data.

Astrology is like psychology, and I believe there has always been some cross-fertilization happening, but does not follow the medical model of psychology, which is to say pathologies. It is the very positive outlook of astrology, of making a better world, learning from a detailed analysis of mistakes and bad habits, and being the best you can be, that affiliates astrology with New Age thinking.

People who study astrology also tend to have an amateur interest in science, particularly chaos concepts and quantum concepts. Anything that is difficult to grasp and requires non-intuitive thinking, like quantum mechanics, attracts a lot of amateur interest and some quantum concepts are entering into the astrological discourse where similarities of non-intuitive thinking are found. String theory is not so interesting. It is far removed from anything currently testable or falsifiable, yet it is unaccountably scientific. There must be many esteemed scientists who flatly declare it to be a science, just as they flatly declare, by their own authority and nothing else, that astrology is not.

Adding this all up, I don't know whether the pejorative "pseudoscience" should be applied with an "is" or a "considered to be." From my personal POV, I don't believe pejoratives belong anywhere in Wikipedia, but mine is not a neutral POV and I'm sure someone will tell me I should take this up with the people who decided that this particular instance was okay because it seemed neutral to them.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions. Apagogeron (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)