Talk:Astrology

Please read before starting Welcome to Wikipedia's Astrology article. This represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: Pseudoscience ♦ Due and undue weight ♦ Making necessary assumptions ♦ Giving "equal validity". These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are 'No Original Research' (WP:NOR) and 'Cite Your Sources' (WP:CITE). Since the nature of this topic has been deemed controversial, all contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). It is also important to discuss substantial changes here before making them, supplying full citations when adding information. Also remember this "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article; it is not to be used as a soapbox, or for comments that are not directly relevant to the content of article.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience (2006)
In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
The four groupings found at WP:PSCI Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more consideration. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

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

Proposed revision to Etymology section & new 'Notes' section

I've spent the last few days putting some text together that I would like to propose for the Etymology section.

Because this will entail a major addition/change, I developed the section in my sandbox so that you can view it before I upload it into mainspace. The link is here:

If anyone has any objections to anything feel free to tell me here or edit the text in my sandbox with your suggestions. Please tell me if you do not want me to upload. Otherwise, it there are no significant objections I'll add the text to the main article in a couple of days and then it can be edited and discussed, as usual.

Some points you might want to note -

* I am suggesting renaming this Etymology and basic definitions

* As you will see, I am proposing to add an Additional notes section at the end of the article, before the references section. I have noticed that quite a few of the daily featured articles do this. The first note I have in there currently will probably not stay as a note long-term. It concerns the decline of astrology at the end of the 17th century when astrology lost its standing, and this is something I believe should be developed a little within the main article. However, the 'Additional notes' section should prove very handy for various points that are crrently within the main article, that could be shifted downwards as supplimentary material that doesn't need to be prominent, but doesn't deserve to be cut altogether. Hence, something everyone can be thinking about - if you want me to add that straight away, let me know and I will.Zac Δ talk 23:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added some suggestions on the Talk page of this sandbox User_talk:Zachariel/sandbox. Ken McRitchie (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Zac for this proposed replacement. It's definitely an improvement. My initial thought was that it could be reduced slightly - maybe less detail on the Mesopotamian planets (which should be on the Babylonian Astrology page -even if some of the names are Sumerian) and the wandering stars could be consolidated into one sentence. The word planet is based on the Greek verb πλανάω 'to wander/stray' and was introduced by the ancient Greeks as a descriptive reference to how these notable stars were observed to wander through the other stars which remained static in their relationship to each other. The Greeks employed the term ἀστέρες πλανῆται asteres planetai, ‘wandering stars’[9] to describe 'the wanderers' amongst the mass of ἀστέρες ἀπλανεῖς asteres aplaneis ‘fixed stars’, which lacked this observable motion.

However, IMO there should be some mention of the astrological status of Pluto after the IAU ruling. I think the notes are a good idea - though the comments here have to be subject to the same need for verification as elsewhere. Robert Currey talk 08:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

::: Update - I've made a number of amendments following Ken's comments. As I viewed the note about the decline as a temporary feature anyway, which needs elaboration, I've taken all of that out. No need to get into that one here. I've also drastically reduced the Babylonian comments and reduced the wandering stars discussion (although I see that as quite pivotal). I did this before reading your comments Robert but I think the amendments have covered all the points you raised. Would be very grateful if you would take another look to see whether it now meets with your approval. Zac Δ talk 13:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Zac, the latest version, with revisions, looks good to me.Paul Quigley (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of loosely editing your sandbox, which I hope is ok. I haven't checked the notes. These are only suggestions - so revert at will. I think the distinction between astronomy/astrology and stars/planets needs to be clarified, but I believe it should not take much space. Robert Currey talk 14:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I suggest everyone scribble out or edit to have it as they would personally prefer it. I'll revert each one to clear the board back to how I would have it. Early next week I'll do another edit to recognise the consensus of opinion. Thanks Zac Δ talk 14:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else would like to see my proposed edits see hereRobert Currey talk 15:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts, there have been three sets of feedback now that which will eliminate the signicant problems, so I'll work on Robert's suggestions and upload to mainspace. It's likely that we'll have to work over everything as the various sections get filled, so we may as well have the remaining discussions concerning this section on this talk page.

Robert you asked "what about Pluto?" in regard to the planet-standing. I've covered this in the accompanying note.

Ken, you don't like the explanation of how planetary definition has changed but the IAU definition is not what astrologers use. I think it is essential to keep that point in, as explained on the sandbox discussion, (and Robert's question). We need to cover that and I believe I have done it as objectively as possible. I made a lot of other edits in response to your comments. If you want to suggest an alternate way to cover it please do. Zac Δ talk 16:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

OK - this edited version is IMO good and believe that Pliny adds colour to the article and his quote is very relevant.

Some more suggestions:

• I believe twined should be twinned.
• It is therefore conventional for astrology texts to refer to ten planets, which does not include the Earth to which astrological reference is made. There is a slight ambiguity here as it reads as if astrological reference is made to the Earth and suggest that to which astrological reference is made. can be dropped.
• Though Pluto is covered in the Note, I think this debate is important enough to be mentioned briefly in the body with an explanation in the note.
• The wording implies but does not state that the IAU defined the Sun and the Moon as not being planets in 2006, though I assume this occurred at least a century ago.

These are just suggestions - with or without them, I am happy for this edit. Robert Currey talk 17:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I got distracted into something else so I haven't made the change yet. I'll look at these and factor them in. The only one I think I'll struggle with is the reference to Pluto in the main text, which seems to be a bit of a tangent to that section, which is why I put it into the note. I have no problem with the principle of what you suggest - just running dry of ideas how to phrase it. I'll try to come up with something - if not, you add what you think needs to be added.

I changed twinned to twined after your edit, because you underlined one of the n's. I thought it looked odd (should have spell checked)! I'll change it back :) Zac Δ talk 18:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done the best I can to incorporate all views. I realise all content is subject to change and the we need to reappraise all section content when we pull the whole thing together. What I would like to do for this section now is ask an uninvolved but experienced WP copy-editor to run over it for readability purposes (to point out things like, is it relevant,interesting or dreary, inconsistent? etc). So if anyone wants to propose further changes can we do that before I ask for a pair of independent (non-astrology) eyes, please. Zac Δ talk 20:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Zac, I think it's a definite improvement and I can see you tried to consider all the views. Thanks for tackling this difficult section. I think it reads well. Ken McRitchie (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback Ken. I've asked an experienced WP copy-editor if he can cast his eyes over, to check readibility in the eyes of someone not knowledgeable in the subject. Hoping he'll find time and oblige. I need to take a bit of a break myself, but would like to start working on getting the Core principles section together soon. Zac Δ talk 16:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Core principles is pretty good now. Maybe you meant the Criticism section? Ken McRitchie (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No I did mean Core principles. It needs some more development. Currently it is only covering the 'as above/below' and 'stars do not compel' points; which is nicely done, but there a little more to be said about the core principles of astrology than that. But it will take a while for me to do this, because I have to catch up with some off-wiki work first. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be the place to ask about the reference to Partridge's Origins which I originally added some days ago (reference 9). This has been amended to: Partridge, Eric, 1960. Origins: a short etymological dictionary of modern English (2nd edition). New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. ISBN 0674993640. But the edition I consulted is more recent and the publisher is Routledge and Kegan Paul in London (RKP was never a US firm so the New York imprint is a piggyback off the London ed.) I think it should be: Partridge, Eric, 1961. Origins: a short etymological dictionary of modern English (3rd edition). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. I apologise if I gave the wrong information previously, but the above is from the edition I consulted. As for the ISBN, there is none. Did they exist? Axel 04:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's stange that the second edition has an ISBN but the later 3rd edition doesn't. Since they appear to be the same format with the same number of pages wouldn't it be better to reference the edition where we can give the ISBN? The only thing that matters is whether the reader will get to the same definition by following the information given. If you think it matters I'll change it though personally, if the content is the same I would rather refrence the edition where we can give the ISBN. I'll change the location to London now though. 11:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Live and learn. I checked the history of ISBN and sure enough, the system was launched in 1972 (http://isbn-information.com/history-of-isbn.html). So there must be a way of assigning an ISBN ex post facto. My reference was done the old-fashioned way by actually having the book in hand. :) Therefore I saw no ISBN on its aging paper. I'll try to find one, although I am skeptical about the usefulness of ISBNs. Axel 14:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Some general points

Out of interest (because I was on the page), I did a word count for Planet which has been a featured article. Excluding refs it was 9000 words. This one is currently 5000 words. So I'm less concerned now about how we will 'fit everything in'. I think the primary concern is to make sure the content is reliable, relevant, clear in its explanations, and makes an interesting read.

Also, I recently noticed that the daily featured articles don't usually have references in the lede. I checked this point recently with an administrator, who confirmed this and made some interesting observations on this page (from an independent viewpoint) which are worth reading in full here. What he said of this lede is of particular interest:

"Although the lede is only four paragraphs (complying with MOS guidelines), I think it is too long and contains too much detailed information that could be added further down. The value of the lede, apart from summing-up all that goes below, is that it excites people's interest in reading the rest of the article. I read the Astrology lede and my eyes glazed over - I needed two or three goes to begin to get to grips with it, which doesn't help the article for the average or uninitiated reader. If I took a free hand to copyedit this lede I would put and develop the sentence "According to Gallup opinion polls..." somewhere else as it is a detailed development of the broad point in the previous sentence, and I would put and develop the sentence "Astrology cannot be classified as science because..." into the "Criticism" section for the same reason. I would then try to compact the rest a little if possible for a more succinct and digestible read." Zac Δ talk 21:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I explained that the lede is best left referenced until the rest of the article is sorted out, and that it's not worth developing a whole new discussion on the lede again just yet, but I hope no one minds that I'll enact these specific suggestions. I do agree and I think we have to ensure that 'readability' is a high priority as we develop new content. Zac Δ talk 21:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes which should improve the situation for now. I've left references for all points that have yet to be developed. The criticisms section can be developed now with a few of the significant themes in place.

I would like to suggest asking the copy-editor quoted above if he would take another look at the lede and tell us if this is better. Would everyone be OK with that? (it would mean leaving the lede as it currently is for a few days to give him chance to look at it). Zac Δ talk 02:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zac - Administrator?!!! - I wish :) Just a lowly editor who wishes to see articles written with good sources, NPOV and clarity, regardless of the subject. Thanks for forwarding this message. What is in the new lede is much sharper. As determinism is blue-linked, so too could disposition, to define both positions, if the disposition article says what is wanted. In "is no direct 'influence' from the stars" I don't think that influence needs to be stressed (influence is influence), but 'stars' maybe, as it's a colloquialism for the whole subject. Does "(only a synchronistic correlation between the celestial and terrestrial)" more or less imply "disposition" anyway ? - if not it shows I can't understand, as an uninitiated reader, what is said - I think it doesn't need the rather opaque bracketed qualification, which can be explained further down if necessary. From my POV, the lede is reading a lot better, and is a lot more understandable for not being so cluttered. Acabashi (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Very useful feedback Acabashi, thanks. Sorry for calling you an administrator - don't know why I did that; I don't think I was thinking that even at the time I wrote the word.

I've made all those changes but I'm going to ask other editors to help with the edit of the sentence in the last paragraph which currently says:

"Astrologers have long debated the degree of determinism in astrology. Some believe celestial movements control fate, others that they determine only disposition. Whilst most astrologers contend there is no direct influence from the stars (only a synchronistic correlation between the celestial and terrestrial) astrology has been criticized for not offering a clear account of its physical mechanism and failing to develop new theories in line with modern scientific principles.[5] It has thus been called a pseudoscientific subject by members of the modern scientific community.[6]"

This has already had an attempt at simplification and I don't think it's possible to just omit it without some revisision to the text around it. But as someone who use to look at words like this and wonder what they meant myself, I agree, we shouldn't use a term like 'synchronistic correlation' before explaining what it means.

Perhaps Ken, you will have a suggestion about this? The aim of the last paragraph is to highlight that astrology is not free of controversy, does suffer from lack of clarity about its theoretical basis, and is no longer an approved part of science.

Or we could leave this for now; but remain wary that it's a point to come back to and fix later.

Acabashi, would you be willing to read through the section on 'Etymology and basci definitions' in the same way - that is not expected to have many more changes and your non-astrology eyes will be ussful for picking up where we have slipped into astro-speak without realising that the reader may not share the language. Would be very good if you could. Thanks -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Core principles

I am looking at the text in the core principles section and would like to expand this a little, give some more references, and present what is currently there in a style which is more explanatory for the general reader. This is what I would like to propose as an amendment to the first of the two paragraphs on the main page: (I have not included wiki-links and refs at this stage to same time, but I have emboldened what will be wiki-links, and inserted [] for all the points where I have good quality references:

One of the fundamental principles of astrology is that there is a holistic connection between the earth and the cosmos which surrounds it.[] These are not seen as essentially separate or subject to different laws, but affected by shared impulses and energy-shifts,[] so that cycles of change which occur in the heavens are reflective (not causative) of similar cycles of change on earth. This philosophy, first recognised and documented by ancient civilizations,[] finds expression in the astrological aphorism "as above, so below; as below, so above": known as the Hermetic maxim because it is part of the Emerald Tablet attributed to Hermes Trismegistus.[][16] The precept assumes symmetry between the life of the individual as a microcosm and the celestial macrocosm which operates to the same natural laws.[] Hence the natal chart presents a stylized map of the universe at the time of birth, as specifically focussed on the individual at its centre, with the Sun, Moon, and celestial bodies considered to be that individual’s personal planets or stars, which are uniquely relative to that individual alone.

Ken, I believe you contributed the original text so please let me know if you would have any problems with this amendment.

Does anyone have any objections, comments or suggestions on this?

Zac, I know this stuff, but my eyes glaze over at the first line at this proposal. What is a "holistic connection"? These connections are not "essentially separate"? There's laws? There are Impulses and energy shifts (is this physics?)? I'm lost. Principles are fundamental and require precise definitions and technical wording. As with all definitions, they are very condensed and cannot stray off or go fuzzy. You might want to look at the five principles I proposed in a peer reviewed Correlation article "Astrology and the Social Sciences: Looking inside the Black Box of Astrology Theory" starting on page 7. http://www.theoryofastrology.com/black_box/correlation24-1-mcritchie.pdf. When I drafted Core Principles here I used only two to keep it brief, but they are the most familiar and important in supporting the astrological premise. The other three can almost be derived from these two. I'm not sure how technical this WP article should be. There's a lot left unsaid in a lot of sections, but there are references to read for greater depth. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Zac, what is it that you sense is missing? Do you feel there should be explicit mention of a holistic approach? We could add nativity as a principle. It has to do with origin and places the native at the center of the universe (the native basically is the universe in this POV). Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I think you are looking at this purely from the eyes of modern science. But we have to give a subject with a 4000-year history a comprehensive treatment and present the prose in a way that is easy for a general reader to relate to. The text above is, as I said, all solidly referenced to reliable historical sources. Since we are talking about 'core principles' those principles run deep and arise from classical philosophy as I will show by the references. Your text is brief but we have to make it engaging too, and the WP:SS states that sections in articles should each be "several good-sized paragraphs long". Hence we can't force an important section like 'Core principles' down to just a few brief comments, which is just a fraction of the size of the 'Astrology and science' section.

Yes, I do feel there should be specific mention of the word 'holistic' - maybe you have a reaction to this word because you feel it epitimises New Age thinking, but not only is this a word that a great many astrologers would expect to see mentioned, it is a core concept that goes back to ancient sources and was deeply embedded within ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian astrology. I don't think we should add more about 'nativity', because I think that point is adequately made already. I have no angles to push here so I hope you will give me your support on this because there is a lot to do, so I would really like to make this update and move on to to the next job at hand. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Core Principles section can be expanded and more principles added if it would help. I only added two just for brevity. I've identified five in my book and in my article. The principles, or precepts, must be drawn from the ancient traditions of astrology, but then again they need to be explained in a way that makes sense to modern readers because astrology has a modern practice and needs principles to stand as points of agreement in the development of concepts, discourse, practice, and research. For example, what are the implications of the ancient and seemingly obscure phrase "as above, so below"? It needs to be explained.

We must agree that principles are not just ancient folksy sayings we dig up, but are the foundation that organizes the world view. They clarify and separate astrological thought from non-astrological thought. They resolve disputes and arguments because you are either arguing astrology or you are not. That is their function. When I placed the two principles in this section, the arguments of Makesense64 and Andy, whether they realized it or not, fell apart because their challenges were not within the astrological paradigm, purview, or world view. They were making assumptions that astrology was something it is not or that astrology did not include something that it does include.

The language of the principles, whether scientific sounding or philosophical, or metaphysical doesn't matter as long as the principles are clear and understood by the audience and especially by the most challenging audience. If the principles are clearly stated they should fend off challenges, in this case reversions and impertinences. They should also resolve the root of all confusions over for example, what a "planet" is, questions over "mechanism," how the astrological ages should be measured, and all other sticky issues. These arguments need to be carefully traced back to the root if they can, to the precepts or principles, and then developed back out to the issue. It's not always easy to get everyone on board unless the principles are clear.

The principles must be very basic, more basic than most people think. For example, sometimes you will see planet properties referred to as "planetary principles." These are not principles because planetary properties are observed and inferred based on the structure and organization of underlying astrological principles.

The principles, as I have discussed them with skeptics, philosophers, and peer reviewers, should cover the astrological organization of space, time, number, origin, and pattern. They are what separate astrology from other world views, including current scientific views. This is what I can offer. It is not original research because these precepts have been developed in concert with peers that include both proponents and opponents of astrology and represent a consensus. With this said, principles, like definitions or mathematical axioms, are difficult to express clearly and concisely, and there is always room for improvement based on whatever else we can find in the sources. Ken McRitchie (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken as you and I are not seeing eye to eye on this I've added the text that I've spent the last few days developing. It is all substantiated text and I've ensured that it is drawn from a variety of sources. I have incorporated the text you initiated and kept those references, and included a reference to one of your own comments. Let's see what other editors think - like everything else in the article, it is subject to revision. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Zac, It's okay, I don't mind you taking the lead. You have sources and content that you want to put in the article. I myself don't actually know what to do at this point. I realize that the only way I could place in Wikipedia all of what I would like to see there would be to introduce it with my own name and for too many reasons that cannot be done. I hope that what I have offered above can serve as guidelines on what the principles represent, so we can keep it as clear as possible because principles are easy to muddle. I prefer an axiomatic approach. It's an ideal but it's a good direction to go. The question of principles is a huge puzzle and we may not have all the pieces or know what it should look like in the end. We just need to pick up each piece and see where it fits best. I'll look it over and edit. Sometimes two or more people working together can arrive at solutions that none of them would have thought of alone. Ken McRitchie (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The WP policy of building content on what is said in the sources (right or wrong) is a good one. We are here to report basically, what is being said, thought, and considered in the world at large - offering explanations as best we can, to show what the general view of the subject is. It's a bit awkward for authors who are subject experts when they edit in WP, because their expertise is needed, but it can't allow for them to promote their own point of view. However, this can be referenced if it is appropriate and substantiating a reliable point made in the article. Whilst there are sensitivities about editors referencing their own published work, this is not against the rules, providing no conflict of interest is taking place. In my opinion, not only is it permissable for this to happen within the right context, it should happen, so that there is clarity if that editor, as an author, has clearly expressed the point in published works. (If it is a significant one it will stay; if not it won't). I'm imagining that you've given to WP a great deal of the references to many independently published works that you have collected as part of your own work. Your contributions of references are quite outstanding in the science section. If you have published yourself on that subject in a format as reliable as the one I quoted, then it is not innapropriate to reference that work too. If you are unsure of the pertinancy, or feel that there could be any cause for someone to question a COI, probably the best thing to do is to call our attention to it and ask us to consider the appropriateness of it - in the end the editorial team takes responsibility for what appears on the page (and that will shift over time just as the page content will shift over time).-- Zac Δ ^talk! 08:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement is frustrating, but it can be creative and is necessary as it will force editors to check their sources and back up their arguments. The Core Principles section is currently much too detailed for this article and often in a language that is too technical. Without knowing who edited which parts, my suggestions will no doubt offend all authors and may be based on my misunderstanding.

• First two sentences starting "One of the precepts ... " could be reworded into a single sentence. (Normally I like short sentences, but I think this can be succinct) The word precept is not frequently used (not to me in the US, UK, Ireland or Aus) and could be replaced with basic or essential principle, tenet, maxim etc. We need a better connecting sentence or separate them.
• The first sentences outline what I would term anima mundi - the world soul (which includes the living universe) and here I think Plotinus is a good reference. Then we move onto the Hermetic Maxim which is related but a different concept. I don't think one can be assumed from the other, though they both appeal to the anthropomorphic principle i.e. our DNA etched into every cell is reflected in our entirety.
• Holism is an important principle of astrology and I think it goes back to Plato and certainly Jung argued that there was a co-creative process between the client, astrologer and cosmos - take one out and it fails - which makes testing impossible. Holism is why sun sign astrology is so limited when compared to the whole horoscope.
• Paragraphs 1 to 3 should be merged into one (i.e. reduced by 1/3). The content is fascinating and rigorously sourced, but it requires a lot of highly skilled editing so it doesn't get corrupted. What seems to be key is the role of Plato, Pythagoras, Ptolemy and Kepler and how a astrology taps into a universal mathematical code in the form of ratio, visual geometry (angles & shapes) and in sound. There should be a subpage for a fuller explanation of this. While breaking the Universe down to a mathematical code is a popular concept in science, I believe that the Platonic/Keplerian shapes currently have no support within or outside astrology - apart from historical interest. The sound of the planets is relevant though they are not audible in the sense that we understand sound.
• The uncited last sentence in the final para "Bacon's precept also suggests an empirical approach to astrology that led to early attempts to discover tendencies through statistical inference (see Research)" may be or may not correct, but it doesn't seem necessary and should be dropped.

Robert Currey talk 15:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of good and well reasoned points. I am going to leave the edit of that section to others. (I think that is a good policy for all content - fresh eyes should pull it into shape and identify the best points and cut out complexities). From the point of view of comment, I only have an issue with this one remark: "I believe that the Platonic/Keplerian shapes currently have no support within or outside astrology - apart from historical interest."

I'm not sure what you mean by Keperlian shapes, but the content refers to geometrical principles. These always have been, and still are a core principle of astrology - outside of astrology the metaphysics of the principle is not understood, (and in fact, within astrology it is not as well understood as it should be), but every astrologer uses the principle whenever they make a qualitative difference between a trine aspect and a square aspect (or any other). The principle goes on through Kepler of course. Charles Carter wrote about it and so did many other important names (not sure how many references we need)). If we are talking about core principles, then the view that qualities are expressed through material shape and form has got to be one of the most, if not the most, important; both then - and now, IMO. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I take it that the Platonic/Kepler solids are the 3D version of the aspect angles - so a trine forms a three sided pyramid (tetrahedron) and a square forms a cube? I will try to see if I can edit (and try to condense) paras 2 - 4 and remain faithful to the original text. I may put it in a sandbox before posting. Robert Currey talk 22:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not quite the same but they have the same associations so the principle is along those lines. Sandbox is a good idea. (Also, I uncommented the Hindu text. Cheers -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just finished a copy-edit of the Core Principles section based on the sandbox suggestions of Robert Currey and Ken McRitchie and my own considerations. This is not to say that it is in it's final form now, but we are getting there. (It might be a good idea for all of us to detach our minds from this section for a while and then return to it later when we can look at it again in an objective assesment of how it compliments the overall structure and information path of the page). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - nothing is ever in final form on Wikipedia - which is why so many Encylopediae Britannica are being pulped. There is some good material here and I have learnt much from my part in researching and checking it. However, I have criticisms and intend to come back to it at some time in the future. Robert Currey talk 15:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added some of this content to Musica Universalis and edited it to ensure that this sub page is in line with the main Astrology page. I have tagged some of the older material on that page as it needs citation. Robert Currey talk 15:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to add the source info for the references there - I've just added them in. Cheers, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Robert Currey talk 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Mechanisms update

I've drafted a complete update of the Mechanisms section, see my sandbox at: User:Ken_McRitchie/sandbox4. I think this is the best place to mention the "Objections to Astrology" article (though it can also be mentioned elsewhere) and Carl Sagan's comments on it. Sagan commented at length on the mechanisms claim and only made passing reference to the authoritarian tone. Feyerabend commented mainly on the authoritarian tone, but I think this aspect of Objections is of secondary interest and had far less impact to the development of modern astrology than the mechanisms issue. There is good astrological literature in response to the issues of mechanisms. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is very good. The two points I noticed were only this:

1. The point substantiated by reference 5, which is to: G. Phillipson, Astrology in the Year Zero. Flare Publications (London, 2000) ISBN 0-9530261-9-1 - could you indicate page references or at least one of the passages in the book that covers the point?
2. The final comment reads: "A few researchers, such as astronomer Percy Seymour, have sought to describe a mechanism that could potentially explain astrology.". This left me wanting to know a little more about what this is. Could it briefly outlined? Either at this point, or in an additional note at the end, or through a very brief encapsulation of the idea in the footnote?

Other than that it's great. I see no reason not to add this straight to the page. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Zac, these are good suggestions but I will have to rely on others to provide the information because I don't have access these particular sources. These references were developed by other editors for the existing section and I just carried them over. Details would be great. Anyone? Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the Mechanisms section from the rework in the sandbox. Redundant content that appeared in the Astrology and Science lede (Objections to Astrology and Sagan's response) has been removed from that lede. Ken McRitchie (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Re, the point with ref 5, which reads: "Few modern astrologers believe that astrology can be explained by any direct causal mechanisms in the classical sense between planets and people.[5]" - I have Phillipson's book but I don't think it is a point that is actually covered within that text. I wonder if this needs to refer to modern astrologers though, since it's a well established traditional principle that celestial movements are mirroring rather than causing. It is such a general astrological principle that I don't believe it is controversial and so doesn't actually need a footnote. It could just read "Few astrologers believe that astrology can be explained by any direct causal mechanisms between planets and people". To use the phrase "in the classical sense" implies that this was the classical view but I don't believe it ever was. Just a thought.

I don't have the Seymour text so can't help with that one. Again, I think it is best to remove the reference if it's not clear what it is we are referencing and can't give some kind of account of it. I notice the McGillion text is available online and not too long. I quickly went through it in the hope I could summarise it but this is really outside my comfort zone. Maybe you are someone else could give a very brief summary, so that we are qualifying the point that new theories on astrology are still being developed ? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 20:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Zac, Good point about removing "modern astrologers" and "classical sense," which I've done along with the Phillipson reference, which is not necessary as you point out. What "classical" means can be confusing. Here I think it was intended to relate to "classical" gravity and electromagnetism, not anything from antiquity. Better just to remove these since they don't jibe with astrological principles in the first place. I don't have Seymour's text either, but I think it is correct that he was proposing a causal mechanism. I'd hesitate to remove this one, but it does need to be verified and some details added. Ken McRitchie (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: In Mechanisms The statement "Some astrologers have posited a basis in divination," is referenced to Geoffrey Cornelius, The Moment of Astrology. Is this correct? I need to ask because the quote inserted in the ref footnote says nothing about divination. Ken McRitchie (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed this and given a relevant quote from the book -- Zac Δ ^talk! 08:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! :) Ken McRitchie (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this passage again, after reading the page as a whole, I wonder if the final paragraph of that section adds anything that hasn't already been stated cleary on several occasions before:

Few astrologers believe that astrology can be explained by any direct causal mechanisms between planets and people. Researchers have posited acausal, purely correlational, relationships between astrological observations and events. For example, the theory of synchronicity proposed by Carl Jung, which draws from the ancient Hermetic principle of 'as above, so below,' postulates meaningful significance in unrelated events that occur simultaneously. Some astrologers have posited a basis in divination. Others have argued that empirical correlations stand on their own, and do not need the support of any theory or mechanism. A few researchers, such as astronomer Percy Seymour, have sought to describe a mechanism that could potentially explain astrology.

As a suggestion and comment, I'd be inclined to cut that one or reduce it down significantly. The previous text reads well on its own.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for the history section

The history section needs a complete rethink. The present content and subheading structure is so poor that it is hardly worth the effort of trying to substantiate it. I am going to try to work on this section whilst simultaneously working on the spin-off articles it gives reference to.

Astrology has a vast history so it is going to be difficult to keep this as brief as it needs to be whilst not making the overview so brief that salient points cannot be made.

Rather than the 6 subsections we currently have - 1) Traditions, 2) Horoscopic astrology, 3) Origins, 4) Before the modern era, 5) Contemporary changes 6) Notable personalities - I propose:

1. Astrology in the ancient world
2. Hellenistic astrology
3. Byzantine and early medieval Islamic astrology
4. Astrology in medieval Europe
5. The Renaissance and Enlightenment
6. Astology in the modern era

These six headings should allow us to cover all the relevant issues within the six headings currently on the page, and also allow explanation of issues concerning the periods of decline. As the content is put together it will entail some flux and shifting. Bits may be longer than they ought to be at first, and can be cut down as the content is pulled together. For the time being I will comment out, rather than remove current content so that it can be easily restored if needs be. Is this OK? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Other cultural systems of astrology

The article has a problem in that it has given information on Hindu astrology, but fails to reference other systems such as Chinese astrology.

I'm not sure what we do about this - for now I am taking the section on contemporary changes in Hindu astrology out of the History section, placing the commented text in a new section at the bottom of the page called 'Other world systems', and making clear by a header reference that this page's focus is western astrology - again giving a link to other cultural systems there. I'm not deleting any text, only commenting it in case anyone presents a different suggestion to this problem. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the main astrology page treating Western astrology only? There is a note to that effect on the top of the page. SLP 16:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarLightPiazza (talk • contribs)

That was my suggestion - but it was only a suggestion, (explained above) because I can't see how the article can do justice to all systems. However, if others disagree then let's discuss and decide how the article is going to cover the other systems, where, and to what extent. I'm actually quite easy about this - I was aware of a recent editor's criticism (not made on this talk-page) that the article is biased because it doesn't give coverage to Chinese astrology (his preferred system). But where do we draw the line - there is so much to cover as it is. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As it is called Astrology and as there is a Western Astrology page, I think this article should remain inclusive. However, since this is the English language Wikipedia, it is appropriate that the Western tradition predominates. IMO the article should also account for Hindu astrology and the Vedic astrologers in the west - especially the schools and the known shared origins. There should also be a smaller acknowledgement of other current practices, namely: Chinese and other Asiatic forms of astrology so people can follow links. I don't think 'extinct' versions like the Mayan and other 'New World' systems or Nadi Astrology should be listed at all here. My personal belief is that most of these systems have a common ancestry rather than separate evolution, but that claim would be Original Research.

Maybe the opening, header line could read "See also List of astrological traditions, types, and systems" In addition, to other cultural variations, this link takes you to lists of other schools like Huber, types like Horary and Electional and systems like Evolutionary Astrology, Kabbalistic and Cosmobiology. All of this would be far too much to accommodate on this page. Robert Currey talk 19:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I edited the disambiguation(?) at the top. Zac, are you able to restore the most relevant Hindu astrology points to Other cultural systems of astrology, please? Obviously, it will need editing by an editor with expertise in the field assuming it is not your speciality. Robert Currey talk 22:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, Robert. I'm not sure that It is appropriate to have Western astrology dominate the page just because it is in English but if that's the case it should be noted somewhere. SLP 01:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarLightPiazza (talk • contribs)

Astrological techniques and practices?

Question - do we really need a section here for 'Astrological techniques and practices' - we can't possibly cover that, and what is within this section is hardly going to be infomative for anyone. Wikipedia has two other pages that act as major introductions to technique: Western astrology and Horoscopic astrology. I think it would make much more sense to not get into matters of technique on this page, but to give simple 'see also' links to those pages, and keep this one focused on presenting an overview of what astrology is about, what it aims to do, how it has affected history and world culture, and how its veracity is debated. Can I ask for other opinions on this? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's much too much, and don't forget mapping and relocation techniques. Links would be better. I've moved the good criticism: "Skeptics have claimed that the practice of western astrologers allows them to avoid making verifiable predictions, and gives them the ability to attach significance to arbitrary and unrelated events, in a way that suits their purpose" to the Criticism section, though I'm not sure if the given reference is the best for this common assertion. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it - we can grab it from history if anyone makes a case for it, but I can't imagine that happening.

I'm also thinking that the section on astrological education would be better strimmed down to the most relevant details and then included towards the end of the 'Astrology in the modern era' section. But we can decide this later. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article has much emphasis on what astrology was (history), may or may not be (philosophy), is not (criticisms) and its impact elsewhere (effects on world culture), but nothing on what astrology is. For example, where does it mention the Ascendant or Rising Sign or that there are 12 signs of the zodiac? Somewhere such basic mechanics need to be clarified. Where will this now fit?

I feel the article is becoming too technical and too academic when it should be accessible to a wider range of readers. I plan to make some edit suggestions to reduce this imbalance.

Also, in the Effects on World Culture "Some modern thinkers, notably Carl Jung,[65] believe in astrology's descriptive powers regarding the mind without necessarily subscribing to its predictive claims." Though I am unable to see the original text and it is an interesting point, I don't see this as relevant to the section. Unless someone would like to move it elsewhere, I will take it out. Robert Currey talk 10:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert raises an important point. The frames of reference (signs, houses, and aspects) are barely touched upon. I'm not sure that "Techniques and Practices" is the best heading, but there needs to be a place to briefly describe the main working features of astrology: planets, reference frames, Ascendant and brief mention of less commonly used "extras" such as Dark Moon etc.

I'd like to cut back on some of the lengthy, historically and philosophically oriented Principles section, but I'll need to study it. It's a challenging read and even I need to re-read it to follow it. Some readers do respond well to a challenge and can be inspired by it, but I'm not sure that this is what we want for the typical audience. I have thought about adding a table of principles to the end of that section. A table can provide greater coverage though with less depth. For those who want depth, there are the sources, many of which have links to online articles.

I don't think the Jung reference belongs in Effects on World Culture. Maybe it should go into the Psychological Astrology article, if it's not already there. Ken McRitchie (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it needs more adding Ken; it needs reducing. You and I are probably best to stand aside and let other editors work on it freely. I would propose (just my own view) that the final paragraph is not talkiing about a core principle as much as an philosophical/theological statement. This could be moved from here into the theological criticisms section, because it would make a good counter point to the arguments of those who have criticised astrology for being fatalistic.

Re the coverage of techniques - I see no reason to add explanation of techniques on this page. They are not being brought up in discussions so don't need explanation. The article Western astrology is dedicated to giving explation of the techniques. Maybe a more prominent link to that? Or a very very brief outline that links to that for further information? But please, can we avoid creating a new section for this? Stylistically the article looks horrible with too many sections which have only brief content. I would prefer to reduce the coverage of the 'education' section into one paragraph giving of the most interesting details (Kepler college, Sophia, Faculty and maybe one or two others; the fact that it is a university subject in places like India) and then this could be included as a concluding point within 'Astrology in the Modern era'). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that there is a section for lengthier notes of explanation which are not pivotal to page content, but can add valuable supplimentary material. Consider the prospect of creating some brief explanation that can go in there and (again) make the reference to the page that is dedicated to the matter of technique. (Bear in mind, it will have to cover the most standard views only - otherwise it could turn into a minefield of contention and ongoing debate). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think what Robert is suggesting is a basic description of signs, houses, aspects, and planets that you'd find in any introductory text. What are they and what do they mean in very basic terms? It could be called "Basics" unless there's something better.

I agree that the Principles section needs to be cut down in length. It needs to be easy to read. The "Baconian precept" of "The stars incline, rather than compel," is actually about the principle of correlation and Bacon has stated it better and earlier than anything else I've yet seen. If correlation is not set down as a principle then there can be no justification for making or even attempting to make any astrological claims based on correlation. The same goes for all of the basic principles. All astrological claims need to be based on principles. Correlation, for example, removes the necessity for having a mechanism and makes astrology different from other disciples where a mechanism is a requirement. In other words, once it is clearly understood that astrology is about correlation, it nullifies the mechanism argument. The same sort of positioning applies to all of the principles. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes - Basics sounds right for the mechanics.

Principles

Ken, I note your point about Bacon and correlation. Can you take me through how the stars incline... (freewill) is about the principle of correlation as the opposite, determinism can also manifest as correlation? Also, neither freewill nor fate has any bearing on causation. However, in terms of statistical significance there is a big difference between freewill which suggests probability/forecast (due to choice) p ≤ 0.05, while determinism suggests inevitability/prediction p=0. Robert Currey talk 22:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC) McRitchie|talk]]) 18:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: correlation: I agree this is the important principle to convey but I don't see it being dependent on a reference to Bacon. It is the microcosm-macroscosm theory which supports the principle of correlation. The comment about the stars impelling rather than compelling can be made as part of that. Also, it would be wrong to suggest that Bacon was responsible for that maxim; it was one he repeated, not originated. It was well worn before his time, quoted by Hieronymous Wolf, Richard Burton, Raleigh, Dante and Thomas Aquinas. I'm not sure Aquinas is the earliest to have used it but the earliest I can find reference to having used it. (see here and here). It's one of those sayings that has been used over and over, so that it mostly gets attributed to the 'ancient astrologers'. Aquinas says he is quoting Ptolemy when he uses it, but I think he is quoting the gist of what Ptolemy was saying in the Tetrabiblos, rather than any phrase that can be attributed to Ptolemy (so possibly Aquinas was the one who turned it into a memorable aphorism) -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert, We need to be careful about the use of "mechanics" wrt astrology basics. Skeptics will swarm all over it with the old "where is the mechanism?" issue, which should not even be an issue. So for the sake of peace, stability, and potential consensus, I'd avoid it. It's not "mechanics" but "properties." Speaking of a "psychological mechanism" would be different but I don't see how it could go in this article.

Bacon does not take credit for the principle he states. "Precept" BTW wasn't my idea, but a couple of peer reviewers (anonymous to me) used it. I like it because it combines "teaching" with a suggestion of "pre-concept." This precept, or principle, tenant, maxim, or whatever you want to call it, coincided with a major shift in astrological philosophy away from the "fatal necessity" of the medieval era (although not everyone, like William Lilly, shifted) but towards empirical "inclinations" of the early modern era. That is why Bacon, the empiricist, is important. He was there when the shift happened and he remarked on it, and he's a major figure that demands a lot of respect among skeptics as long as they are attached to the idea of empiricism. We need a consensus. Associating this with Bacon has a lot of persuasive power because it resolves a cognitive dissonance. There very well were others before Bacon, such as Aquinas, but they are a matter of only slight historical interest because they weren't able to do anything significant with it. Aquinas doesn't say what the specific inclinations are, just that they must be resisted by free will against them. When Bacon, the empiricist, says the same thing, we don't assume that the inclinations are all bad; we just admit that we actually don't know until we go and look. Resurrecting Aquinas as the "originator" rather than a mere influence would give an unhistorical emphasis to the wrong place and time. This sort of unhistorical scholarship is why the "New Age" WP article has become corrupt as hell and the big picture is missed.

The stars do not compel (fate) but they incline (show tendency). Tendencies can be great or small and can increase and decrease. If you measure where the increases and decreases happen, you can zero in on something meaningful, the minima and maxima, or "eminences" in terms of the Gauquelin studies. This is how correlation works, by measuring covariances and finding where the eminences significantly match. Where the eminences match is what gives meaning or "properties" to the measurements, which are numbers. So ultimately, inclination and correlation gives meaning to numbers. Correlation is really a principle of numbers. Clear as mud now?

The stars "impel" is something different. This means the stars are not external influences directly affecting us by some causal link, but are urges that come from within us because we live in concert with the stars. This is the principle of diachronic synchronicity, which I've called "coevolution" (though I'm not attached to the label). It has to do with time, tempo, and music of the spheres. Diachronic synchronicity or coevolution can only happen because all cycles, no matter how long or short, all resemble each other developmentally. The developmental cycle (stages or phases of growth and maturity) is universal.

The microcosm-macrocosm is something different from the principle of correlation. Correlation has to do with the organization of number and microcosm-macrocosm has to do with the organization of space by reference to symmetries. So it is actually correlativity (the principle of correlative worlds).

We need to be careful about references to anima mundi (the world soul) because that concept is besieged by skeptics or psceptics. I don't think we should go looking for trouble if we don't need to. We should seek a consensus. The recognition of identities and states as properties rather than as anthropomorphic personalities or appetites was one of the distinguishing features of early modern science. The principles of Nativity (center of the whole universe) and "as above, so below" (correlative worlds defined by symmetries) are not anthropomorphic and provide a basis for a holistic worldview (or at least Nativity does). The anima mundi is an interesting cultural artifact, akin to the air god Shu bringing the universe into existence by separating his two children, Geb (earth) and Nut (sky) from their embrace. That is an ancient cosmology of genesis described in anthropomorphic terms. It is hardly recognizable as anything related to modern cosmology. We'll get a lot closer to consensus if anima mundi is regarded as an historical concept that has been updated using non-anthropomorphic terms (precepts). Ken McRitchie (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken these are big debates and not what we should be getting into on the page itself, or even in this talk-area. By following the WP principle of reporting the consensus view based on established sources we don’t need to go into intricate points – keep the content simple and focused on the uncontroversial facts. It is well-established that medieval astrology did not support the idea fatal necessity and this can be covered in the history section (you have to go back to the stoic influence of the classical era to find that, and even then it was debated passionately and Ptolemy covers the point to clarify that astrology describes predisposition). The ‘impel’ maxim was well used in the 13th century, and probably existed as a maxim long before then – remember that the theological tenets of astrology were of the greatest significance in the medieval era and it was precisely because astrology did not imply fatal necessity that astrology was protected against theological criticism and the dangers of the inquisition. (Also, Lilly did not hold a view of fatal necessity – I can only imagine your assumption of that comes from a misconception amongst some modern astrologers that horary is necessarily fatalistic, rather than being a system of forecasting and analysis which is more specific only because the context of the chart is more specific. Judicial astrology drew most of the theological criticism, but it only becomes fatalstic if the astrologer uses it in a fatalistic manner, which Lilly did not.) There were many who attached empirical study to astrology before Bacon, because most of the leading astrologers of history were also the leading astronomers of the day. To suggest the Bacon initiated a shift in that regard distorts the history of astrology before him. It would generate lengthy argument and require an in-depth discussion that can't be accomodated on this page.

It is also misleading to differentiate ‘correlation’ from the philosophy of universal harmony, by which the microcosm and macrocosm are united, and alternative in correlation with each other. Note the comment from Alkindi (9th cent.) in reference 17 of the article: “... we say that one thing acts with its elemental rays on another, but according to the exquisite truth it does not act but only the celestial harmony acts”. This is the principle that most well known astrologers/natural philosophers of earlier ages championed. It is the same principle as that for which Jung proposed the term ‘synchronicity’, after acquainting himself with Hermetic philosophies: ‘as above …and so forth’

Also, I do not feel we need to be careful about making reference to pivotal points of astrological philosophy, such as anima mundi as ‘world soul’, but that we have an obligation to present these core concepts and demonstrate that astrology was, historically, a primarily philosophical and metaphysical study. It is as it is, and astrology will always have it sceptics and critics just as it always has. Because it is so deeply philosophical the potential for debate is endless, but ending debate is not what we should be trying to achieve here. We only need to ensure that any point we make here is reliable and easily substantiated. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken, the reason I am asking these questions is that I am a sceptic and I want to be certain that whatever is put up on this page is supported by clear independent references rather than original research or what may to some seem like a natural or obvious conclusion, but to others a leap of faith. I think rather than debate the content, can you or someone edit the last two sentences in the Core Principles with citation, deletion, addition (if necessary) & clarification. The final sentence is the the most contentious. It, at least, needs a citation or quote from Bacon or a biographer/historian that ties him to empirical study or measurement rather than free-will or theoretical causes. Depending on the relevance of the reference, it can be kept or moved or taken out. Robert Currey talk 10:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've edited Core principles, as suggested. I've trimmed a bit. In terms of principles, the four paragraphs seem to suggest principles that might be described as something like: integrated cosmos and symmetry, geometric consonances and properties, interpretation of the consonances code, and psychological effects and access. See User:Ken_McRitchie/Sandbox1. Hope this helps. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ken. Paragraphs 1 & 4 are good. (I am not sure if it should be the Cosmos or the cosmos). Unless someone provides it, I will try to find a reference to the last sentence on para 4. I too, have been working on paras 2 & 3 and will try to incorporate your ideas including the structure that you proposed. Robert Currey talk 18:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. The edited draft is just a draft and I'm happy to pass it on to the next editor. If I've added ideas that changed the meaning, then this is not what I wanted to do. I was trying to simplify and clarify by editing. I tried to remove some of the polemics and redundancies and leave facts and background. I believe if we can focus on what principles are bring presented then it will become easier to write and understand. This is not the more axiomatic approach I've always held as an ideal, and the principles don't seem as "basic" to me as they should be, but my edits are based on how I read and understand the existing section. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ken. I have redrafted the 3 middle paragraphs on my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robertcurrey/draft-sandbox3 and Zac has redrafted it again so it has come down from 500 to 300 words. The paragraph could split at the words: "Later philosophers retained..." Please could everyone have a look and provide critical feedback as I intend to put it up onto the page shortly. Robert Currey talk 09:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Redraft (Core Principles Para 2) reads much better with some of the details inserted in the footnotes. I've inserted some comments and requests for clarifications. Since this is supposed to be American English, I've used "that" for some of the "which" (which is used only in clauses separated by commas), and serial commas (comma before final "and"). Also NASA is an acronym that should be in u.c. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen your comments and concur with most suggestions - thanks. Zac who researched them will be better placed to answer most of the questions. Robert Currey talk 18:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Astrology and science?

The current heading "Astrology and science," which includes Research and other sub-sections, seems to suggest that astrological research and science are distinctly at odds or different. Yet the two main studies mentioned (Gauquelin and Carlson) involve experiments that used empirical scientific methods. The remnant that still exists in the Astrology and Science lede, covering the divergence of astrology and astronomy and changes in attitudes, could be moved to either the History or Criticism section. Then the Astrology and Science heading could be removed and the Research heading and other sub-headings could be promoted in heading levels. The "Mechanisms" section could stay in the Research section, but might actually go better under Criticism sections. The Criticisms section should probably be divided into sub-sections for scientific criticism and theological criticism. Any objections or suggestions? Ken McRitchie (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: the remnant that still exists in the Astrology and Science lede - I think it is better to remove this rather than shift it. It's misleading in suggesting that astrology and astronomy seperated by the time of Francis Bacon. As Paul Quigley has already pointed out (and he is right) astrology thrived in the Renaissance and the seperation didn't happen until the 17th century. But all this will be covered in the history section so there is no need for it to be repeated - that will also end the problem of the uncited asertions.

I also agree it makes sense to give subheadings for theological and scientific criticisms.

I've removed the Astrology and Science heading for the reasons given. The split with astronomy will be covered in the History section. To be correct however, Francis Bacon was not a Renaissance figure, but lived and wrote in the 17th century. Astrology did indeed decline as science developed empirical methods (and importantly, strict mathematically deterministic "laws" of certainty) during the early modern period and this should be reflected in the History section. This split occurred at a time when astrology was turning away from fatalistic determinism and law-like statements (or at least the perception as such likely arising from its texts full of worst case scenarios IMO). Ken McRitchie (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was an important figure in the English Renaissance. Robert Currey talk 11:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. It seems the English Renaissance stretched a little further than what I was thinking. Ken McRitchie (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Basic tenets of astrology

Robert Currey made an observation which I was going to comment on as well. He says: It seems to me that the article has much emphasis on what astrology was (history), may or may not be (philosophy), is not (criticisms) and its impact elsewhere (effects on world culture), but nothing on what astrology is. It appears that editors are in agreement on the creation of a new section which would describe the basics of astrology. Ken McRitchie suggests Basics which is not a bad name. Other possibilities: The basics, Overview, Basic tenets. Anyone else with suggestions? SLP (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not call it "see: Western astrology"?

:)

We are talking about techniques here right? Because 'tenets' could be confused with principles and we already have a section on core principles we are trying to reduce. I'm not in favour of adding a new section on the basic techniques of astrology myself - my concern is that to be manageable in size each point will have to be so brief as hardly worthwhile.Just pointing out that we are not in full agreement about this; but if it seems to be the consensus opinion, then fair enough. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not techniques, Zac, but an outline of astrology. Basic building blocks, types, traditions: zodiac, planets, houses, aspects; natal, mundane, electional, horary; Western, Vedic, Chinese; etc. SLP (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whether it is directly relevant here, but because this facility gives a very easy navigation to all the pages that cover the techniques and different traditions of astrology, please take a look (and play with) the info box I am developing on my sandbox. I am still working on it but hopefully it is not too far off the finished design. If there are any comment or suggestions, would be very pleased to hear them.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

SLP, - possible headings: techniques, chart construction ... I think this should be a very simple outline (of natal chart: rising sign/MC, planets, houses, signs. + forecasting: transits, progressions. + synastry. + links to horary, electional). The outline follows the description in the lede (as the lede should be explained in the body) and contain links out to specific pages on aspects, signs, etc. I have written something on this, which has since been deleted. However, I think this could be used as a basis.

Zac - the box is impressive and will add greatly to the page. I would like to use it on other astrology pages but with a different main image. Please add my sun ruler Venus to the list at the bottom! Also, while the pages to the individual signs of the Zodiac are currently so badly written and appear to be regularly vandalised, I suggest the list of signs go just above the planets at the bottom until they are improved. Robert Currey talk 23:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel the same way about the sign pages Robert, and I was tempted to not include those lnks for the same reason. But on reflection I concluded it would be wrong to do that, because there is public expectation for a page on astrology to link to information about sun-signs. As uncomfortable as it is, I think the links should remain - a painful reminder something should be done about those pages soon. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This would be a good approach, Robert. Do you still have your text? SLP (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

SLP - I have put the text into my sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robertcurrey/draft-sandbox Obviously it needs to be extended to at least include the horoscope, the zodiac, natal astrology and synastry. Robert Currey talk 09:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Kept to a brief introdution like that, I feel happier about this. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The box under the clock is very nice. When you have a subject like astrology it's a challenge to get good navigational aids for where to go for specific information, and this box is very good. As Zac said, the Basics is pretty well covered in Western Astrology. I don't see any obvious link to that article, but there should be one. Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The language convention of this page

I have removed the header banner saying that this page uses American English. This matter was recently raised and from what I remember at the time several editors objected to the proposal. I was happy not to have a controversy then, following so quickly on the heels of a difficult discussion.

I've since realised that the WP Manual of Style expects that British English conventions are used in punctuation. For example:

Correct: Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable". (English convention)

Not: Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable." (American convention).

Before we reinstate the banner can we have a discussion on this to establish what the consensus of opinion really is?

• British English - my preference -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• !vote - I can live happily with British English or American English - it's a detail to me. What I consider important is that whatever is written is succinct, understandable to a wide educated audience, with minimal jargon and free from anachronistic words. Short sentences! Short paragraphs! Well chosen subheadings! Any banner with a flag flying at the top of this page is too imperialistic for my taste unless it is the Manx flag (as we never had any colonies and still have AAA credit rating)! Robert Currey talk 14:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(Can I ask what !vote means Robert? Are abstaining? One way or another we have to decide on the language, because the only thing that matters is that whatever we choose is consistently applied)

I don't see any need for a !vote regarding this: the MOS is clear regarding punctuation within quotes, and as I understand it, this was arrived at by community consensus after considerable debate. We cannot unilaterally decide to ignore the MOS in one article. If people aren't happy with the MOS, this isn't the place to debate the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Andy - I'm not proposing that we ignore the policy on punctuation!! No, I accept that we can't do that. I just want to be clear about the policy we are adopting where the MOS says it depends on the language adopted.

I am going to make a suggestion - I hope this is OK. The previous discussion on this matter is here - the only thing it clearly established is that there is no clearly defined historical legacy to refer to! On the other hand, either option is OK as long as there is consistency across the article. To ensure this is peacefully decided I propose running a vote for 10 days and then making a decision based purely on the majority count. We can all live with that I'm sure. It will help us all to be clear about what style guide we are referring to. I agree we don't need any flag across the page but we could build a simple comment into the existing header-box which advises new editors of what they need to be aware of. So the option would be:

1. propose a preference,
2. state "no preference" or
3. state an objection to this proposal

Obviously, if many editors object tot he vote it is best ignored - I'm just not clear where we'll stand then on the policy we've adopted. Does that mean defaulting back to American English because Petersburg too the initiative to flag the page? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against the vote, but I am abstaining at this point as I have no strong opinion on this. If the vote is split on 22 August, I will try to vote so that we can resolve this question. Robert Currey talk 16:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen enough spelling and punctuation by editors here to tell you who is from where, except the damn Canadians who go both ways! I abstain. Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Blind or Double-Blind?

In the sub-section Carlson's Experiment, the text goes "A different approach to testing astrology quantitatively uses double-blind chart matching tests. The most renowned[89] of these is Shawn Carlson's double-blind experiment in which he challenged 28 astrologers to match..." I believe that the first use of the word double-blind should be blind as these were blind experiments in the sense that the participating astrologers were attempting to match profiles to charts without knowing the identities of the subjects. The Carlson test, in particular, was designed as a double-blind experiment in that the researchers also could not know who belonged to the control group and the experimental group until after the data had been recorded. Robert Currey talk 07:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it as suggested. I will be taking a Wiki break for a couple of weeks. Thanks to all who shared in the editing this past while. Ken McRitchie (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ken - have a good break. Robert Currey talk 22:42, 13 August 2011 (UT

C)

please explain

I don't see a thing anywhere in the article saying that many people disbelieve astrology. Is there a reason for this? Alicianpig (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)