Talk:Astrology

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.

An open letter on the ongoing state of the article

I have frequented this article for much of the nearly three years I have been on Wikipedia. In that time I have tried my best to improve this article, as the subject is one that I have a deep curiosity of and, at least, an adequate respect for. Yet astrology as a multi-thousand year old system, as an extremely multifaceted topic, as a group of traditions that has done more than its fair share of influencing culture and academia throughout history, seems to get only one concern here: does it work?

While the same arguments get endlessly rehashed and the same edit wars ensue over and over again concerning its validity, vital information about its history, development, transmission, etc. get ignored. One would think with all the endless fuss the text about its validity would at the very least accurately and faithfully portray the situation, yet that segment is pitiful as well. Instead of editors who genuinely want to improve the article, I see a constant trickle of pompous apostles of science who haven't a clue about astrology other than what popular scientific opinion informs them. But, you must be saying to yourself, this is a wiki! Anyone can come along and balance the over-represented point of view. Yes, that is the concept, but in practice it is not always so, for the representatives of other points of view have to be present in the first place. All constructive members except for a very few have all been run off by ignorant, rude editors simply out to push a point of view they have hardly begun to understand anyway, leaving the remainder to fill up another 13 pages worth of incessant quibbling and the article to stagnate in mediocrity.

I have made a plea before to stop putting so much undue focus on one topic, to quit the endless bickering and demeaning, to finally get some attention elsewhere, yet my request appears to have fallen on deaf ears. I look at important sections about this topic's history and practice and I see unverified claims. I see a constant onslaught of rabid members of the Church of Science out to belittle a topic they haven't a clue about. I see an article in a rather lackluster state, and few hopes of any editors to come along and help improve it.

I'm permanently removing this article from my watchlist. Those of you who I have butted heads with in the past may think as you wish of me, but it is the education and freedom of thought of the uninformed masses you are hurting. Samuel Grant 07:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your heroic efforts Samuel Grant with this article. They are not wasted on those of us who follow the work at a distance. I agree 100% with your comments. When all is said and done, Wikipedia can at best reflect the state of knowledge, never contain it. That is the good news. The best we can aspire to with such efforts is to keep the reflection of this entire body of knowledge clear, comprehensive and balanced. In that, as in all things, the wise must have patience with the actions of the ignorant and the fearful. At the same time, the article is a public good and others of your calibre will hopefully get involved so that the enlightened efforts transcend those of other less well informed efforts and the reading public can be well informed. Have a good and well deserved break from your work with this article.Budfin 12:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The question of validity is a major part of this subject, and hence the section will always be a flash-point. Wikipedia's weighting guidelines are such that mainstream sources with a good scientific reputation will always receive greater preference that niche or disreputable sources, and this is the way things should be for us to build a reliable article. Jefffire 13:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not saying validity isn't a big issue. What's concerning is the immovable fixation on it and the neglect of everything else besides it. With a history as long and varied as this topic's, such information isn't just a nice icing on the cake, it's vital, and appallingly, it is ignored. Where there was hope of editors here to help within these segments, that was quickly extinguished once they saw what kind of convoluted mess trying to do anything with this article becomes on the count of overzealous science nuts often rude without provocation. All I want is an article that accurately, faithfully — and above all — fairly presents a controversial topic. Instead representatives of a point of view muscle their way en masse to make all sorts of changes they don't understand anyway. The Age of Reason, indeed!

The rose-colored glasses are off. This site and its community are not without its flaws. I am not going to waste my time and energy on a losing battle. Samuel Grant 02:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully and sadly, the self-professed proponents of science are behaving like ideological bullies with regard to this topic! Jefffire, is the "flash point" not simply code for the oppression of age-old inner wisdom by uninformed object reason of those beholden to the popular philosophy of the Age of materialism? The relatively new means to acquire and verify knowledge, the scientific method, has become an instrument in the hands of the unknowing to subvert real knowledge itself. Rumbird 08:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to put it that way. But it's not possible to build an encyclopedia of this nature on "real knowledge" when everyone has a different definition of that. Jefffire 09:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn´t the whole point here, as Samuel Grant is saying, that too much emphasis is given to the disprovers of astrology - who at best have only curosry knowledge of the subject - and not enough to the whole body of knowledge, including its historic and multicultural dimension. Again, I agree completely with that assessment. Let´s change the approach accordingly for the benefit of an open minded and well informed readership. Budfin 13:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to expand the history and culture sections then go right ahead, more detail is always welcome. Jefffire 13:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but it's introductory sentences like these that leave a soure taste in the mouth: "Although there is no scientific evidence supporting astrology that is accepted by mainstream science, belief in astrology is widespread in the general public." This is a POV laden statement that ignores other forms of evidence, notably the affirming experience of practitioners. Budfin 13:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't possible to build an encyclopedia on personal experiences as those are different for every person and can't be verified. Jefffire 15:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I can now sense Samuel Grant´s frustration in engaging you and likeminded persons in a discussion on this matter. You only seem to talk to people. A balanced discussion amongst parties is necessary if the aim to reach some form of consensus. Budfin 15:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your meaning. Whom do I talk to, if not with other people? What exactly do you propose for the betterment of the article? Jefffire 15:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, it is a matter of not talking to people but having a discussion with people with the explicit aim of reaching a consensus on contentious issues. A good start would be to discuss ways to remove the POV in the sentence in the introduction mentioned above. Budfin 16:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I use the words "talk" and "discussion" interchangeably in this context, so your comments don't really apply. Anyway, under the current guidelines of Wikipedia we cannot include personal experience as citable sources for a subject. I appreciate that you feel this is unfair, but it is very much regarded as a necessity for the encyclopedic tone and authority that is striven for. Since that is very much part of the foundations that we are working on, the only option is to work within that. Jefffire 17:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am afraid Jefffire is purposefully not understanding the concerns of other editors and applying a limited set of available options in resolving the problematic. That is not a real effort at compromise. Perhaps the way forward is for someone to take a shot at rewriting the POV sentence. I can give it a first shot here:

"Mainstream science has found no evidence to support astrology. Despite this, the number of people engaged in the writing, lecturing and consulting in astrology is quite large and belief in astrology remains widespread in the general public."

For a list of Professional astrologers/ astrology associations: [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] Rumbird 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. With regards to your proposed rewrite, I would not regard the number of such professionals as being "quite large". What's the definition of "quite large"? 100? 1000? This is exactly the kind of vague language which must be avoided. Jefffire (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but then also please remember to show a good faith effort. It is not acceptable that some people play obstructionist games when dealing with those seeking to make what they consider fair changes. Samuel Grant was evidently worn out by that kind of behavior. I will not accept such behavior. BTW, there are tens of thousands of practicing astrologers around the world. How would you describe that number? Rumbird (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The number of astrologers practicing astrology and any anecdotal evidence is irrelevant to the scientific validity of the subject. I'm going to repeat myself again, because people seem to miss the point. In pseudosciences like astrology, the wikipedia policy says that,

'Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories.'

This is exactly what the paragraph in the introduction and the line 'Although there is no scientific evidence supporting astrology that is accepted by mainstream science, belief in astrology is widespread in the general public.' says. Your proposed change gives an undue representation to the minority (ie, astrologers). I also disagree with the claim that there is a POV in the introduction. As others have stated, editors are free to improve the article and content to the history and culture sections. This is entirely distinct from the scientific validity of the subject, which is also an important part of astrology and where there is a clear scientific consensus. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 04:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vorpal blade I do not agree with your statement that broad guidelines preclude changes to sentences, especially if they concern fields considered pseudo science by a majority of scientists. Let's be clear that the information about the scientists and their findings is prominently displayed in the sentence, even if the poor things know precious little about astrology other than what their laboratory physics informs them. This same group also knows very little about consciousness and its wider ramifications, other than what their oscilloscopes show them about brainwaves<grin>. Like astrology, consciousness can hardly be measured with the apparatus and the present state of scientific knowledge. It doesn´t help that the scientists don´t care to learn astrology and gain experience of it. However, astrologers know astrology at the experiental level, hence mentioning them in the sentence is entirely reasonable. Moreover, in view of comments by Jefffire the wording is revised as a compromise. Rumbird (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mainstream science has found no evidence to support astrology. Despite this, thousands of astrologers around the world are engaged in the writing, lecturing and consulting based on their knowledge and experience of astrology and belief in it remains widespread in the general public."

Rumbird, you don't need to know anything about astrology to see that its predictions fail empirical testing when controlled double blind tests are performed. What the minority group believes about astrology has no relevance at all when talking about the scientific validity of the subject. I disagree with your "compromise" revision, because it gives undue representation to a minority. However, it'd be nice to hear what the consensus is on this revision from other editors. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 07:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vorpal blade, it represents a serious methodological problem if it is as you say that ignorance is bliss when it comes to double blind tests of astrological predictions. I have serious doubts about such tests because the scientists

1) testing astrology for validity don´t know the first thing about it

2) think it's possible to control for important unknown variables

3) think that double blind tests of astrology prove something

Here are the reasons why I think the scientists involved are misguided.

First, many regular university scientists have probably formed a view on the theoretical merits of astrology based on their lack of knowledge of a reasonable causal mechanism, that is reasonable in their epistemological framework, concerning the cosmic influences on human life. This absence of knowledge constitutes in their mind a falsification of the theory. This creates a huge bias in their minds from the outset and probably convinces them that there is no need to study the subject; only to warn people about it. Related to this, it should be pointed out that this group of activist anti-astrology scientists are themselves likely a minority in the mainstream scientific community! However, because they have spoken out, it is taken as representing all scientists. Is that fair? Let´s consider a group of vocal scientists who don´t believe in God. Should their view be taken as representative of the views of all scientists concerning the existence of God? I don´t think so. So isn´t this a clear case of over-reach by you activist anti-astrology buffs? I think so.

Second, any astrologer worth his salt knows that astrology has evolved over millennia as a gradual attempt of students of the stars and human affairs to decipher the true language of the planets. Many languages or systems have developed over time to explain these influences: Indian, Chinese, Arabic, Western, Aztec etc. Even, for any one particular system, the rules of prediction, if they exist, are seldom uniformly applied. This is a serious problem for the tester if they know nothing of the language. Morover, how will they know if the astrologer they are testing is an A student or a F student of the language? How can they know? They wouldn´t know a good astrologer from a bad one. Thirdly, how will they know if they are testing an advanced language or some primitive gruntwork? In other words, ignorance may be bliss, but it won´t give you the best answer.

So what´s next? Those supporting a more balanced overview of the astrology chapter in Wikipedia, now is the time to speak out! After that we can move ahead and correct the NPOV-undue weight issue involving the excessive anti-astrology claims. Rumbird (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to start a revolution, we can only reflect the scientific consensus. If you feel the scientific community is grossly mistaken then your option is to try and change that in the real world, then change the article - not the other way around. Jefffire (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys just obfuscate and obstruct when your editorial use of the information presented is questioned. Undue weight is given to the anti-astrology point of view. This so-called "consensus" of the "mainstream scientific community" based on scientific evidence is a con. There is no majority of scientists. The science is sloppy. This is nothing more than whipped up intellectual flatulence served up in a snake oil bottle by some riled up "scientists" and then sold as an 'elexir of truth. What does it heal? The godawful truth about astrology? Problem is boys, I and many others just aren't buying it. I am slapping the NPOV tag on this article.Rumbird (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That's flat out wrong. Both individual scientists and scientific organizations have labeled astrology as a pseudoscience. You can look at the references in the article for details. There are also studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals which conclude that astrology doesn't work. Your individual opinion is irrelevant against verifiable, credible sources which state exactly what scientists think of astrology. If you've got a problem with that, it can't be helped. It's wikipedia policy. That's how it runs. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 10:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Where there was hope of editors here to help within these segments, that was quickly extinguished once they saw what kind of convoluted mess trying to do anything with this article becomes on the count of overzealous science nuts often rude without provocation."

I couldn't agree more. It's a pathetic state of affairs.
I'm sorry to see you go Sam, but I totally understand.

pixiequix (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotes of modern astrologers definition of astrology

Below are seven quotes from respected but very different astrologers that reveal an implicit consensus among them as to what astrology is and is not. The difficulty with astrology is that most of its authors fall under the definition of "fringe". While it is true that some authors have developed quite a following, such as Charles E. O. Carter and Alan Leo in London, to my knowledge it has not had the result of creating a formal statement of consensus. The quotes by E. Parker and Margaret Hone below show also that astrologers have been fighting an uphill battle with regard to prejudices and attacks from the science communities and political establishment, literally pushing them undergound, which makes consensus harder to develop. However, through a perusal of many disparate texts, a common modern view emerges of astrologers from around the world, even if there are notable differences in emphasis, that astrology is indeed a language of symbols, to interpret the influences from the cosmos on human life. It is both a science and art, but as Margaret Hone explains, the nuances and complexity of astrology make it's propositions hard to prove in the most rigorous scientific fashion. Finally, some of the quotes also bring out the meta aspect of astrology, that it deals with the inner reality of the human experience, based on the spirit and its relation with God. This cardinal axiomatic difference between astrology and the "nihilist materialism" of science is perhaps the most glaring cause for the attacks by the "scientists" of the Age of Enlightenment on astrology. It is a fight between two radically different world views, or paradigms. Enjoy! Rumbird (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote 1:

"Whether astrology is a science or not is a question which can only be discussed when we know what is meant by science. For many of the dogmas that today go officially by that name will hardly seem such to a thinking person, seeing that - considering their continual modifications and changes - they seem to result from groping rather than knowledge.

No one who takes the pains to compare them can deny that there is a relation between Astrology and the science of today.

When for instance we examine the most primitive plant and animal forms, the so-called radiolareæ, diatomæ etc. (cf. Haeckel "Kunstformen der Natur" and also the Chladnaic figures, formed in fine sand along magnetic lines of power under definite vibrations, does it seem as if the latter had come to life in the former? Snow crystals too, sections of flowers themselves, trees, ferns - even the parts of our own body (lungs, hearts, organs of hearing, etc) show this wonderful correspondence.

Might not this indicate that these plant and animal forms have their origin under definite vibrations, built up of definite materials?

Would it really be impossible to prove that those vibrations come to us through the celestial bodies as nuclei in Cosmic vibrations - seeing that so much has been found (the 'Od' of Reichenbach, and other similar substances) that proves in fact that something emanates from the celestial bodies."

Can it be maintained much longer that matter should exist apart from spirit which sends out its vibrations to set the matter moving, when on one hand we learn that our muscles work according to the command from the centre of the mind conveyed to them by nerves and on the other hand believe that all things are made by the Word that was with God and was God. - E. Parker, Amerspoort, July 1927

E. Parker, Astrology and its practical application, L.N. Fowler & Co. Ltd. Essex, UK, 1970, translated from Dutch Rumbird (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, there is an unconventional theory that comes to mind in relation to the above speculation, it is the yogic Theory of Microvitum - the "mysterious emanation of the cosmic factor". Rumbird (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote 2:

Margaret E. Hone, B.A., D.F. Astrol.S was a writer and teacher of astrology in the UK after WW II. She cited that due to the legality of astrology in Great Britain during the middle of the 20th century owing to the "Witchcraft Act of 1735" and the "Vagrancy Act of 1829", including those who practiced astrology as 'charlatans, rouges and vagabonds', implying that fortunetelling is illegal

• research of individuals had been pushed underground, preventing the formation of a "solid body of oppinion."
• there was a need to avoid certain language that could be held up to an absolute standard
• there was a need to impose examinations on astrologers to seperate the proficient from the 'quacks',
• advised astrologers to answer the question "How can such far-off planets influence the actions of ourselves?" with some ambiguity and to say that he "believes in no such thing, but that he observes that certain traits of character and certain types of events appear to correlate with certain planetary relationships. He must drop the word 'influence', which implies direct action, but at the same time he must point out that an astrologer uses many words colloquially, knowing full well what they mean to him."

"Astrology is not a SCIENCE, in the modern meaning of the term, which implies that knowledge is built up through proving theories by the repetition of experiments which have the same results, from which certain laws may be formed. The 'results' of astrology are often not 'the same' in outwardly assessable meaning, but to one used to its symbolism, are 'the same' in their nature. Science proves by statistics. While broad principles of astrology may be proved in this way, the more the student learns, the more he will realise that statistics may be misleading in the assessment of an intircate interlacing of planetary cycles, which are continually changing in relation to each other, and at varying rates of speed."

She proposed the following definition of astrology: "ASTROLOGY IS A UNIQUE SYSTEM OF INTERPRETATION OF THE CORRELATION OF PLANETARY ACTION IN HUMAN EXPERIENCE." For the reasons mentioned above she suggested that astrologers speak of 'correlation', not 'causation', even if she was implicitly assuming the salient presence of the latter. She rejected astrology being considered based on intution: "Astrology is NOT an innate ABILITY, such as clairvoyance or psychometry or telepathy".

She cited a quote by Carl Jung, the psychologist, as being insightful: "Whatever is born, or done, in this moment of time, has the qualities of this moment in time". Margaret E. Hone, The Modern Textbook of Astrology, Fowler, UK, 1951. Rumbird (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote 3:

"Astrology is a language by which the inner and the outer, the noumenal and the phenomenal, the spiritual and the material, can converse together." Michael Baigent, Nicholas Campion and Charles Harvey, Mundane Astrology, Thorsons, Great Britain, 1984 (second revised edition, 1992). Rumbird (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote 4:

"The birthchart shows our potentials and tendencies. One of our astrological teachers once said: "Man is not what he is because he was born when he was. He was born when he was because he was potentially what he is." It is not because you were born at a certain place or time that you react to influences, but the influences of that moment and that place in space show your potentials that can be actualized in the future." Isabel M. Hickey, Astrology - A Cosmic Science, CRCS Publications, USA, 1992. Rumbird (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote 5:

"Astrology is an art of interpreting the reputed esoteric influence of stars/planets on human affairs. It is called divine science and it enables one to peep into the mysterious future... The Hindu system of Astrology is based on the premise that the natal position of planets is dependant on the past karma of the human beings and gives complete picture of the life of the person concerned." V. K. Choudhry, MBA, System's Approach to Interpreting the Horoscope, Sagar Publications, Delhi, Revised and enlarged edition, 2006. Quote taken from authors website on 12-09-2007. Rumbird (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote 6:

The well known German astrologer and physician, Reinhold Ebertin, wanted to transform astrology into a scientific endeavor which he termed "cosmobiology.

"Cosmobiology is a scientific discipline concerned with the possible correlations between cosmos and organic life and the effects of cosmic rythms and stellar motions on man, with all his potentials and dispositions, his character, and the possible turn of fate; it also researches these correlations and effects as mirrored by the earth's plant and animal life as a whole. In this endeavor, cosmobiology utilizes modern-day methods of scientific research, such as statistics, analaysis, and computer programming. It is of prime importance, however, in view of the effort expanded, not to overlook the macrocosmic and microcosmic interrelations incapable of measurement." Reinhold Ebertin, The Combination of Stellar Influences, American Federation of Astrologers, Tempe, AZ, USA, 1972, translated from German. Rumbird (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote 7:

"Astrology is without a doubt the original science, the oldest of the systems of knowledge devised by human beings. It was the most important of the sciences of human culture until the advent of the modern science. Astrology was the basis for the first cosmologies, through which the ancients comprehended the structure and movement of the universe. It was the science of fate and destiny, used for understanding events on earth, which were seen as originating in the heavens. Astrology was not only the foremost of the outer sciences which deal with the nature of the physical universe, it was one of the most important of the inner or spiritual sciences which deal with the mind and sould." David Frawley, Astrology of the Seers, Passage Press, USA, 1990. Rumbird (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

These are indeed fascinating insights. However, you said yourself that there really isn't a formal consensus on what astrology actually is, and this is my key concern. Overall I still believe it is a lot fairer to the diversity of astrological opinion to give the differing definitions, rather than settling on one view. Jefffire (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

While it is perhaps so that there is no formal document informing of the consensus of the astrology communitiy as to what it is and is not, a survey of the diverse statements on the subject, even across continents, decades and systems, reveals a clear commonality of oppinion. Most astrologers TODAY view astrology in some sense as a study of deterministic or casual influence emanating from the cosmos and affecting life on earth. They also seem to think that it is hard to test astrological theses in a controlled setting simply because the fact that as the planets travel over time "one can never step in the same river twice". Even if the Sun enters Capricorn around mid January (in the sidereal zodiac), like it did last year, this year all the other planets will be in a different place than they were this time last year! That said, most astrologers operate like scientists, in that with experience they tend to see what works and does not work.

In my view, the real dawn of astrology awaits. It will come when scientists of the future will embrace astrology with an open mind and test it with a comprehensive understanding of what it is and is not. Sorry to say, the tests of astrology conducted by scientists so far have been nothing short of quackery. One day we will look back on the mentality of 20th century scientists and shake our heads at the self-imposed blinders of the materialist religion. BTW, no offense meant, just a statement of my view on the matter. Rumbird (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

* Yawn... * --Chris Brennan (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert war in the Research section

The information is relevant in this section, with a NPOV it can stay. This section was depending too heavily on the work of Michel Gauquelin. Linking to the work of more researchers will only improve its value as a reference in this subject. To the guy that erased it because it doesn't have credibility: IT DOESN'T MATTER. Wikipedia is not about truth. Read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight: the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. Tarnas' work satisfies this criteria, to the point of having his own Wikipedia article. And it's relevant to the subject discussed. For me, that's enough to have the link. As long as it's written in such a way that it doesn't endorses, nor denies the validity of his claims. Diego (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the research section, perhaps someone could make mention of the fact that Michel Gauquelin's research continues to this day? There's 50+ years worth of documented statistical research in the Gauquelin archives. I'd make the addition myself, but I have no patience for the petty revert wars that erupt every time someone makes an edit which is at all supportive of astrology.

pixiequix (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• I added it for you, but I made no mention of how much statistical Data he's collected.User:ProductofSociety

• Diego and pixiequix, it can´t be excluded that the science enthusiasts actively trying to suppress astrology, by their ceasless effort to edit and re-edit the content to cast astrology in as bad a light as possible, are less scientific and actually more religious in their motivation. It is starting to look to me as if the poor devils are just on some misguided mission for God to prevent belief in astrology. What else could explain their devotion to this subject matter? This is ironic as astrology has been shown to been an active part of ancient Judaism[[4]]. The Old Testament only frowned on divination and soothsaying (not real astrology). At the birth of Jesus the three magi (astrologers) following the Star of Bethlehem visited him to pay their respects to the savior. See interesting documentary [[5]]. Rumbird (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Rumbird, make no mistake. I'm a science enthusiast myself, and I'm in no way in a crusade or mission for or against astrology. Don't make those rude generalizations, they make you look foolish. I just want this article to fairly offer a global and comprehensive overview of the subject (including both the arguments to support it as well as those that show it as invalid to make reliable predictions), so as to be able to educate myself about it and form my own judgement, thank you very much. Diego (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppetry on the astrology page

So, if it isn't already clear to everyone involved, it appears that one of the astrologers who has recently contested one of the opening paragraphs on the page is engaging in creating sock puppets in order to 'win' the revert war and sidestep the 3RR rule. Since User:Rumbird was the guy who originally seems to have started the edit war on that paragraph, and he was already warned once recently for violating the 3RR rule, he is the prime suspect, although it seems that User:Budfin is getting in on it now as well, so he could also be the culprit. Whoever it is, I think that it is ridiculous and disgraceful. Actually it is more embarrassing than anything else, because I'm an astrologer as well, and this is the type of stuff that makes the rest of us look bad- or, worse I should say. The current sock puppets appear to be User:Ali the Munificent, User:Random-chess, and User:SciFiApostle. Their edit histories make this apparent. If anyone knows any high level admins could you please ask them to do an IP check and ban this guy? --Chris Brennan (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• OK, busted. But I wasn´t trying to hide my footprint either - it is impossible. Moreover, it isn´t exactly a high crime to forget a password or to use an alternate identity, is it? Many here apparently do it. The main point is that the para is just unacceptable the way the science buffs have done it and I wanted to create more discussion about it. By doing the reverts I held their feet to the fire, if ever so briefly. The point has been made and I will stop the reverts. Ali the Munificent (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it is a banable offense to create alternate accounts simply for the sake of stacking the cards in your favor in an edit war. It isn't just the so-called 'science buffs' who you are engaging in the revert war against. You have reverted other astrologers as well. So, at this point you really are just pushing your own POV on everyone else, skeptics and astrologers alike, in a way that is not constructive at all. You aren't the first though. Every few months the astrology articles on Wikipedia get hit by the same sort of nonsense by some astrologer who thinks that they are being persecuted, or who thinks that their opinion is right no matter what anyone else either inside or outside of their community thinks. What you none of you guys seem to realize or care about though is that you are doing more harm to the subject that you supposedly advocate than good. --Chris Brennan (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take note of Wikipedia:Sock#Alternate account identification. It would be very helpful for you to clearly identify each of the accounts you have used as being alternates of whatever is your main account. --MediaMangler (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Joseph John Dewey, born in 1945

This is simply to supply the full name of this person - and to avoid a mix-up with John Dewey. --rpd (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Research methods

Can we find a way to edit in how some astrologers find the research methods of the scientists questionable?