Talk:Astrology

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

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

Interpretation of cited sources

I saw that this article is nominated for good article status, so I began reading the article to see if it is ready for a formal review. Before reading very far at all, I saw a strange statement: "Among Indo-European peoples, astrology has been dated to the 3rd millennium BCE," but the cited source refers to Babylonians and Assyrians, neither of whom are Indo-European. The time period should also be specified differently, as neither Babylon nor Assyria existed as a distinct nation much earlier than 2,000 BCE (barely into the third millennium BCE, in other words). The editor interpretation and use of cited sources will have to be much more consistent with the known facts of history reported in other sources (which have been used correctly in the Wikipedia articles about Babylon and Assyria) to convince me that it's time for this article to move on to good article review. I'd be glad to hear from other editors here about how to fix this and other aspects of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we keep removing garbage like that, but people keep putting it back in. It's a difficult article to keep stable. — kwami (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the discussion were to remain free of language that might be interpreted as critical of editors. The text and citations in the body of the article clearly support 'at least 2nd millennium BCE', and there is a discussion in the text which shows weak and not very persuasive evidence for an earlier date. I've therefore updated the mention in the lead. For such a controversial topic the article is not particularly unstable, with a modicum of good-faith interventions that are quickly reverted. The text itself has changed little in the last few months. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Astrology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Passed – This article has met all the criteria for Good Article status. I am therefore granting said status to Astrology. Congratulations! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment - This article was nominated for Featured Article status in December of 2006, over seven year ago. Having given this a quick read-through, I can attest that this article is vastly different than the last time it was given the attention of being a candidate for exceeding expectations. Simply saying that gives a connotation for the massive transition this piece has underwent. I am pleased to have the opportunity to give this article another chance.

Thank you. It has been substantially rewritten from many sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Lede

• The opening uses the term "comprise". I would suggest the alternative term of "consist". However, this is merely a suggestion to not the degree of insistence, as "comprise" suffices for a GA.

Done.

• Perhaps the explanation of the function of astrology would be better served on the basis of multiple individuals, rather than an individual's.

I see what you mean, but a chart is always drawn up for a single entity, usually a person.

• The second paragraph is well written, if not written with British English rather than American English!

Thank you. The article is supposed to be in British English, we can fix any deviations you find.

• Having noticed this in the third paragraph first, it is preferred to utilize "throughout" rather than "through", while concerning the parallel with history.

Done.

• While describing the context of astrology as a pseudoscience, it may be be better to clarify it as a pseudoscience first, rather than giving said connotation in parentheses.

Done.

• This is not a matter of insistence, but is including the references of Cosmic Perspectives: Essays Dedicated to the Memory of M.K.V. Bappu and Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1 in direct sequence. On a further note, it may be acceptable to not include these references in the lede, existentially assuming that said references and information are provided to a more comprehensive extent later in the article, which they are!

Yes, I generally avoid refs in lead sections, but people have placed them here to defend claims that could be disputed, so I suspect it will be wisest to leave them alone. The lead is the part most likely to be 'visited' by new and IP editors, so caution has some justification here.

• Admittedly, the closing sentence of "Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been proven wrong" seems unnecessary, given that this is inherent, considering the rest of the paragraph preceding this.

It is not redundant, and given how contentious the matter is, it is probably best to have it cited in the lead, which means the text should remain there also.

Etymology

• This section is substantial and provides all the proper information in an encyclopedic context.
  • Admittedly, I don't see a need for a new subsection that provides a subtext for the term "astrology".

Thankyou.

Principles and practice

• The first sentence is floating. It should be the first sentence of the paragraph that constitutes the whole of the intro for this section.

Done.

• While listing off the celestial bodies, remember to include "and" preceding the last mention.

Done.

• The overview for Western astrology is satisfactory. Perhaps a run-through to look for any further potential missing conjunctions could be beneficial, but the cases, ("such as organized by planet"), are a matter of preferences.

Thankyou.

• So far as the "Indian and South Asian" subsection is concerned, are there any further details to digress into? I am aware that, since it essentially adopted the Babylonian method at an early date, that it has a shorter history, similar to the comparison between English and Scottish Constitutions. However, if that's all she wrote, then it can be considered acceptable.

This is meant as a brief summary, and I agree with you on the facts. The link provided to Hindu astrology gives much more detail.

• The "Chinese and East-Asian" subsection reads in an encyclopedic format with reliable sources, (I've come across several in my days, mind you). My pet peeve that could be considered applicable to the entirety of this article is that double digit numbers are best presented written out. Other than that, this section is solid.

Thankyou.

History

• My first recommendation- I would like to see this section following etymology and preceding the section on principles and practice.

Done.

• "Astrology, in its broadest sense, is the search for meaning in the sky". Heh, I just got goosebumps. Very direct!

Great.

• "Human" should be lowercase.

Changed one Human to human.

• The sentence introducing the Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa begins with "Two". I am slightly confused, as I do not know if this is a follow-up to something that constitutes "One", or if it's a typo.

Fixed.

• "Another" followed by a comma puts me off as well, as the context of its correlation to something else remains unclear.

Fixed.

• The information of the "Ancient world" subsection is accurate and with the exception of my suggestions, remains on par for GA quality.

Thankyou.

• In the "Ancient objections" section, I would replace all of the uses of the term "further" with "farther", while dealing with distance, rather than temporal scale.

Replaced.

• "In 525 BC Egypt was conquered by the Persians"- please insert a comma after 525 BC and change it to BCE for all mentions of Before the Common Era. Other than that, Hellenistic Egypt suffices.

Done.

• For the section "Greece and Rome", "By the 1st century BC there were two varieties of astrology,..." - I'd like a comma after the 1st century.

Done.

• "The first definite reference to astrology in Rome comes from the orator Cato, who in 160 BC warned farm overseers" - This may be a matter of style, but a comma would do well after "who" and one would be very welcome after what will be BCE. ;)

I feel these aren't needed in British English.

• "Mediaeval"? I'm American, so it's different here. However, whatever floats your boat!

Again, article was created using British English.

• The Islamic-Medieval world section suffices.

Thankyou.

• So far as the paragraph about European history is concerned, the mention of Aquinas' practice in the same lieu as Aristotle could be streamlined slightly, so that the connection to Aristotle is better emphasized. Its current form, however, works and this remains a mere suggestion.

Rearranged, perhaps this is an improvement. Feel free to put it back if you don't like it.

• The section on "Mediaeval objections" is well-written, sound in referencing and overall encyclopedic.

Thankyou.

• "In 1597, he English mathematician and physician Thomas Hood". Let's put a "t" at the front of "he". ;)

Done.

• The sentence "By the 17th century, in England, astrology had reached its zenith" could be rewritten as "Astrology had reached its zenith in England by the 17th century".

Rewritten.

• For a GAN, the subsection "Enlightenment period and onwards" suffices. For any future plans for FA status, expansion may be necessary.

Thankyou. Now that would be a challenge.

Science

• The three overview paragraphs should suffice. I feel the distribution of material is fair and presented in an encyclopedic format.

ok.

• With the "Effectiveness" subsection, let's move the period to before the four references with the clarification of it as a pseudoscience.

Done.

• The detail about the astrologers being British and American should be merged with another sentence detailing their statistics. In its current form, it's somewhat of a floating sentence.

Merged sentences.

• Reference 98 at this current moment, (Philosophy and Science of Music in Ancient Greece), is placed right after the designation of Gauquelin being an astrologer. Is this necessary, or is there an edit conflict that warrants this?

Moved ref to end of sentence.

• In the same lieu as my preceding comment, a reference is presented immediately after Ivan Kelly is mentioned. Are the two references complimentary of one another in a way that the one after his name is necessary?

Moved ref to end of sentence.

• The presentation of "Demarcation" seems to be more representative of the overarching theme of the "Science" section. This is at the discretion of Chiswick Chap and other editors, but would having this section come before "Effectiveness" make sense?

Moved.

• "Philosopher Paul Thagard believed that astrology can not be..." - combine into "cannot".

Done.

• "Many astrologers claim that astrology is scientific.[112] Some of these astrologers have proposed conventional causal agents such as electromagnetism and gravity." This can be combined into one sentence, as not only the information complementary, but they utilize the same reference.

Done.

Theological viewpoints

• Are there any other ancient viewpoints beside St. Augustine's?

Well, the Emperor Constantine prohibited it, but that could be said to be a political rather than purely theological act. Other ancient but not Christian viewpoints are described in the History section. I think we have broad coverage.

• "In essence, Avicenna did not deny the essential dogma of astrology"... - I'd start the sentence off with "essentially", but that's just me. It's fine.

Done.

• With the closing of modern viewpoints, the references of Our Sunday visitor's Catholic encyclopedia and Peter Hess are used. But then, "Catechism of the Catholic Church - Part 3" is used. Are one or two of these references expendable, with the last one necessary, or are they all necessary?

On the whole I'd err on the side of caution, with more refs preferable to too few, and as you imply, the quote must be cited directly to source.

Cultural impact

• "In fact de Wohl's predictions..." - Comma after "In fact". I'd do that, but I want to concentrate on this review until I'm done.

Done.

• Other than that, the rest of "Western politics and society" is good, surprisingly. Good job.

Thankyou.

• With the subsection "India and Japan", "Indian politics has" should be changed to "have".

Done.

• In the "Literature and music" subsection, the paragraph about the 16th century for astrology seems presented in a list format. Give it variety and it should be golden.

Done.

Closing thoughts

This article is very close to being ready for Good Article status. Implement my suggestions and I will be happy to grant said status. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 09:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe I've actioned all the items. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Dating of Earliest Astrologies

Have a look at following sources.

1. Nakshastras: The Lunar Mansions of Vedic Astrology by Dennis M. Harness, page 16.[1],
2. The Astrology Book: The Encyclopedia of Heavenly Influences, 2nd Edition, by James R. Lewis, page 707[2].(used on this page for other references)
3. A Thousand Suns: Designing Your Future with Vedic Astrology, by Linda Johnsen, page 9[3][4].

None of these three seem to be suitable at first look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

James R. Lewis is used as reference for this page already, and how he is not reliable source? Linda Johnsen has master degree about the Eastern studies. Dennis M. Harness holds doctorate degree in Counseling Psychology, Although not too sure about it, but rest of the two can't be unreliable. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

These are some sources, that dates Hindu astrology to 2000 - 3100 BCE, they usually cite Rigveda, which are probably oldest surviving scriptures, still in use. I tried searching if there are any refusal regarding such theories, I haven't found any yet. Also the given dates for other astrologies on the lead, such as "1950–1651" BCE for Mesopotamia doesn't seems to be popular dating, found 0 results, when i looked about it.[5] Bladesmulti (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You are misreading the lead. It says " A form of astrology was practised in the first dynasty of Mesopotamia (1950–1651 BCE)" If you had substituted the word 'dynasty' for 'astrology' in your search you would have found results. Anything about Hindu astrology in this article needs to be written according to WP:SUMMARY, in other words it needs to reflect the parent article. Neither Johnsen nor Harness are reliable sources - having a degree isn't enough. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

History of Astrology and Bias Against Astrology

As it is classified, this is a Good Article. One criticism however is that it reads more as an article trying to prove that astrology is unreasonable rather than giving the facts as you would with any mythology, religion, or philosophy. The statement "Astrologers usually have only a small knowledge of astronomy" is a stereotype that reflects the author's bias. Plotinus' quote " it is laughable to imagine the planets' effect on mankind should depend on their position with respect to the zodiac" is not in quotes. If there is a section on Ancient Objections should there not also be a section that includes the quotes of ancient, learned, scientific men who insisted on the validity of astrology?

I must also add that the history given is inaccurate. By 3585 BCE Egypt already had a calculated circle of Dieties and other representations of the apparent star groupings (or constellations as we now call them) however it is believed that this circle began with what we now know as Taurus and had 11 constellations rather than 12. Very little is spoken of the Egyptians.

Hipparchos (aka Hipparchus or Hipparch) was not mentioned in the article (unless I missed it). Since the article tries to explain the division of 12 sections each having 30 degrees, known as signs rather than exact location of the constellation, Hipparchos, being the astronomer who for more scientific exactness first made these divisions of the ecliptic circle should be accredited for his work and treated with the same respect as those scientists referred to in the article and used to prove to the reader that astrology is simple "not true". Explaining that astrology is a pseudoscience and though astronomy has its roots in astrology they are not the same, should suffice. This is in the same way as when one explains that a deuterocanonical scripture is not accepted by many Christian denominations, it does not give reason for the writer to exclaim that it is not a sacred text just because not everyone accepts it as so being. The reader should be given various perspectives and decide for themself what is "truth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.J.Grey (talk • contribs) 12:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggest some sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and the Wikipedia rules on pseudoscience demand extreme care on anything that looks like advocacy. Feel free to identify classical sources and bring them here (to this talk page) and we'll do our best to incorporate them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Astrology Table/Quick facts

Please include Venus and Neptune as cross-references under the planets used in astrology. K.J.Grey (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. I added them to the template. No idea why they weren't there already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

:249 and :424

These numbers appear between cites 5&6 and after cite 7 in the introduction. There's something similar after cite 17, 66, 84 92, 93, 94 and others. Looks like maybe they are supposed to be page numbers, but shouldn't this go inside the cite rather than cluttering the article? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's one of several accepted ways of indicating page numbers. The advantage is that it keeps down the number of citations of e.g. books by using local refs to page numbers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's the style I used and for that reason :) @Mr swordfish, you can read more about it here: Template:RP. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted text on Precession of the Equinoxes (moved from GA page)

Under the section Lack of mechanisms and consistency, I am removing the following paragraph: Astrologers usually have only a small knowledge of astronomy and they often do not take into account basic features such as the precession of the equinoxes which would change the position of the sun with time; they commented on the example of Elizabeth Teissier who claimed that "the sun ends up in the same place in the sky on the same date each year" as the basis for claims that two people with the same birthday but a number of years apart should be under the same planetary influence. Charpak and Broch noted that "there is a difference of about twenty-two thousand miles between Earth's location on any specific date in two successive years" and that thus they should not be under the same influence according to astrology. Over a 40 years period there would be a difference greater than 780,000 miles.[118]:6–7

due to its pejorative tone and lack of truth. There is no citation for the phrase "astrologers usually have only a small knowledge of astronomy" and it is complete misconception and misunderstanding of modern astrology to claim that astrologers do not take into account the Precession Of The Equinoxes. The truth is that modern Western Astrology does precisely that, by using the Tropical Zodiac , formulated by Ptolemy in the 1st century AD. This theoretical Zodiac is based on the seasons, more specifically the Vernal and Autumnal Equinox and the Summer and Winter Solstice. Horsechestnut (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

You are right about the incorporation of precession in Western astrology - the debunking book is certainly in error. Precession is the reason why the astrological ages exist, as the first point of Aries cycles backwards through the 12 signs in turn. In other words, Western astrology does take precession into account, and the critique offered by Charpak and Broch is demonstrably misguided. However they have made the critique, so I suggest we include a brief mention of their critique (less than is there now), immediately followed by a cited rebuttal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We should, however, be careful to only issue rebuttals for things, like this, that are demonstrably false, and not fall into the trap of turning a criticism section into an apologia. A similar misguided criticism is that the Sun isn't actually in the constellation of Aries for people with the sun-sign Aries; in that case a rebuttal is illustrative, as it clarifies that astrology has nothing to do with the stars. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Beautifully put. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You might think its in error because you didn't actually bother yourself to read it, or the text quoted. This edit [6] creates a straw man out of what Charpak and Broch actually said. You removed all of the context which is given in the specific quote. For example, astrologers taking into account precession has nothing to do with the statement: "the sun ends up in the same place in the sky on the same date each year" since the statement is false. If you also read, you will see that it is the astrologer that claims the planetary influences are the same because they are "in the same place". Charpak also deals with the empty boxes of the tropical zodiac (see Astrology_and_science#Lack_of_physical_basis). He is fully aware of astrologers taking into account of precession for the tropical zodiac. That does not mean they always take it into account in everything they say. As far as I am aware astrologers use programs to generate horoscopes. These programs take precession into account, but the astrologers don't in the language they use etc. Second Quantization (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Your edit also watered down what is said in the Chris French piece [7] going from "many" to "some". Second Quantization (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please avoid accusatory language. The citation I added demonstrates that astrology has known about precession of the equinoxes since Ptolemy. Horoscopes, whether cast 'by hand' or using programs make use of precession. Any language about 'returning to the same place' - and I do not doubt that confused and ignorant people can be found to say such things - is mistaken, you are correct. Therefore we need to distinguish quietly and carefully between what we will need to call 'serious' or 'professional' (or something of the sort) calculations and 'popular' or 'confused' (etc) astrology.

In 'serious' A, precession is a fact, and there is no relationship between 'stars' and predictions; there is no possible mechanism (rays or whatever) because precession changes the geometry between the stars and the Earth. The refutation of this kind of A is simply that it does not work and has been proven wrong.

In 'popular' A, it is very possible that precession is ignored and all kinds of unjustifiable claims are made. The refutation of this kind of A is that it could not possibly work because the geometry of precession contradicts it.

Therefore we need to distinguish the two types of Astrology, and offer different refutations for the two. The Charpak and Broch quote attacks 'popular' but the wording in and around it does not make that clear. I think that would be easily fixed. Simply restoring the quote just re-establishes the confusion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Again you are misunderstanding the reference and adding in your own original research. "Professional" astrologers do not understand procession and routinely make mistakes with statements they make. Their computer programs and books they use to churn out horoscopes might understand procession, but they don't (in general) and it comes out when they try to say why they think astrology works. There is a fine distinction here. The quasi-scientist picture you have of professional astrologers is the issue and talking about Ptolemy and the tropical zodiac is missing the point they are making. If you read the text you can see there is nothing incorrect with what it says. Second Quantization (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you agree there is a distinction to be made. Your new text is a slight improvement but it still wrongly suggests that nobody knows how to interpret a horoscope which a computer cast using precession; this is basically just a slur and should be withdrawn. We are however in agreement that there are plenty of people about who are vague or wrong on the matter, so only a small rewording is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Calling my edits slurs is hardly civil. "it still wrongly suggests that nobody knows how to interpret a horoscope", No it doesn't, point out where (there is no correct way to interpret a horoscope since it doesn't work but that is neither here nor there). I also had already added a sentence about precession to the article: "The tropical zodiac has no connection to the stars, and as long as no claims are made that the constellations themselves are in the associated sign, astrologers avoid the concept that precession seemingly moves the constellations." The article says they often don't take into account procession. That is clearly true as evidenced by the example. Second Quantization (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

We should avoid casting whatever-they-ares at astrologers, I am not casting any at you. I suggest we replace the "usually", which is very sweeping (and hard to verify), with some typical Wikispeak like 'sometimes', which is undoubtedly true. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Base your reasons on policy. The source clearly says "Astrologers actually know very little about what goes on in the skies". Clearly changing that to "Some astrologers" is inadequate and disagrees with the source, and thus I don't support the change. Where is your source to argue otherwise. Second Quantization (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)