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

"Pseudoscientific divination"

Is this really needed? No system of divination was ever scientific.

Mediæval should be updated to Medieval

Mediæval is archaic and confusing. The words' use had been defended by langvar but the spelling isn't widely used in the UK. Png4lyfe (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the UK uses both spellings - or "mediaeval", at least, with separate letters. From searching British news sites "medieval" seems more common by a factor of ten or so. --McGeddon (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep.

Upon introspection, I have found that I take no real joy from the use of medieval over mediæval. In my heart of hearts, I know I am right. However, a great indifference now fills my loins.

I have decided to press the issue no longer. Png4lyfe (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you, but okay. --McGeddon (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I know, but sometimes you've just gotta listen to your loins, and all their loiney sounds Png4lyfe (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, this is the astrology page. People who are into astrology are gonna want their æs and ♅s Png4lyfe (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Chaldean wisdom

How common was this specific phrase among the Romans? It's in the lead, in italics. Should it be in quotation marks? Should the Latin be used? It looks a bit strange to me. I don't think italics is right. zzz (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You should check the sources in Astrology#Greece and Rome. François Robere (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

See below zzz (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Arabic Renaissance

In the 12th century, Arabic texts were imported to Europe and translated into Latin, helping to initiate the European Renaissance.

I have never heard this theory about the Renaissance, and yet here it is in the lead section of this article. Two editors have now reverted my removal of it, so perhaps I and the writers I have read on the subject, and the Wikipedia article, are wrong. Comments? zzz (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The second and third paragraphs need to be outright nuked and rewritten. The third is the exact same as the one a few below it. Anyway, for me it was more about the unconstructive changes to the first (removal of pseudoscience as it is currently interpreted), and this spelling fiasco that occurred (see a few talk sections up.)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You do realise that is a shit reason to restore content you think "should be nuked"? zzz (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Many ancient Greek texts were famously only preserved in Arabic translations; as for the specifics of their translation back to European languages I do not know. François Robere (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in first sentence as definition

This seems wholly inappropriate. Astrology is not known for its scientific claims. I have no objection to the mention of pseudoscience per se, but it seems ridiculously pointy to put it in the first sentence of the article. zzz (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please go back through the talk archives, this is well discussed.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please summarise the discussion for me, for why it has to be in the first sentence. Consensus can change etc. zzz (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't be lazy. There's a search box on the right. François Robere (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't be condescending. Judging from this, there obviously is no consensus. The fact people have clearly discussed it endlessly in the past is therefore irrelevant. zzz (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not condescending, I just don't fancy doing others' work. François Robere (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"whitewash": imbecilic one-word response. Pathetic. This is precisely why people regard Wikipedia as a joke. zzz (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevance? François Robere (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:McSly 's one-word edit summary when reverting this compromise:Astrology consists of various systems of divination, which have been described as pseudoscientific,..." zzz (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Astrology is not known for its scientific claims." Yes it is. Second Quantization (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I would have like to have read at least one reference that supports any supporting view on the Astrology. It seems like rather than a free Encyclopedia, Wiki has become a self professed way shower of absolute "truth" in its discernment of what's actual science and what pseudoscience rather than how historically encyclopedias have referenced subject matters without taking a political, moral or skeptical judgment and this may be why..http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/wikipedia-blocks-hundreds-of-linked-accounts-for-suspect-editing/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to agree, esp. with regard to this article. Thanks for your input. I too am waiting for some form of reasonable argument or reference, as opposed to blank tag-team reversions and edit warring. zzz (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT. François Robere (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:TPG. Still waiting. zzz (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Isambard Kingdom please explain why you think it is preferable for the first sentence of the article to contradict the body of the article. ("Hashed over many times" is completely irrelevant). zzz (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Signedzzz, Do you have something to add to the content of previous discussion on this topic found here: [1]? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No I don't wish to add to any of those archived pages. What a peculiar question. Do you wish to justify insisting on an opening sentence that contradicts the article and rejecting any compromise? Well done for finding the talk page, by the way. Do try and address the problem of your contested edit. Thank you. zzz (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In what way is it condradicting the article? And, note, that I am only working with previously established consensus. You are the one wanting to change things. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"section "demarcation": 2 out of 4 examples given do not call it pseudoscience." That was my edit summary, before you reverted my edit, so you're already aware of that. I'll have to tag the article, since it contradicts all but one pov. zzz (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not all the sources use a particular word is not especially relevant. But, again, where is the contradiction? Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This, for example, is one "especially relevant" section of the article that I have now told you about twice.I suggests you read the article for more, but clearly your not going to read anything put in front of you anyway, or engage in serious discussion (because of "previous discussion"):

Kuhn thought that, though astrologers had, historically, made predictions that categorically failed, this in itself does not make it unscientific, nor do attempts by astrologers to explain away failures by claiming that creating a horoscope is very difficult. Rather, in Kuhn's eyes, astrology is not science because it was always more akin to mediæval medicine; they followed a sequence of rules and guidelines for a seemingly necessary field with known shortcomings, but they did no research because the fields are not amenable to research,[114]:8 and so "they had no puzzles to solve and therefore no science to practise."[113]:401[114]:8 While an astronomer could correct for failure, an astrologer could not. An astrologer could only explain away failure but could not revise the astrological hypothesis in a meaningful way. As such, to Kuhn, even if the stars could influence the path of humans through life astrology is not scientific.[114]:8

The absurd requirement for the lead's first sentence to be accurate is for astrologers, throughout the ages and up to the present day, to have claimed that astrology is scientific. No evidence for this, either in the article or elsewhere. Because as most readers are well aware, it's not the case. This article is a joke (see IP's comment in this section). zzz (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC) zzz (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources 3-5, 106-108, 111-112 and 115-116, in the very least, suggest the term "pseudoscience" is appropriate. François Robere (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Kuhn notes that astrology is not scientific. That is, also, consistent with the first sentence in the article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't (not all things that are unscientific are also pseudoscientific), but it doesn't matter, as the rest of the sources support that phrasing. François Robere (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, not all things that are unscientific are also pseudoscientific, but all things pseudoscientific are not scientific. And, of course, the first sentence says that astrology is pseudoscientific. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And, upon reflection, François, on the definition from the pseudoscience article: a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status, I agree with you. So, just being "unscientific" is not sufficient for astrology to be "pseudoscience", though that is necessary. The unfounded identification of cause and effect, the procedures of calculation that are performed, etc., those all give the impression that astrology is something "scientific". And, thus, astrology is pseudoscience. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"And the Lords said: Abide by the first sentence, lest though reaches the last sentence and thou knowest not what the essay wast about" François Robere (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Very nice! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And, it seems that Kuhn is arguing that even if astrology were physically valid (and we know that is isn't), practicing astrologers of olde did not respond to observed evidence that astrology didn't work. That is not how science is supposed to be done, though we all know that everyone is human (including both scientists and astrologers). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Isambard Kingdom @François Robere How many "astrologers of olde" actually claimed it was a science or scientific per se, and how many do nowadays? If the answer is "very few or none", as I suspect it is - and the article doesn't indicate otherwise - then it is patently absurd to define it exclusively as a form of science (or, in terms of science) in the first sentence. Hence my (instantly reverted) compromise edit, "Astrology consists of various systems of divination, which have been described as pseudoscientific". If this is accepted, then we can all go on our merry way. Please explain what your objection is to this, if you have any. zzz (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This question is irrelevant for two reasons:

a) We've got the sources, and that's enough as far as Wiki. is concerned (remember WP:FORUM).

b) Whether astrologers used this specific term is irrelevant; the question, rather, is whether they characterised the system as such that complies with the modern definition of "science", eg. logical, systematic and having predictive power. And they did. François Robere (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not "irrelevant" - I could equally say that sources describing it as pseudoscience are irrelevant - in fact, I certainly would say that, as far as the first sentence is concerned. It is very obvious that you think that a compromise is irrelevant, but that's not how Wikipedia works. That astrology complies with the modern definition of "science" is, at best, not a commonly held belief. Several sources describe it as psuedoscience, no one is denying that, so this can be given WP:due weight in the article, which does not remotely justify the absurd first-sentence definition Astrology consists of several pseudoscientific systems. Neither of your two points address the question: what objection do you have to the compromise? zzz (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

So you're tying the definition of something with the linguistic breadth of its creators? That is, if one developed chemistry in a land where the word "science" has not been invented, it would not be considered science by an outside observer? I submit that that is nonsense. As for the rest: First - you've misquoted me - reread; Second - the onus is on you, and you've yet to show that we should take issue with the current phrasing. François Robere (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If someone developed chemistry, it would be chemistry, which is a science. Here, we are talking about astrology, which is not a science. We should, and do, take issue with the current wording for the reasons given which you have chosen to ignore, again. zzz (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

So you agree that an object's definition does not depend on the object's definition of itself, but rather by its characteristics (as much as they can be observed). Excellent. Well, as astrology claims to have the characteristics of a science (if not adopting the term as such), yet it is not one by any modern standard, it is most certainly pseudo-scientific. Issue resolved, or must we again resort to counting our sources (which, as I've shown, largely support that conclusion)? François Robere (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

So, astrology is and always was science? Blatant WP:OR, obviously a terrible argument (and no, I don't "agree" - very few would). Such an extreme POV shouldn't be allowed to influence the content of the article, particularly not the definition in the first sentence, it just makes the article (and, by extension, Wikipedia) look ridiculous. You'll need a better justification than OR to keep the one-sided lead the way it is. And still no objection at all raised to my compromise proposal, despite multiple requests. zzz (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Again you misquote me; that's a bad habit. If I may suggest: read twice before you comment - it seems you have a tendency of missing some things that are said, and misunderstanding others. Also: I've come to suspect you may actually not know what pseudoscience is. I submit that less angst and more attention would be very beneficial for your work on Wiki articles. In the meanwhile - I'm retiring from this discussion. Best regards. François Robere (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Your argument is/was founded on the (spurious) principle that astrology has always claimed to be a science in all but name: "Excellent. Well, as astrology claims to have the characteristics of a science (if not adopting the term as such)". You have merely confirmed, again, that you have no reasonable basis for your opposition to changing the lead. Which is also of course confirmed by the fact you (or anyone else) have still offered no objection to the compromise wording, other than "irrelevant", in other words "WP:IDHT". I won't add my proposed wording back, as some open-minded expert with wide-ranging Wiki pursuits and interests will undoubtedly delete it within minutes with some edifying one-word edit summary. Instead, I will add the article tag back, until such time as the issue is resolved. zzz (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• I wrote that section, so I can say with some confidence that this is a nonsensical interpretation. The philosophers are pointing out different ways astrology is not science. For example, if you read Kuhn in context, he is talking about astrology precisely because Popper has it as an example of typical pseudoscience. He's using it to discuss his own demarcation of science from non-science (which is different from Popper's) and Astrology is the quintessential pseudo-science for that purpose. In fact, he takes astrology as the pseudoscience to look at, because he doesn't want things to be distracted by the "contemporary controversies" around psychoanalysis. Popper's and Kuhn's conclusions about demarcation are the same, but the point is that their reasoning process for arriving at that conclusion is different. That is, the philosophers are not in any way contradicting the lead; the discussion is about why its pseudoscience not that it is. That astrology is pseudoscience is taken as an uncontroversial fact.

"then it is patently absurd to define it exclusively as a form of science (or, in terms of science) in the first sentence" Astrology has always made claims within the scientific domain. Thus it is a pseudoscience. ".. which have been described as pseudoscientific" This adds uncertainty where there is none in the sources. In reliable sources it is unequivocally called pseudoscience.

"Your argument is/was founded on the (spurious) principle that astrology has always claimed to be a science" Astrology can't make claims (since its a concept), but you are talking about astrologers themselves. It is irrelevant whether astrologers do make the claim or not; some astrologers do, some do not. It's incoherent to call astrology pseudo-science because astrologers claim it's science and then call the exact same practice not pseudo-science because different astrologers don't claim its science. Astrology can't be pseudo-science and not pseudo-science at the same time. Rather it's pseudoscience because of the practices and nature of the discipline, as the sources used to support the statement all point out. This is why the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy devotes time to discussing broader definition of pseudo-science than you have set out [2] (they also note common usage in practice is more in keeping with this broader definition).

TLDR: We unequivocally call it pseudoscience because the most reliable sources (including astronomy textbooks) say it is matter-of-factly and without controversy. Second Quantization (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

TTLDR: Nothing changed consensus-wise, and we only had to revert two dozen edits along the way. Now everyone can get back to their rarebit. François Robere (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Not TLDR, thanks for posting this. The relevant part, the second paragraph, is very short in fact. You quote me: "then it is patently absurd to define it exclusively as a form of science (or, in terms of science) in the first sentence", which you counter with: "Astrology has always made claims within the scientific domain. Thus it is a pseudoscience." This is more-or-less the crux of the matter, yet your totally unsatisfactory answer is merely you repeating your personal opinion. Then, you quote my compromise proposal: ".. which have been described as pseudoscientific" which you counter with: "This adds uncertainty where there is none in the sources. In reliable sources it is unequivocally called pseudoscience." Your opinion about "add[ing] uncertainty" is clearly wrong - it merely states the fact, plainly ("unequivocally" if you will), that it has been described, "In reliable sources" - otherwise it wouldn't be worth mentioning at all - as pseudoscience. You sum up by by mentioning astronomy textbooks. I am at a loss as to why you believe that these should be regarded as sacrosanct RSs in a non-scientific article. However, with my compromise, I allow such sources to be mentioned in the first sentence. No rational objection has been raised, but thanks for at least trying. zzz (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"it merely states the fact, plainly". It clearly doesn't. Only contested or biased claims should be attributed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Attributing a fact makes it look like an opinion. Let's take an example: "The earth has been described as not flat." That clearly implied it's just an opinion rather than it being a fact that the world is not flat. It's pretty bloody obvious. "yet your totally unsatisfactory answer is merely you repeating your personal opinion." If you just read that paragraph in isolation that would be the case, except in the next paragraph I repeat the definition and explicitly link to the SEP which gives the same definition. So no. " in a non-scientific article" Scientific sources are perfectly appropriate for categorising what is pseudo-science. Second Quantization (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

And, as for incoherence which you raise as a supposed objection - in fact, it is incoherent, as I have been pointing out all along, to define the article in terms of science when it has never, traditionally, through its extremely long history, been "unequivocally", or even commonly, regarded as such. Have you read the article? Does it look like a science article to you? Do you think that Chaucer and Shakespeare used it in their work as a source of scientific facts? The Babylonians viewed celestial events as possible signs rather than as causes of physical events - the current "definition" is clearly at odds with the content of the article. zzz (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"Have you read the article?" Are you slow? I just told you I wrote parts of it. Astrology has always been considered in its relation to what we now consider science since at least the time of Ptolemy. Further, lets apply your same logic to astronomy. Astronomy has not traditionally been considered in its relation to science because science is a modern concept. Guess what, we still call it science in the lead of its article. "Do you think that Chaucer and Shakespeare used it in their work as a source of scientific facts?" This is a stupid point. Chaucher also makes use of astronomy, do you think that makes astronomy not a topic related to science? The astrology article spends time discussing the relation of astrology to science. Clearly it's scientific credentials or lack thereof is relevant and it being clear pseudoscience and lacking legitimacy is part of the most basic understanding of the topic. Second Quantization (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

At the top of the talk page is a template from the Arbitration Committee:

• "2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."
  

Edits to the article regarding this matter should take that into consideration.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

And WP:FRINGE uses also Astrology as a prime example of pseudoscience. Ok, that's "just" a guideline. But Arbcom using Astrology as the archetypal example of pseudoscience is a pretty solid sign for site-wide consensus, if not de facto policy. Astrology makes scientifically testable claims ("people born under X sign tend have Y qualities") which when tested only turn out no better than random chance. If astrologers did not mean for their claims to be statistically significant, then those claims are meaningless (i.e. saying "men born in Pisces tend to be short blondes" is utterly pointless if you also mean "but they could just as easily be tall brunettes, muscular baldies, fat redheads, or whatever anyone else could be"). These claims are rooted in beliefs (if varied) about natural law, beliefs that run contrary to science. "Making scientifically invalid claims based on a flawed or imaginary understanding of natural law" is perhaps the most basic form of pseudoscience, and anyone who claims astrology doesn't fit that bill would have to be ignorant of science, astrology, or perhaps both. It doesn't matter if a few astrologers try to admit that it's not clinical, their claims trespass into the domain of science. Even ignoring all that, there are multiple sources already in the article that describe it as pseudoscientific.

I say this not with the expectation of changing anyone's beliefs, but to give fair warning as to what sort of posts would lead an uninvolved admin using the Arbcom-approved discretionary sanctions (which can include topic bans). Oh, for the record, while I may have created the Monomoiria article and added the "Descriptions of the decans" section to the Decans article (both of which were completely silent on the issue of science and described the ideas only as beliefs), this is (to my knowledge) my first post on this talk page and I have never edited this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

☾Loriendrew☽, thanks for posting the Arbcom decision here - I couldn't find it.

@Ian.thomson This article is about astrology, not the purported claims of Mystic Meg. This post you made immediately after your statement here proves beyond doubt that you have no idea what this discussion is about: "there's not really any chance that the word "pseudoscience" is going to be removed from the first sentence." Removing the word "pseudoscience" is not even being discussed. Using your newly-gained admin status to wade into debates with disruptive, uninformed threats doesn't bode well for the future of the project. In future, I encourage you to take the trouble to find out what is being debated before offering your opinion. Editors should disregard the above post, and please note that the proposed change is entirely compliant with the Arbcom decision. zzz (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This thread was started on the grounds that defining astrology as pseudoscience in the first sentence was inappropriate, saying that you thought it was "pointy to put it in the first sentence of the article" and that the sources did "not remotely justify the absurd first-sentence definition Astrology consists of several pseudoscientific systems". Following that, you tried to argue astrology doesn't claim to be scientific (How many "astrologers of olde" actually claimed it was a science or scientific per se, and how many do nowadays?) -- an argument that is only relevant if you're trying to claim that astrology isn't pseudoscience. If you are not arguing for its removal from the first sentence, and you are not arguing that it is not pseudoscience, you have completely failed to get anything else across. It is only after being completely dismissed on both counts that you continued to try to waste everyone's time by pretending that you were arguing for something else that you've never once properly explained.

If anyone has no idea what's going on here, it's you. If the Arbcom decision clearly labels Astrology as the archetypal example of pseudoscience, how is it compliant to remove due weight from the first sentence regarding its pseudoscientific aspect? It's like going to the talk page for Muhammad, arguing that the images are inappropriate, going on about how Muslims don't draw pictures of Muhammad, and saying that the desired "compromise" (that is never actually defined) is somehow in line with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images. Or going to Talk:Climate change, saying that it's inappropriate to mention human activities in the lede, pointing out that there are scientists who doubt global warming, and again saying that the vague and hopeful "compromise" is somehow in line with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change.

And I indicated what action any uninvolved admin would take (not just me), and I stand confident enough in that that we can ask another admin to handle the matter if you really want to argue that I'm involved in an article I've never edited and am only now making my second talk page post for. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, "if you really want to argue that I'm involved" - please show me, with diffs, where - at any point in time - I have made any comment whatsoever on your involvement or otherwise. I couldn't care less how "involved" you think you are. Your aggressive behaviour here has been incomprehensible, to say the least. zzz (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Your Muhammed example, about a compromise "that is never actually defined", is baffling. The compromise is stated in plain English, above, more than once. And I am still waiting for it to be discussed. zzz (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, there can be absolutely no doubt that it would be perfectly in line with the Arbcom ruling. zzz (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I note that astrology in effect predates the widespread use of the scientific method, so calling it a pseudoscience is a bit of an anachronism. On that basis, I also question the use of it in the very first sentence. I also note that the existing lead runs to three paragraphs, one less than permitted. The current usage also, to my eyes, is questionable because it is, in effect, judging the system before even describing it, which seems to me less than useful, and may well be perceived by the readers as such.

I might myself a separate shorter lead paragraph identifying the premises of the system, their widespread acceptance up until the middle ages, and then an indication that the philosophical and scientific beliefs which form their basis, including the geocentric model, have been rejected since the widespread use of the scientific method.

Today I do not have direct access to the various reference books I have general access to, but I can see how they structure their ledes if theirs conforms to ours and see how they structure their ledes elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"I note that astrology in effect predates the widespread use of the scientific method" So does astronomy. Is astronomy a science? Both astronomy and astrology are ancient practices which are still practiced. One is science, the other is pseudoscience. Second Quantization (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Is that comment supposed to be useful? I certainly can't see how. And, if possible, you might want to address the substance of the comments made, rather than picking out one comment to object to, which in general is not considered particularly useful or acceptable talk page conduct. John Carter (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly the substance of the comment. You claimed it is an anachronism. By that same reasoning, since astronomy is just as ancient, it should be an anachronism to call astronomy science. But most people have no issue calling astronomy science in the lead and nor does any encyclopaedia I know of, despite it being an anachronism when applied to older practice. That is because astrology and astronomy are both still practised today. If astrology had died out completely then it being an anachronism would make sense, but it hasn't. Astrology is very much still practiced. Second Quantization (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It very clearly is not, and had you actually read it you would know that. But, as you apparently are able to miss the obvious, the substance of the comment is about rearranging the lede to be four paragraphs long, and start with a shortish paragraph describing the field. Also, I think you will find that there is a very unclear distinction between astrology and astronomy prior to at least the Renaissance, and that, in fact, most of what we today call astronomy was at that time more or less more regularly and significantly considered to be aspects of astrology. But I can see how some people who are perhaps strongly tied to certain concepts might be incapable of seeing their own biases. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"It very clearly is not" It clearly is. It is the basis of your reason for re-arranging the lead. You explicitly said your suggestion was "On that basis", yet when I point out a flaw you declare it to be totally irrelevant. I've pointed out that other leads do exactly the same thing. "there is a very unclear distinction between astrology and astronomy prior" And what (I've even written on the historical link here btw)? How does that relate in any way at all to what I said. It doesn't. You claimed it's an anachronism to call astrology pseudoscience in the lead. By the exact same reasoning it should be an anachronism to call astronomy science; yet we do and so does every encyclopedia. Yet you refuse to actually address the point. Astrology being pseudoscience does describe what astrology is just as much as astronomy being science describes astronomy. Second Quantization (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to put fuel in the fire, but I don't think the word pseudoscientific should be there. It is literally in the first sentence, and the word has a negative connotation. I understand astrology is pseudoscience, but that word right in the begging makes astrology look bad because of the negative idea people have of pseudoscience. I don't know how to explain myself, but to sum it all up: pseudoscience is a negative word.

Look: "'Astrology consists of several systems of divination based on the premise that there is a relationship [...]'"

The sentence sounds perfect without the word pseudoscientific. It sounds more elegant and less aggressive. Also, the word "divination" already implies it is not actually science. This is just my opinion though, and perhaps it has been refuted by the discussion above (which I didn't have the patience to read entirely). Outedexits (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a difference between giving psudeoscientific views equal weight, and giving an description of a concept as a concept priority over making a declaration about the current scientific views on it. Again, although this point seems to have been missed by some, I think most readers would find it most useful and probably "fairer" if the first description of the topic was about the topic in and of itself. Then, saying how it is wrong, by, for instance, implicitly accepting the heliocentric or in some cases earth-centric theory will be easier for the average reader to follow and possibly understand, and thus likely even have a greater impact on the reader than starting the phrasing with a judgmental term. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"the topic in and of itself" Being a pseudoscience is part of the topic in and of itself. Second Quantization (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"... and the word has a negative connotation" And calling something science has positive connotations, i.e as in for astronomy. Calling astronomy science is a positive judgement. Should we not call things science in the lead because of the positive connotations, or should we only remove the negative from leads? Second Quantization (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Second Quantization: The difference is that you can't call astronomy anything else but science. Now in astrology, it is not necessary to say it is pseudoscience. You don't need that word right in the first sentence. The sentence will be better without it. Outedexits (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

pseudoscientific divination

As a complement to my message right above, I wonder if the word pseudoscientific is really necessary. Saying pseudoscientific divination is like saying a male man or a female woman. Outedexits (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

let's just let this debate end. I'm not going to fuel the fire. I've checked the userpage of a few of you guys and you're all fervent skeptics, so apparently adding the word "pseudiscientific" is of extreme importance to you and your bias. Cheers. Outedexits (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I personally think the question I raised above, about whether the sanction against "equal weight" as per guidelines to pseudoscientific ideas necessarily extends to insisting that the word or similar takes first place in the first sentence, and I think maybe arbcom or the people on the relevant policy and guideline pages might be willing to help clarify that point, if there were people interested in asking it of them. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with Isambard Kingdom, Second Quantization and Ian.thomson. zzz have been repeating themselves for a while, despite having their arguments countered on several occasions both reasonably and on account of Wikipedia's guidelines. As for Outedexits's point regarding the redundancy of mentioning that a system of divination is pseudoscientific I've no clear opinion, though it's clearly stylistically preferable to abide by his suggestion. That being said, the discussion above is not about style, but about matter, and as far as matter is concerned designating Astrology as pseudoscientific is clearly correct, and as consensus of the matter has been achieved oh-so-long ago there's no reason to go through the whole process again without any new arguments to the contrary (and we may have been wrong to have been dragged into it, but that is a different matter). As for the stylistic issue - I support discussing it in a different thread if the factual issue can be relegated to the archives for the time being. François Robere (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree with all of the reasons given above. But I've made a bold edit even though I don't think it's really necessary so as to placate any fears about the lead. I don't think it matters that much whether it's scientific appraisal is brought up in the first sentence or whatever of the lead, so I propose my change [3]. Second Quantization (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)