Talk:Astrology

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

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

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

Carlson review

Daniel I have undone your edit which removed the following from the article:

Initially, the Carlson experiment was criticized as having a biased design that made the astrologers' tasks more difficult than they needed to be, but deeper flaws in method and analysis emerged. Carlson had disregarded his own stated criteria of evaluation, grouped data into irrelevant categories, rejected unexpected results without reporting them, and drew an illogical conclusion based on the null hypothesis. When the stated measurement criterion was applied, and the published data was evaluated according to the normal conventions of the social sciences, the two tests performed by the participating astrologers provided significant evidence (astrologers' ranking test: p = .054 with ES = .15, and astrologers' rating test: p = .037 with ES = .10), despite the unfair design, of their ability to successfully match CPIs to natal charts. Observers have called for more detailed and stringent double-blind experiments.

Such a significant edit calls for discussion and evaluation. The only explanation you gave was in your edit summary, which read: "using fringe publications to criticize mainstream research violates WP:UNDUE." I would question your characterisation of "mainstream research"? The review of the experiment, which found it to be flawed and biased, was made by an independent, respected authority, Hans Eysenck, who has an excellent reputation as seen by his long history of publications in well known science journals. He therefore represents 'the mainstream', because his review called for a more stringent application of the standards science expects. Additionally, be careful about what you assume to be 'fringe journals'. The reference to Correlation, for example, goes to what is regarded to be the premier journal of astrological research; its remit accords with the standard academic requirements that all submissions are peer-reviewed by suitably qualified experts in the fields of astrology, physics, and statistics. The NPOV policy reads: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That is the case here, so it is not adhering to policy, but breaking it, to remove reliably substantiated material that is directly relevant to the content of this page. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 19:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Eysenck isn't a terrible source, what I object to is the perceived tearing apart of a legitimate study using biased marginal sourcing. I don't know about "Correlation" and I can't find anything about it aside from astrologers praising it. I'll bring it up at the reliable source noticeboard. The Journal of Scientific Exploration is definitely a fringe source as is ISAR International Astrologer. --Daniel 20:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious why you defend the flawed study as 'legitimate', given the well-established criticisms raised against it. And why are you suggesting "biased marginal sourcing" in the reporting of these criticisms? When you say "The Journal of Scientific Exploration is definitely a fringe source" you need to appreciate that the definition only applies because it gives coverage to subjects that are classed as 'fringe subjects' - in other words, it explores topics such as astrology. In a discussion of a hard science, such a journal might be deemed in appropriate; here it is not. The WP page on the journal states:

Bernard Haisch and Martha Sims, respectively past editor-in-chief and past executive director, describe the Journal of Scientific Exploration as a "peer-reviewed journal following the customs and standards of academic journals but designed specifically for the scholarly study of anomalies".[1][4] If an article or essay paper is accepted "but there remain points of disagreement between authors and referee(s), the reviewer(s) may be given the option of having their opinion(s) published "subject to the Editor-in-Chief's judgment as to length, wording, and the like".[2] The policy of the journal is to maintain a critical view by presenting both sides of an argument so as not to advocate for or against any of the published topics.

So it is an appropriate journal to refer to for papers published on this subject. The policy on Fringe states:

One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, there must be adequate reliable sources to allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research. Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular viewpoint. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

Again, those policies have been adhered to here. Not every reference has to be to a peer-reviewed journal, of course, where there is a collection of reaffirming references published across a range of sources with reliable reputations, it is important to represent the collection of testimonies, to demonstrate that the information is widely reported. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added my 2c on the noticeboard. Disagree with Daniel J. Leivick to drastically edit the article unilaterally and without discussion. SLP (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. --Daniel 23:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a suggestion for a problem where "too many people are stuck discussing endlessly, and no progress can be made". Not the situation here. WP recommends that referenced material is never removed without appropriate talk-page discussion with the involved editors. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Then try WP:BOLD. The idea that I should have to clear edits on the talk page is the anathema of what Wikipedia is. --Daniel 23:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Not when it involves substantiated content. And please take the trouble to read the notice in the box above, which all editors here have laboured under: "Since the nature of this topic has been deemed controversial, all contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). It is also important to discuss substantial changes here before making them, supplying full citations when adding information."

None of the material is substantiated. All of the sources cited are totally unacceptable according to WP:RS. Consensus cannot trump core policy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that none of those references are reliable, and the section needs to be removed. Yobol (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sources in the section "Gauquelin's research" appear to be similarly unreliable. Sigh. Yobol (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I've deleted that section, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I find all this utterly odd. Suitbert Ertel was a professor of psychology at Göttingen until his retirement and studied so-called paranormal things critically; Hans Eysenck was arguably the world's leading expert on psychological tests. As for Gauquelin, his massive research on claimed planetary effects, whatever one thinks of them, constitute the weightiest body of work on the cubject and deserves more than cursory attention.Axel 02:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelHarvey (talk • contribs)

All material added must comply with WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:GEVAL. If you find this "utterly odd", I suggest you read these policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

All of the editors that have invested their time into this article are aware of the applicable policies and how they apply. The act of dropping a few policy codes does not give you or anyone the authority to break or twist those WP policies to serve an agenda. There has also been a great deal of collaboration, consideration, and adherence to the policy that is clearly marked at the top of this talk page - that substantial changes are fully discussed before they are applied.

The notice marks this page as a controversial subject which is in need of cautious and sensible editing. A lot of work has gone into resolving problems and avoiding heated disputes, so that points of criticism can be raised and addressed calmly and appropriately. The greater part of the ruthless edits that have occured tonight, based on knee-jerk reactions, are non-constructive edits that have removed highly significant material, substantiated by numerous reliable sources. These have clearly broken WP policy. The only sensible course of action is to restore the previous consensus-driven content, with the reminder that editors working on this subject are obliged to engage in the process of objective discussion and thoughtful evaluation that the policy of this page requires. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 04:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Cautious and sensible editing means not adding material that is not backed up with reliable sources, as determined by WP policy. The rest of your arguments are nonsensical and specious. Your interpretation of WP sourcing policies is grossly deficient. Please read the policies again and conform to them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What I don't see here is a discussion attempting to establish the credibility ot otherwise of a source. Who has determined, e.g., that Shaun Carlson is more credible than Professor Suitbert Ertel? A proper discussion would go into things like numbers of papers published, where published, how often cited, if one is tenured faculty, &c. None of which I see here. As for the criticism of my action yesterday - since all I did was restore text that was there previously, then that text must have been based on consesnus, no? For the reasons I have just mentioned, the comments I see above about the alleged unreliability of references does not seem based on any thorough discussion. And a final technical glitch: the robot said my comment was unsigned, but I did sign it with four tildes, after which my name (Axel) appeared followed by a time stamp. I never get a blue link when I sign. How does one arrange that? Axel 23:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelHarvey (talk • contribs)

Request for comment on sourcing

This request is closed. Please see new RfC section below.

Concerns have been raised about whether the content of this article conforms to WP policies concerning pseudoscientific/fringe subjects, most especially whether the sources used conform to WP:RS, and whether they are used properly. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• No Is this a trick question? Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is too vague a question. Which sources? All of them? HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Exactly, for the input to be useful and serve any purpose at all, editors with concerns should identify which, if any sources, cause concerns, and propose suggestions that would make the article of more value to its readers. Be aware that the policy on Due and Undue Weight weight requires that the article "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Also, that in an article specifically about a fringe subject "such views may receive more attention and space". I'm surprised that the request for comment has been made here, since there is an ongoing discussion about this issue, less than 1 day old, on the reliable sources noticeboard. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 07:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wrong premise! DV, your request would have some validity if it had simply stated ""Concerns have been raised about whether the content of this article conforms to WP policies". No need for the "concerning pseudoscientific/fringe subjects" bit. If it doesn't conform to WP policies, it doesn't conform period. Moriori (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Are you able to provide examples of peer-reviewed journals that would be both amenable to publishing articles on astrology and acceptable to you? The publication in Nature of Carlson in 1985 was an exception as the Carlson experiment was sponsored by CSICOP and the editor, John Maddox was a fellow of CSICOP. Nature, in the 25 years since, has refused to publish papers on astrology including an attempt to replicate Carlson. Editors of psychology journals will refer studies connected with astrology to Correlation, the premier peer-reviewed journal in the field, or ISAR, unless the paper primarily involves psychology. Correlation publishes papers that are both critical of astrology by well-known sceptics and tests that support astrology. I don't know enough about ISAR to comment. However, it is a circular argument to claim that astrology lacks evidence, but to suppress any journal that investigates and publishes astrological tests that are conducted under scientific conditions and peer-reviewed. Robert Currey talk 09:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Here and here are two sources which I just removed. I don't have time to look any closer right now, but I hope someone does have time. Mystylplx (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Procedural comment: I'm uninvolved in this topic, got a notification Wikipedia:Feedback request service about this RfC. The RfC is not specific enough to actually enable uninvolved editors to meaningfully participate. Could the initiatior or any other involved editor actually explain what the concerns are over the reliability of the sources? Which sources in particular? Given the points made by Zachariel about the existence of a thread on WP:RSN, I think the best thing would be for an uninvolved admin to close this RfC and then open an RfC that actually specifies what the damn point of contention is. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The point of contention began last night when a new editor removed a relevant passage from the article without discussion. I restored the content, which held 5 references, on the basis that “such a significant edit calls for discussion and evaluation”. You can see what he removed and my response in the section directly above, subheaded: Carlson Review

The editor then raised a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, on whether the peer-reviewed journal Correlation constitutes a reliable source. He proposed that this article uses “fringe sources to debunk mainstream research”. If you read the discussion you will see why I consider the suggestion unreasonable and unnecessarily provocative.

Within a few hours a number of new editors (including Dominus Vobisdu who opened this request for comment) made blanket removals of passages of the article with little or no explanation/discussion on the talk page. This took about 1000 words out of the article, and removed 30 references. I have argued that all of those indiscriminate cuts were non-constructive edits which failed to apply to the policy ruling made on this ‘controversial subject’ (to discuss substantial changes here before making them on the main page). On that basis, the original content has been restored with the request that any perceived problems be raised for discussion and proper evaluation. That was when Dominus Vobisdu, who seems to be very sparing in his/her own comments, made the request for others to comment.

Hope that helps. The objective attention of uninvolved is editors is very valuable. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• The point is the vast majority of the sources used in the "Research" section is sourced to pro-astrology "journals" and literature; these are not mainstream sources, and the intended effect of this is to create a significant WP:WEIGHT problem by using this large number of pro-astrology sources. How on earth is it possible that the "Research" section is nearly 3 times larger than the "Scientific criticism" section, and no one finds anything wrong with this? Yobol (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

The following text, "Astrologers may also find it difficult to publish their research in mainstream scientific journals for several reasons, and a case has been made to underline this difficulty from a much wider perspective." was sourced to this source, which does not mention Astrology at all. This is clear OR/synth, and should not be added back. Yobol (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

More specific RfC on sourcing in research section.

The main questions deal with the sourcing used in the research section, in particular, the following subsections:

1) Methods [[1]]: The section is written from the POV that astrology is based on scientific principles, and that astrologers carry out "research", with "experiments" yielding "empirical" data. The language of the section is studded with scientific terms and goes far beyond reporting just what astrologers claim; their claims are presented in the voice of WP. The sources used are almost entirely primary sources published in non-peer reviewd "journals" and monographs. The notability of the sources given cannot be determined. The section is apologetic in nature, and gives only the fringe point of view. Particularly troubling are the last few sentences, which grossly violate WP:GEVAL and imply that the "controversy" surrounding studies on astrology extends into the scientific community, and generally violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE.

2) Gauquelin's research [[2]]: The section pertains to a pseudoscientific self-published study of unknown notability that is placed on equal footing with a scientific study published in Nature (see next section). Again, all of the sources provided are either self-published or published in non-peer review journals. The whole section is purely apologetic in tone, and the mainstream scientific position is essentially waved aside.

3) Carlson's experiment [[3]]: The first paragraph is fine, and describes a scientific study published in nature. The second paragraph, though, is a "rebuttal" that consists basically of kvetching culled entirely from non-peer-reviewed sources. The claims are extraoordinary and fringe, yet are presented in the voice of WP. This paragraph grosly violates WP:GEVAL, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE.

4) Obstacles to research [[4]]: Non-encyclopedic special pleading about why astrologers can't conduct or publish their "research" in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Again, sourced with unreliable sources. Although slightly better attributed, the section is purely apologetic in nature. As such, it is little more than an off-topic rant.

5) Mechanisms [[5]]. The first paragraph and quote are fine. After that, however, follows yet another apologetic paragraph with an appeal to authority to Carl Sagan. The next paragraph is also purely apologetic. These two paragraphs are also sourced primarily with fringe non-peer-reviewed sources, except for the Sagan sources, which are given undue weight.

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Was it necessary to close the original RFC and create a new one which masks the earlier responses?

Yes, it was. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with starting a new RfC. Amending the prior RfC would have caused great confusion, since there were several replies already under the RfC, and they would have been made to look like non sequiturs. This is a brand new RfC and a "re do" is okay ... if it were a week old, a restart would probably be inappropriate. --Noleander (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

NOTICE: An earlier RfC was made but was closed because many respondents complained that it was not specific enough. All respondents have ben notified of this new RfC on their talk pages and invited to comment further. The responses to the earlier RfC can be see here: [[6]]. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC) 14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - There is a guideline on the topic of pseudoscience, which talks about special considerations to be used for pseudoscience related articles. That guideline has an entire section on reliability of sources for pseudoscience/fringe articles, namely WP:PARITY. That guideline states that the requirements for sourcing fringe topics in an article on a mainstream topic is very high, and fringe topics are usually omitted from mainstream articles; but in articles about the fringe topics themselves the standard is much lower, and it is okay to include sources that consider the pseudoscience to be genuine (but the sources should be clearly identified in the article itself). The guideline goes on to say that the threshold for criticism of fringe theories is correspondingly lower: any decent source may be used for criticism, even sources not in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, some of the suspect material you enumerate above can be included in this article, because the article is about the fringe theory. The best remedy is to rely on the fact that counter-balancing criticism of astrology can and should be included in this article, and that the sourcing requirements for such criticism is relaxed for this article. In general, the guideline includes lots of guidance that is designed to ensure that material in pseudoscience articles is not presented as scientific fact. --Noleander (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• Mechanisms section - For example, the "mechanisms" section is a bit misleading because it implies there are mechanisms, and that Sagan supports that concept. The WP Policies WP:Undue and WP:PARITY make it clear that no section in this article can place more than about half the weight endorsing the suggestion that astrology is valid. The remedy is to add more explicit balancing material that says "No, there is no mechanism" and name 3 or 4 prominent scientists that hold that view. The Mechanism section should be about half "maybe there is a mechanism" and about half "scientists say there definitely not". Ditto for all other sections in the article. Even in the lead: the "Mainstream considers astrology to be a pseudoscience" should be in the first paragraph, not at the tail end. --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Noleander. I don't see the concern with the mechanisms section myself. Far from suggesting that there are approved mechanisms, the passage is clear "Few astrologers believe that astrology can be explained by any direct causal mechanisms between planets and people". The references to Sagan are relevant because his refusal to sign the 'manifesto' is a significant point in modern astrological history, and continues to be referred to frequently. The text clarifies that he refused to sign on a matter of principle, and not because he thought that astrology was valid. The passage offers an overview of various influential views on the matter, demonstrating the diversity of opinion. I would say the last sentence regarding Percy Seymour is questionable. I placed a clarification needed tag on that some months ago. Since the clarification hasn't been forthcoming, that could be removed. That would help to balance the passage I believe, since it seems to imply that a mechanism exists which could explain astrology, which conflicts with earlier assertions that astrology is not based on a recognised mechanism, and is not causal in its basis (it is not a case of given that view an equal share of support, but clarifying that it's a red herring in terms of what the subject is about, whilst succintly covering the arguments that have been raised around that point).

The lede should not be tinkered without good reason. There were months of discussion involving editors with sceptical views, which established that, for now, the lede is appropriate and should be left as it is until the article is complete. This article is undergoing development - the history section is incomplete and will include a section on modern history, popularisation, commercialisation, etc, and this will also include its own criticisms section. In a topic with the historical and cultural influence that this subject has, it is inappropriate to place the main emphasis of its definition on what it is not. Astrology is not a science, and the lede is perfectly clear in stating this, and in choosing to specify - from all the points of notability that the subject has, that it has been defined as a pseudoscience. To go beyond that in the lede is to introduce undue weight. The page has a duty to present a comprehensive overview of the full story of astrology. Giving proportionate coverage to all its points of notability and significance.

Intelligent consideration and calm objectivity is required to get the balance of this controversial subject right. If the passage on mechanisms is considered to leave the view that any approved mechanism has been recognised, then how do we adjust this, to cover the relevant arguments and discussions, whilst emphasising that the principles of astrology are supported by philosophical theories, not scientific ones? Perhaps it is the use of the word 'mechanisms; in the title of this subsection that leads towards the wrong emphasis? If so, we need discussion on that point. (Most of the contributors who developed this content are not currently here. One stated a trip to India and I am not sure if he has returned yet). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to the RfC. The Research section is highly problematic for the reasons outlined. It should not be implied that astrologers carry out scientific research. A section "Scientific standing" would be appropriate and could reflect the range of scientific views of astrology, a range that in the real world is overwhelmingly weighted towards outright rejection. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Itsmejudith. The solutions to Dominus Vobisdu's inquiry is not "delete it because the sources are flaky" but rather "WP permits so-so souces for fringe topics, so instead balance it with counter-balancing material and neutral phrasing." The suggestion of Itsmejudith is a great example of re-working the material to be more objective and to ensure that WP does not present astrology as a legitimate science to unsuspecting readers. --Noleander (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Re the comment: "It should not be implied that astrologers carry out scientific research" - are you suggesting that astrologers, even if suitably qualified to do so, should not be allowed to carry out scientific research? Or that the astrological community should not be allowed to invest its interests in scientific research? Or that if they do, the article should not be allowed to report it? Most of the research discussed here was not carried out by astrologers. Are you saying that the article is not allowed to report on the notable studies with discussion of the issues they raise and the relevant findings and criticisms applied to them, even when based on informative, reliable and verifiable sources? I also support the idea of neutral reporting, but what I want to establish is - are both sides of the argument allowed to be told? If so, we are in catch 22; if not, we are in a worse place than that. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I mean, "research", as it is commonly understood in scholarly communities, is not part of the activity called "astrology". Notable studies can of course be mentioned, in fact all notable studies ought to be mentioned. As a way of moving forward, it would help if some people would list what they think are the best sources describing astrology. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Dominus Vobisdu, you have raised this RFC. From the wording of your points, it would appear to me that you are not familiar with current astrological work, thinking and trends. I'm not even sure whether you could define what astrology is. If true, that would not only give a strong POV bias to your efforts but also question your overall involvement. This issue has plagued the astrology article for some time: it is 'laypeople' vs. astrologers, with the former getting their uninformed views through by weight of opinion (i.e. sheer numbers) and procedural politics (i.e. being well versed in WP editorship but knowing nothing about the subject matter). For example, accepting the original Carlson article written by a student, which is an incredibly poor piece, just because it was published in Nature while rejecting scholarly articles written and peer-reviewed by subject matter experts, that raise relevant issues and put the original article in proper light, just because it was not published in a mainstream scientific journal is poor editorial judgment in my view. Similarly for not recognizing Gauquelin's significance etc, etc. Poor show overall for bringing up these straw-man arguments and red herrings, but this is not limited to your good self, unfortunately. Nothing personal, of course, just the subjective view of an editor. SLP (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — StarLightPiazza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Remove all attempts based on non-RS to portray subject as connected with science While RfCs are necessary, it is obvious that there are two sides with irreconcilable differences and this discussion will go nowhere—only a major intervention from ANI or Arbcom will resolve the situation. The text at Astrology#Research is designed to suggest that scientific research supports aspects of astrology, with blue-link laden text to impress the reader (example: "The investigation of astrology has used the empirical methods of both qualitative research and quantitative research"). The sources are junk which fail WP:RS for any comment regarding a connection between arbitrary astrological events and life on Earth. Yes, the sources can (in a due manner) outline what astrologers think, but the current article uses language tricks to mix beliefs and scientific-sounding language with the result that a reader would be misled about what reliable sources say regarding the connection between heavenly objects and everyday life. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Follow ArbCom ruling Astrology is generally considered a pseudoscience and should be discussed from that perspective. We can certainly mention various studios like those conducted by Gauquelin, but they must be discussed from the perspective that they never received much traction in actual scientific communities. The same goes for marginally sourced criticisms of studies published in major publications like Carlson's research. Overall this article has far too much fringe apologetics for astrology and far to little discussion of the actual history and forms of the various existing types of astrology. --Daniel 22:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Every scientific claim sourced to a fringe source must be removed. This includes any astrology journal, book, or website, the Journal of Scientific Exploration, and others. None of these journals are indexed in Web of Science, none are widely cited, and none show signs of being part of mainstream academic discourse. The "Research" section - indeed, most of the article - is unambiguously in violation of WP:UNDUE. Skinwalker (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'll add more to this later. If you have an acknowledged scientist, that is a scientist with a good scientific reputation, published in a fringy journal, do you automatically ignore what they say because of the journal? Are we saying that legit scientists publish in fringe journals only when they want to break with science or have something unscientific to say? I understand about peer review, but I also do not understand complete dismissal. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 03:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally, if a legitimate scientist has something scientific to say, they are going to try their darndest to get it published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal of considerable prestige and relevance. The motivation for doing so is incredibly high. If a legitimate scientist self-publishes or publishes his work in a fringe journal, it is a good bet that either 1) the paper was rejected by mainstream journals, 2) it was not even submitted to a mainstream journal because the author thought it would be rejected, or 3) the paper is on a topic that is either non-scientific or outside the scientist's field of expertise to the point that the scientist lacks competence to contribute to the field. Legitimate scientists can and do publish non-scientific or popular scientific papers in non-peer reviewed journals, and there is usually nothing wrong with this. On the other hand, when a scientist publishes a paper that ostensibly appears to be a serious scientific study in a fringe journal, skepticism is justified, and the validity of the study is questionable. It will generally be ignored or dismissed by the mainstream scientific community without the benefit of being read, regardless of the scientist's credentials, because it did not pass though a process of rigorous peer review. Scientists do not have time to scour through obscure fringe journals and evaluating papers of dubious validity on the extremely remote chance that they will find anything of scientific value. After all, one of the main funtions of the peer-review process is to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Bottom line: sources that make scientific claims that do not appear in mainstream recognized peer-reviewed journals can safely be considered as unreliable sources of little, if any, utility for WP purposes. It's a case of "guilty until proven innocent". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Do not make use of pseudo-journals. At all. The article should not give the impression that there is serious scientific debate about astrology, because there isn't. Please see this discussion, not because Jimbo has spoken, but because it outlines the issue. Journals which make claims about the existence of ghosts or remote viewing or a collective consciousness are not reliable sources for scientific claims. It may be that there is room in the article for discussion of attempts to scientifically legitimise astrology, but this should be based on unbiased, quality secondary sources. If no such sources can be found, then the content is not noteworthy for inclusion in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Rephrase the section. Whilst it's OK to include material from pseudoscientific sources, this shouldn't be given in WP's voice. Attribute the claims carefully, whilst being clear about their actual truth status. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Remove most material cited to pseudo-scientific journals. These journals/books are not much better than self-published sources, and should be treated as such (lack of real editorial oversight, etc.) They can be used, carefully, to clarify the positions of the authors of the articles/books or the journal (as appropriate), but should not be used as the sole or even significant minority of sources here. They should only be used if independent sources establish the (for lack of a better word) notability of a position or claim, for WP:WEIGHT purposes. Independent secondary sources are the backbone of every article on Wikipedia, and this should be no different. Yobol (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Astrological Research should not be buried by WP rules. When 6 independently published and peer reviewed studies whose authors include 3 psychology professors (including the eminent Hans Eysenck) reveal flaws and data sampling errors in an experiment started by a 19 year old physics undergraduate sponsored by CSICOP and published in Nature by a CSICOP fellow, it is time to follow the spirit of the rules and not the letter of the rules. In dealing with this page, we should always consider the experience of the author, the context and the pre-eminent journals in the field. Robert Currey talk 14:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So your argument rests on the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, the logical fallacy of special pleading, and the complete nonsense of equating in-universe fringe rags with genuine peer-reviewed scientific publications, with a dash of conspiracy theorizing and a pich of cries of censorship. Sounds like a recipe for BULLSHIT to me. And you want us to ditch WP policies for that??? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you don't intend it, but you write as if you are angry and emotional about astrology. What kind of studies or experience have led to you to feel this way? Have you looked at the papers (Carlson & Ertel) since they are published on the web? Robert Currey talk 15:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, joy! An appeal to motive and yet more special pleading! You ain't preachin' to the choir here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - you've answered my questions. Robert Currey talk 22:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Rewrite from perspective of mainstream science. WP:FRINGE is very clear on this, and I don't think an exception should be made in this case. We should make it crystal clear exactly what mainstream science thinks of the work listed in the research/scientific appraisal section. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I trust you would apply your opinion consistently and agree that the published views of mainstream science which were expressed by Hans Eysenck should not be withheld. The eminent psychologist was arguably the world's leading expert in psychological testing and by the end of this life the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals. Eysenck was crystal clear in his sharp criticism of the astrological study initiated by a 19-year-old physics graduate and sponsored by CSICOP (not mainstream science). Would using trying to use WP rules to cover up the views of mainstream science be justified if the alternative views fitted one's beliefs? Robert Currey talk 09:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Eysenck's defence of astrology is notable and should be mentioned somewhere in the series of articles. However, we need to take care. Notwithstanding Eysenck's eminence, he was always a controversialist and published for popular audiences, so his views never automatically represent the mainstream. Sometimes he represents the mainstream, sometimes one side in a an academic debate, and sometimes he espoused fringe positions. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• WP:FRINGE theory should be clearly stated - This article is about a WP:FRINGE theory and it should be clearly stated citing mainstream scientific sources. There is no point in including pseudo-science sources. Those would obviously contradict with the mainstream scientific sources, thus those are not WP:RS. Abhishikt (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Would fringe sources (in this case a peer reviewed astrology journal) have to contradict mainstream sources? How does astrology 'obviously contradict' mainstream science? Robert Currey talk 09:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Achieving Neutrality

Ensuring that Wikipedia policies are properly understood, and then consistently applied, is the only solution to meeting the controversies that a controversial topic like this attracts. The sensible way to move forward is to take the sections under consideration and subject each one of them systematically to critical approval and invitation for improvement. It is not possible to scatter the necessary attention that each passage requires across notice boards and various talk page sections – to get this content perfectly balanced it needs thoughtful review. If there is an inability to reach consensus about a particular source, then that source should be discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard, so it can be considered specifically within the context that it is being used. All of the sections that have been subject to criticisms (fair or not) can be reviewed in detail and the content adjusted, if necessary, as necessary. This is a time-consuming process, but this is the norm of this page which is restrained by the policy - clearly notified at the top of the page - (and with good reason) that substantial changes should be discussed here before making them to the page. This is also in-line with the Wikipedia policy on Achieving Neutrality, which states

“As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.”

Since the passage on Mechanisms has already had some scrutiny, that seems as good as any to kick off the process. I’ll reproduce it below with a recap on some of the comments made earlier, in the hope of stimulating other constructive suggestions that help us find the ideal solution and improve the quality of the information given in this article.

---

Mechanisms

In 1975, amid increasing popular interest in astrology, a widely publicized article, "Objections to Astrology," published in The Humanist in the form of a manifesto signed by 186 scientists, sparked a scientific controversy. In particular, "Objections to Astrology" focused on the question of astrological mechanisms with the following words:

{{quote|We can see how infinitesimally small are the gravitational and other effects produced by the distant planets and the far more distant stars. It is simply a mistake to imagine that the forces exerted by stars and planets at the moment of birth can in any way shape our futures.

Astronomer Carl Sagan, host of the award-winning TV series Cosmos, said that he found himself unable sign the "Objections" statement, not because he thought that astrology was valid, but because he found the statement's tone authoritarian, and because objections on the grounds of an unavailable mechanism can be mistaken. "No mechanism was known," Sagan wrote, "for continental drift (now subsumed in plate tectonics) when it was proposed by Alfred Wegener... The notion was roundly dismissed by all the great geophysicists, who were certain that continents were fixed." Sagan stated that he would instead have been willing to sign a statement describing and refuting the principal tenets of astrological belief, which he believed would have been more persuasive and would have produced less controversy.

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

---

Comments, criticisms and suggestions:

(First five below are extracted from comments made earlier)

• Criticism: The first paragraph and quote are fine. After that, however, follows yet another apologetic paragraph with an appeal to authority to Carl Sagan. The next paragraph is also purely apologetic. These two paragraphs are also sourced primarily with fringe non-peer-reviewed sources, except for the Sagan sources, which are given undue weight. (Dominus Vobisdu)

• Criticism: the "mechanisms" section is a bit misleading because it implies there are mechanisms, and that Sagan supports that concept. The WP Policies WP:Undue and WP:PARITY make it clear that no section in this article can place more than about half the weight endorsing the suggestion that astrology is valid. (Noleander)

• Suggestion: The remedy is to add more explicit balancing material that says "No, there is no mechanism" and name 3 or 4 prominent scientists that hold that view. The Mechanism section should be about half "maybe there is a mechanism" and about half "scientists say there definitely not". (Noleander)

• Comment: I don't see the concern with the mechanisms section myself. Far from suggesting that there are approved mechanisms, the passage is clear "Few astrologers believe that astrology can be explained by any direct causal mechanisms between planets and people". The references to Sagan are relevant because his refusal to sign the 'manifesto' is a significant point in modern astrological history, and continues to be referred to frequently. The text clarifies that he refused to sign on a matter of principle, and not because he thought that astrology was valid. The passage offers an overview of various influential views on the matter, demonstrating the diversity of opinion. (Zac)

• Suggestion: I would say the last sentence regarding Percy Seymour is questionable. I placed a clarification needed tag on that some months ago. Since the clarification hasn't been forthcoming, that could be removed. That would help to balance the passage I believe, since it seems to imply that a mechanism exists which could explain astrology, which conflicts with earlier assertions that astrology is not based on a recognised mechanism, and is not causal in its basis (it is not a case of giving that view an equal share of support, but clarifying that it's a red herring in terms of what the subject is about, whilst succintly covering the arguments that have been raised around that point).(Zac) -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have clarified Dr Percy Seymour's theory. Also, I think the various possible mechanisms should be numbered. Robert Currey talk 23:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification on Seymour, something I've been meaning to do. Perhaps it is the word "manifesto" in the Mechanisms section that is giving a problem because it is too strong a word. The 186 scientists, 18 of whom were Nobel Prizewinners, were appealing to their own authority. They mention there is "strong evidence to the contrary" against astrology but they do not say what that evidence is. Instead, they state their belief that gravity is too weak to be a possible mechanism. They say nothing about statistical investigations of astrology, which do not need a mechanism. So this is what could be called a manifesto, an appeal to authority. This 186 scientist statement is balanced by the statement from Sagan, who unapologetically criticizes the "authoritarian tone" of the 186. He offers a different critical approach to astrology that would not depend on arguments of mechanism, which historically does not always stand up. Is "manifesto" too harsh and should it be removed? Ken McRitchie (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the text to show last night's amendments. Since we are reviewing this passage critically right now, please don't make any more amendments to the main space text until we have ensured this passage is as robust and objective as it can be, and are satisfied that its focus is appropriate and relevant. Any more comments or suggestions on this as it stands. For the record, the 'unreliable source' tag was added by Skinwalker, with the edit-box comment: "yet another patently unreliable source for a scientific claim" -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree that there should be no concern with the mechanism section with regards to Sagan. The statement that very few astrologers beleive or claim there is a mechanism highlights objectivity. The Sagan information gives details of historical debate and the references given are reliable and verifiable.Wendy Stacey (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Not a biggie, but I don't think the wiki-link to The Humanist, should remain. It doesn't go to details of the magazine in question. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion: I have been working on a draft for the mechanisms section in my Sandbox. Comments are welcome. Robert Currey talk 16:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Robert, I have been working on a rewrite of the section since yesterday, to amalgamate the suggestions and address the criticisms. I don't think it will be possible to use all your text. It is very good, but for the sake of balance it will be difficult to use such strong arguments. However, I will incorporate what I can and will post something shortly for review and comment. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 06:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Criticism: seems—unjustifiably, and against NPOV policy—to give more weight to the caviling of one scientist than to the agreement of 186 scientists. - Nunh-huh 23:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There's nothing in Sagan's objection which couldn't be covered in a single sentence, if it's necessary at all. Its only function for the article is to lessen the impact of the Humanist material. Per NPOV, this might be more justifiable if astrologers were actually objecting to the Humanist claim of no mechanism, but they actually agree with it. The agreement by all that there are no mechanisms (known) is the important thing here and what should be emphasized, in a very small section. B^e——C_ritical 02:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Tags

I'm adding NPOV and reliable source tags to the article, for reasons that should be obvious by reading the above discussion and the thread at WP:RSN. This article is biased towards the pro-astrology point of view and uses patently unreliable sources to push this POV. Skinwalker (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Whilst totally rejecting your view, the tags are fair enough. We will go through each of the criticisms systematically and sensibly. At the end of the day blanket critisms are pretty pointless - each detail has to be looked at in context. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This article appears not to be about 'astrology'

Rather than being an article about 'astrology' as an encyclopaedic subject, the article instead seems to me to have become a battleground between the 'believers' and the 'sceptics' over whether it 'works'. This is bad enough in itself, but it has also ensured that a major part of the topic isn't actually discussed at all: the significance of mainstream mass-media 'star-sign' horoscopes within popular culture. As I recently wrote on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, this omission may be explained by both 'serious' astrologers' and 'sceptics' likewise seeing these as tosh, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is almost certainly how most people experience, and perceive, astrology. And it isn't just a matter of abstract 'culture' either: in the 1990s, the Daily Mail for instance was grossing around £1 million per year from phone lines plugged by its printed horoscopes. [7] Any balanced article on the topic should be placing greater emphasis on mass-market astrology, and less on esoteric debates between practitioners of a minor branch, and 'sceptics'. The subject matter should be defined by the subject, not by the current battleground in an on-Wikipedia dispute.

It also appears to not be about 'astrology' as a subject for another reason entirely - it is confined almost exclusively to one particular 'western' form' of the practice, and relegates other traditions to the sidelines - totally unbalanced in a top-level article. If an article is to solely discuss the 'western' astrological tradition, it should be named accordingly, and any top-level article entitled 'astrology' needs to give a more balanced account of the different variations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both points, though I'm not volunteering to fix them. — kwami (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That Wikipedia references the debates over astrology does not make Wikipedia the battleground. The question here is whether the facts and circumstances regarding the debates will or will not be recorded. The history and debates over astrology are of far more scholarly interest than popular horoscope columns. Let's keep things in perspective. Ken McRitchie (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedias do not confine the scope of their topics to the debates of a small minority of 'scholars' who are actually interested in esoteric debates over the topic. Astrology is a part of mainstream culture, and the fact that this aspect of astrology is disregarded in the debate between the 'pro' and 'anti' factions doesn't make it less significant. 'Perspective' can only be based on reality (or at least on our perceptions of it), and for every participant in the scholarly debates, there must be a thousand people reading 'their stars'. If scholars are ignoring popular culture, then it says little for their scholarship... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's astonishing that the article makes no mention at all of that woman (forgot her name) who supposedly predicted JFK's assassination and who had an influence on the Nixon administration. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The woman who made a prediction in 1956 that a democrat elected to the presidency in 1960 would die in office was Jeane Dixon. She also predicted that Kennedy would would lose the election in 1960. This selective remembering of correct, though imprecise, predictions and forgetting of incorrect predictions (the Jeane Dixon effect) may well have a place in an article on astrology. As pointed out below, the astrologer who played a role in the Reagan administration was Joan Quigley; I'm not aware of an astrologer having any influence on the Nixon White House.- Nunh-huh 22:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree too, but Andy I am surprised that you don't realise that there is every intention to do this. It was previously discussed as part of the rearrangement of the content and plan for development and I thought you were involved at that time. (I will try to look through the archives and find that, but will give up if it takes more than 2 mins and will recap from what I recall). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 08:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah, gave it two minutes, but too much to crawl through. You can see the theme in my post of 18 July began "It is undeniably innapropriate the way that the 'Astrology and science' section has been allowed to dominate this article on an age-old subject which has a vast cultural legacy and philosophical relevancy. We need to rethink the content from a fresh perspective which allows the reader to understand the subject - as well as the reasons why it has been hugely popular but never free from criticms and controversy. I am not suggesting this is done overnight". The way I remember is that the history section - which still needs a lot of development, will conclude with a section on modern history, which will detail the introduction of newspaper columns and how this has popularised the subject, I've stated in posts recently that the development of modern history will include its own criticisms, concerning probems with mass-marketing, commercialisation and over-simplification, etc.

I don't agree that this page has misplaced its focus by mainly dealing with the history and development of the Western tradition, whilst explaing that this developed in the east, and including brief refrence to other traditions and links for further info. In the English language editions of WP, we should focus on the system that has predominated in world culture as we understand it. The subject is comprehensive enough without trying to cover something like Chinese astrology, which has a very important story of its own, but falls outside the remit of what we can practially cover on this page. Likewise, other cultural versions of WP focus on the system that predominates in their regions.

Whilst it's good to get suggestions like this, the problem we face is a lot of work to be done. Anything realting to the overview of the subject's history and effect on culture is not ready to be critically assessed yet. A recent attempt to delete a collection of pages on the history of astrology has created the need to get those pages in good order first, so that the content can be summarised as part of the overview of trhe story of the astrology here. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 08:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some reference to Sun Sign astrology. The income and audience of a small group of media sun sign astrologers is huge compared to all other astrologers put together. However, it should be put into the context that it is a recent phenomenon - a youthful 81 year old :) compared to four thousand plus years, that it is practiced by a minority of professional astrologers and some astrologers do not consider it ‘real astrology’. There is of course a WP article on Sun sign astrology. As I see it, pop astrology is like Star Trek which is based on speculative ideas about science of the future but it’s science fiction rather than science. It doesn’t matter how popular it is or whether some people mistakenly consider it science, it is tangential to the page, but it should be mentioned.

Chinese Astrology, in the form of the circle of 12 animals, is a misnomer. It is not IMO astrology since it doesn't involve the positions or cycles of celestial bodies other than the New Moon to determine the start of the year rather like Easter or Ramadan is determined by a specific lunation.

Reagan's astrologer, Joan Quigley should, of course, also be included - perhaps in the Modern Era - history section? Robert Currey talk 09:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Robert Currey, that is nonsense of the highest order - you state that "The income and audience of a small group of media sun sign astrologers is huge compared to all other astrologers put together", and then argue that because it is "pop astrology" and because "some astrologers do not consider it ‘real astrology’" it is somehow tangential to the main page of our astrology coverage. As for your comments about it being mistaken by some for science, I think the response to that is too obvious to be worth bothering with. No we don't need to insert a paragraph or two on popular sun sign astrology into the article - we need to start again from scratch, dealing with as as a diverse phenomenon, with different traditions within different cultures, none of which has any more claim to being 'real' (still less 'science') than any other - if we are going to have an article on the belief systems and practices of some professional western astrologers, it belongs, as a minority system, in a subarticle. And no, you cannot simply dismiss the media horoscopes etc there either - they are part of the same cultural continuum that generates the funding for the 'professionals'. This article (like any on Wikipedia) isn't owned by a particular faction from within the subject matter. You don't get to define what 'astrology' is - the phenomenon itself does.

@Zac: I am aware that there have been discussions in the past regarding attempts to broaden the article at some point, but they are likely to remain just that - discussions about future intent that never actually get anywhere because the article is stuck in a deadlock due to its overemphasis on specific topics. Furthermore, your suggestion that our coverage of the modern history of astrology should "include its own criticisms, concerning [problems] with mass-marketing, commercialisation and over-simplification, etc" is inherently POV - you are asserting that it is somehow less 'genuine' than the older traditions, with no real justification. Wikipedia cannot make value-judgements on the relative merits of different belief systems, even if one seems on the surface to be driven by commercial considerations - that isn't our job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy, take heart and show some good faith. We will report what the sources say. It is quite obvious though, that this article is not stuck on over-emphasis of specific topics. Take a look at the content of 'Etymology and basic definitions'; 'Core Principles' and 'Cultural Influence' most of which has been recently developed from scratch, the rest of which has vastly improved the legacy of very poor quality content that existed before. Your points are taken though. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy - I don't have the time to answer all your points now, but to clarify two points:

My analogy was with Star Trek and science. Just because ignorant people believe it is science and it attracts more interest than science, it doesn't mean we have to redefine science.

I don't believe sun sign astrology generates the funding for professional astrologers - either as a source of income or as a source of clients as in my experience, the emphasis on entertainment in sun sign columns tends to put people off getting into astrology. Robert Currey talk 14:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we redefine astrology. I'm suggesting that an article that purports to be on the subject should cover the entire subject, rather than a subset of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy, you've got it backwards. If you would understand correctly, Sun sign astrology (the Sun in signs only) is a minuscule sub-set of the entire subject of astrology and does not have an enduring literature. Ken McRitchie (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As Robert Currey stated, "The income and audience of a small group of media sun sign astrologers is huge compared to all other astrologers put together". It may or may not have an 'enduring literature' but that doesn't make it less significant as a part of astrology as a whole - which is a sociocultural phenomenon extending far beyond the 'literature' of the serious astrologers. The limits to the topic of the article are the limits of the subject, not the limits of the 'literature' of a subset. If 100 people read 'their stars' in the daily papers for every person who consults a professional astrologer (a pure guess, of course), to place undue weight on the latter, while neglecting the former, is unencyclopaedic in an article which is supposed to be describing astrology as a whole. I've no objections to a properly-sourced and balanced sub-article dealing with the complexities of 'serious astrology', but it is inappropriate to treat this as the sole concern of the main article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy, You ask for sun sign astrology to be mentioned in your last paragraph due to the ‘income and audience being huge’. Your request is fair but it has been pointed out to you that sun sign astrology is not representative of astrology at all. It may well be a recent sociocultural phenomenon on the basis that it brings in money and has a huge audience but so does several YouTube hits which do not warrant inclusion on the WP music page. The Sociocultural phenomenon is about the growth in access and commercialisation and this argument has no place here. Maybe the way forward here is to include sun sign astrology as a recent sociocultural phenomenon and placed within the context of the history of astrology with a link to the sun sign astrology page Wendy Stacey (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. it is claimed that "sun sign astrology is not representative of astrology at all". If it isn't astrology, what is it? (BTW, welcome to Wikipedia - I see here [8] that you state that you are "Chair of the Astrological Association of Great Britain". Can I ask that you read WP:COI?). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best stated that 'the practice of sun sign astrology is a very small part and recent phenomenon of the history and full body of knowledge on western astrology' and have a link through to the sun sign astrology page? Thank you for guiding me to the COI page. As you have read, I am the Chair of the Astrological Association of Great Britain but the views expressed here are my own and not representative of the organisation’s members. I can assure you that I am acting in good faith and that my position merely indicates my level of knowledge on the subject. I have made no edits but only comments and suggestions with the attempt to come to an amicable agreement. I should also point out that I have a strong background and interest in academia, particularly research methodology, so I hope my views are seen as objective, however, like any contributor, I do have an interest in the subject matter and continuing discussions and remain attentive to ensuring that information is fairly debated and reported. May I ask what your background and interest in the subject is? Wendy Stacey (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No. This article is supposed to be about astrology in general, not about the 'body of knowledge on western astrology' - we are not going to let the article content be determined by professional astrologers promoting a particular minority branch. Regarding my background, I have a degree in anthropology, which undoubtedly shapes my understanding of the subject as the sociocultural phenomenon it is, but no real in-depth knowledge of the subject itself - but there is no particular requirement that I should have any. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on published sources, not personal knowledge, and the sole requirements of a good Wikipedia contributor are literacy, objectivity, and an ability to assess the utility of sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but we are talking at cross purposes here. I have no objection in having sun sign astrology mentioned and I think it should be noted but it needs to be put into perspective and the balance fair. Examples of this were given by Robert Currey and myself. It is true that the commercialisation of sun sign astrology is popular to some of the general public and there is a separate page allocated to this on WP. However, sun sign astrology has very little to do with astrological history, research, practice and knowledge and needs to be put into context. There are a very small minority of astrologers who practise sun sign astrology.Wendy Stacey (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That may be true, but it doesn't alter the fact that 'sun sign astrology' is the type that most people will be familiar with in their own experience (at least in the west) I don't see how relegating the most popular form of astrology to a sub article can be seen as 'balanced'. I'd also like to see more of a response to my comments regarding the sidelining of non-western astrologies - this is supposed to be a multinational project, and ought likewise to give a more balanced view of the different forms. Again, the top-level article on a topic should give a broad coverage of all aspects of the subject, rather than a particular subset: these can be dealt with more properly in sub-articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy there is no intention to sideline anything of relevance here. I have probably been more out-spoken than anyone about the fact that this English-language edition of WP should place its focus on the system most familiar in English-language cultures. My argument is that the Indian WP will place its focus on Indian astrology, ditto the Chinese WP, and so forth. But mainly its a matter of practicality that drives my concern - the subject and what we have to cover, just to give a brief overview of everything relevant, is extensive enough IMO. An additional problem is the complicated issues that this will bring in. For example, in talking about the scientific definition of astrology, we expect to refer that which applies to the western world - not that which applies in countries like India, which defines the relationship between astrology and science differently. My view is that it is better to have one section which gives a brief overview of other cultural approaches, and then links to the dedicated WP pages that feature those in detail.

But that's only my view and from previous discussions I know there are other editors who are more inclined towards yours. Why don't you take the initiative and originate some content? Or give us something to kick off with? Or develop the content in the section headed: 'Other cultural systems of astrology'. This is only as sparse as it is because no one has developed it to the extent we have all agreed it should be developed. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 19:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh lord - just seen the new tag. Bit ridiculous and over-the-top don't you think? You introduce a point on a day when the talk page is hit with a barrage of new concerns, and suddenly this becomes all-important too. The tag says "discuss the issue on the talk page" - well, here we are discussing. It also says "Please improve this article". I hope you take that personally. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 19:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to the 'globalize' tag, it wasn't me that added it - though I think it is probably valid. In case you hadn't noticed, India is an 'English language' culture, at least in terms of many of the more educated members of the population (who are the ones most likely to be using Wikipedia) - but that is irrelevant. There is nothing whatever in Wikipedia policy that suggests we should confine articles on World-wide topics to the interests of the English-speaking world. As for me adding to the article, I think that until we have agreement about what it should actually be about, this would be premature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I added the tag...because the article needs to give balanced coverage to all kinds of astrology around the world. Does it not? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I apologise for jumping to conclusions that you added the tag. I did so because, so far, no one but you has shown significant concern for about this. It seems very strange, Itsmejudith, that you tag the article with this supposed 'issue' having never even commented on it. Well my point applies to you then - I hope an editor who feels concerned enough to tag the article with a supposed problem, will adopt some responsibility for providing the content needed. Otherwise it starts to look like unnecessary tags are being added for the hell of it. Is three enough now? Or should we add another which shows a double exclamation mark and states “This article has tags at the top which may not be necessary. Please discuss this issue on the talk page and do not improve the article”. ?

With regards to your question – no I don’t think it does, for reasons I’ve already given. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Minerva20 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)I'm willing to make the necessary additions to make the page more global, and have the tag removed. I'll work on it for the next few weeks and have something by the end of the month. What type of additions did you have in mind? Minerva20 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - that would be very welcome. My own suggestion would be to look at the section we currently have in the main space article called "Other cultural systems of astrology" and see what you can do with it. Currently this gives very scant details on other cultural systems, with just a bit of elaboration on Hindu astrology, so any addition you can make will be an improvement. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 02:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

synchonicity

I removed the following from the lead:

Most astrologers contend there is no direct influence from the stars, only a synchronistic correlation between the celestial and terrestrial.

This was not sourced (the source that was used does not even mention synchronicity), and it does not reflect the text.

Oh, and of course it wouldn't be 'stars', but 'planets'. — kwami (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes so we can discuss them first. This statement doesn't look right to me and I think it was already changed from something better earlier. I don't think "contend" and "only synchronistic correlation" accurately reflect the writings of authors engaged in the discussion. Synchronicity requires some explanation and it seems abrupt to inject it here in the lede. Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It also seems dubious that "most" astrologers contend this. It's only mentioned in passing in the text, but this makes it seem central. — kwami (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It is central. Synchronicity is the best way to express the core principle of the microcosmic/macrocsomiuc inter-relation in modern terms. That was the principle that inspired Jung and it is central in all auhoritative accounts, from Ptolemy onwards. There is no way to make this very deep philosophical point in the lede, but it is already adequately demonstrated in the core principles section.

This is another point that needs development. Why Jung was so significant and has been so influential. Getting all these points clearly communicated in a very succint overview will be challenging though. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

All right, here was my edit. Skipping the previous point:

• "The 20th century brought renewed attention [to astrology] through re-kindled intellectual interest in statistically testing astrology's claims."

Dubious, and AFICT unsupported.

It was badly phrased so it seems reasonable to take it out at this point. The lede will need later revision to capture the gist of that anyway, after further development of the content that explores how, why, and to what extent a re-kindling of popular interest occured.

By way of explamation, the point behind the comment was that the Gauquelin research brought a mass of new attention, which raised the profile of astrology and brought interest - and attacks - from academics. The 70s and 80s were filled with perceived potential for new scientific interest, based on the results of Gauquelin's statistical work. For now, that's best left aside until Gauquelin's influence has been established. At the moment, the article only details what his work looked into, not its resulting influence. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Astrology is considered a classic example of pseudoscience,"

This was in the lede after substantial discussion. IMO it's non-negotiable: per wiki policy we need to state that astrology is a pseudoscience, not just suggest that some people have that opinion.

• The reason for the above: that needs to be worked out. I was about to make an attempt when you reverted me. The ref that's already there covers the issue nicely. — kwami (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, Good to know that you were planning to restore the ref after deleting it. How am I to know unless you discuss this? Now it has Asquith/Hacking in the same note as Thagard, and neither is a full reference. Thagard should have precedence as his is the current opinion on the problem of demarcation, all previous propositions having been shot down by more recent definitions. Asquith/Hacking is very stale and doesn't belong here, dating to 1978. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove any refs. Anyway, we don't need refs in the lead. The lead should summarize the body, and the body should be fully ref'd. — kwami (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and partly restore. Zac agrees w one point, there's no challenge on another, I've changed the "largely" you objected to, and am changing the last bit to fit better with Thagard. Please change the refs if you think they're not adequate, but basically they're only there to prevent POV battles. — kwami (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's probably too much detail for why it's a pseudoscience for the lead. Someone can probably word it better. But as Thagard explained, the prior reasons we gave weren't adequate. — kwami (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Some reversions and rewrites were necessary in the lede. The change in the lede second paragraph to "including" rendered the sentence ungramatical, so was changed back to "partly through". In the third paragraph, the changed attribution to Thagard introduced an error as not evaluating "other theories." The astrologers' belief that contrasts with the pseudoscience belief was cut and so was restored. The paragraph was carefully reworded to accurately reflect the 186, Thagard, and the supportive reasons for astrology as a pseudoscience. Ken McRitchie (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You changed "Some believe that celestial movements control fate...." to "Some have believed that celestial movements control fate....". Are you saying no astrologers believe that celestial movements control fate? Moriori (talk)

No, but to keep it as "some believe" would give undue weight to that belief, and I believe it would be very hard to find an astrologer who claims it today because it hasn't been in the literature pretty much since medieval times. "Have believed" on the other hand does not rule out astrologers believing it up until the present time, if there are any. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The archives demonstrate how much discussion and consensus-building has gone into the lede as it currently stands. So this shouldn't be tinkered about with now, but these points can all be given their due consideration. Kwami, I give you my word that I am not trying to ignore your concerns, but it is simply not practical to have too many thought-provoking issues up in the air at one time. We won't move forward and resolve multiple concerns unless we work through them together effectively. The RFC highlighted several passages that need consideration, and we can make this the next priority on the list. From what I remember the phrase "classic pseudoscience" was changed to "pseudoscience" to avoid a peacock tone, and because the references did not demonstrate that astrology is any more a pseudoscience than other subject which has been defined as such. Perhaps that something you want to explore? One of your edit summaries said "it is simply a pseudoscience" - unless there is a reliable source which defines it more colourfully than that, then it's not appropriate for us to do so. That's not to say that the whole point you are raising is not significant, I just want to give you the opportunity to check in preparation for when we can look at this collectively. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove 'classic', then. That's fine. I'm sure there are plenty of people who could word it better than me, and as I said, that last line could certainly use some rewording. But we should state that it's pseudoscience: that has been gone over many many times. Also, the idea that "most" astrologers believe it's synchronistic is unsupported by the article. The lead should summarize the article, not make claims which are never developed or supported, and synchronicity is barely even mentioned. — kwami (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I made that amendment. I don't see why anyone should have any problem with that - I agree it is a better reflection of what is said in the source. It seemed logical to retain reference to the lack of mechanisms criticsms too. Can you review it now and confirm you are OK with that? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have two problems with it, in the same sentence:

• "failing to offer a clear account of its physical mechanism"

I would delete "clear". AFAIK, astrology does not offer any mechanism at all. That is, after all, the whole point of synchronicity: there is no mechanism, and that's irrelevant. And although there may be some astrologers who have attempted to work out mechanisms, I think it's fair to say that astrology as a whole has not offered a mechanism. It certainly does not rely on one.

• "is considered a pseudoscience because"

We've been over this many many times. Astrology is pseudoscience. Not "some people think it's pseudoscience" or "it's been called pseudoscience", but it simply *is* pseudoscience. We don't want to leave any wiggle room, because when it comes to pseudoscience, any wiggle room will be abused. Now, if we were to put your wording in that context, as an explanation why, I'd have no problem with it: Astrology is pseudoscience. ... It is considered a pseudoscience because ...

— kwami (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to fix per those points (not the best wording, as I was trying not to change too much), and was reverted here. That illustrates perfectly the point I was trying to make: an apologetic POV can interpret your wording as saying astrology isn't really pseudoscience, there are just some people who think it is. — kwami (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I meant to reply to say I have no problems with your edit and the *is* thing. Then noticed you'd done that. That seems fine to me; I think you did a good job in making it clear and simple.

I started writing a response to your comments on sychronicity and mechanisms here, but it turned into a bigger point than I intended, so I'll place it below instead - in response to BeCritical's comments on mechanisms. Perhaps take a look and comment there if you wish. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you changed it since my last comment? — kwami (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the edit you made that got reverted, Dominus Vobisdu, reverted it back again immediately afterwards, so yes, the main page shows your edit (I think). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 03:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant your proposal below that you asked me to comment on. Last time I went over it it seemed fine. — kwami (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Only very minor tweaks. The section affected now reads:

In 1975, amid increasing popular interest in astrology, The Humanist magazine presented a clear and much publicized rebuttal of astrology in a statement put together by Bart J. Bok, Lawrence E. Jerome, and Paul Kurtz.[1] This was authorized by the signatures of 186 astronomers, physicists and leading scientists of the day. Entitled ‘Objections to Astrology’, the statement offered a caution to the public against the unquestioning acceptance of astrological advice. It declared no scientific foundation for astrology's tenets due to the lack of any mechanism whereby astrological effects might occur; as demonstrated with the following words:

Rest same as before -- Zac Δ ^talk! 04:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Joan Quigley

An editor has recently suggested the inclusion of US President Reagan's astrologer, Joan Quigley. Here is a suggested minimal text - I am unsure if it should be included in the Modern Era (history) section or we rename the Culture Influence section or elsewhere. Any thoughts?

In 1981, after John Hinckley's attempted assassination of President Reagan, first lady, Nancy Reagan commissioned astrologer, Joan Quigley to act as the secret White House astrologer. However, Quigley's role ended in 1988 when it became public through the memoirs of former chief of staff, Donald Regan.(refs given - now in article)

Robert Currey talk 12:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is tricky because it belongs in the Modern Era history section, which needs development. One angle we could take there is to show how astrology got established as media entertainment, whilst bombing at the academic level - during the process of which practicing astrologers continued to practice as usual, and wield their own influence in ways such as this. But right now it doesn't fit well with the content in that section, so probably the best short-term fix is to put it in the Culture section - until we can move on from current concerns and develop the Modern Era text properly. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, I will add this to the Culture section pro tem. Robert Currey talk 17:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection, I think this is a good idea Wendy Stacey (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent "Obstacles to research" and "Mechanisms" Edits

A new editor Be-Critical has cut major portions of these sections without prior discussion and consensus, claiming to be correcting "apologetics". These will need to be reverted and the reasons for them explained and discussed. Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sensing a rather strong aura of WP:OWN surrounding this article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't edit the Obstacles to research section. However, it's obvious that were any field to show as few results for as grand claims as astrology, people might not want to fund it. I'm glad to discuss with you on the edits to the Mechanisms section. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 04:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Becritical, please stop butchering the article. Your edits are not only destructive and show no respect for other editors but also against expected editorial behaviour. Given the controversial nature of this article, you first need to propose major changes, wait for consensus to develop and then (and only then) make the change. SLP (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is what we should be working with, as it was before: (text removed to avoid ref/conflict - it will be reinserted into article -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

Please discuss your clarifications and suggestions on this page. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reminder of policy

I am going to give a reminder of Noleander’s post of 27 September, because it covers points of direct significance to the matter of sources and deserves everyone's attention. This should put an end to the extreme position that is being taken by a few editors, that this article about astrology, cannot refer to astrological sources.

There is a guideline on the topic of pseudoscience, which talks about special considerations to be used for pseudoscience related articles. That guideline has an entire section on reliability of sources for pseudoscience/fringe articles, namely WP:PARITY. That guideline states that the requirements for sourcing fringe topics in an article on a mainstream topic is very high, and fringe topics are usually omitted from mainstream articles; but in articles about the fringe topics themselves the standard is much lower, and it is okay to include sources that consider the pseudoscience to be genuine (but the sources should be clearly identified in the article itself). The guideline goes on to say that the threshold for criticism of fringe theories is correspondingly lower: any decent source may be used for criticism, even sources not in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, some of the suspect material you enumerate above can be included in this article, because the article is about the fringe theory. The best remedy is to rely on the fact that counter-balancing criticism of astrology can and should be included in this article, and that the sourcing requirements for such criticism is relaxed for this article. In general, the guideline includes lots of guidance that is designed to ensure that material in pseudoscience articles is not presented as scientific fact. --Noleander (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It also seems necessary (although it shouldn't) to give yet another reminder that significant changes to the main space article - especially where they affect previously agreed, referenced information - should not be made without prior evaluation and consensus agreement. Several significant changes have been made to the article in the last few hours, which ignore our need to work together, systematically, through the issues that are being raised, so that we can find objective solutions collectively.

Please take a responsible attitude and remember that this is a necessary requirement because this subject attracts strong views and conflicting opinions. (I am covering this briefly here because it has already been explained several times, and pointed out in more detail in the 'Achieving Neutrality' section above).

Each point of controversy must recieve the time and attention it deserves to get the content right. Currently we are looking at the 'Mechanisms' section, then we will progress through the other sections that have been highlighted with concerns in the recent RFC; and then we can re-evaluate the comments that have recently been edited in lede. Hopefully, that will allow us to clear up current concerns and move on to the development of the other areas where the astrology coverage needs development and expansion. Whilst this process is ongoing and passages are under critical review, I will return all previously agreed text to the article. This will ensure that we are not scattering discussions, or failing to give the due focus that these difficult and complex issues deserve.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're concerned about scattering discussions, stop scattering them. This must be the fifth time this text has been posted to this page. Skinwalker (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines are not policy, and they certainly don't override core policies, which clearly state that WP articles are to be based on reliable sources. This is particularly true of scientific claims. Remember that improperly sourced material can be deleted, and the burden is on YOU to provide reliable sources. WP does not exixt to give proponents of pseudoscience and fringe "theories" a platform to promote their views or gripes. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mechanisms review – proposed amendment for 1st part on Humanist and Sagan references

To address the concerns given above in the ‘Comments, criticisms and suggestions’ section relating to this passage, I propose that we demonstrate more clearly why the Humanist statement was authoritative and created a defining position on astrology in science, We also need to show more clearly why Sagan's stance has been so notable and significant. It is this first part that I am asking us to look at collectively as a first step in the process.

Once we gain consensus on this introductory part, we can consider what alternative – non-approved – theories have attracted attention as published ideas. Without giving credit to any idea, it is relevant to briefly outline what they are and who they are primarily associated with. We need to tread a fine line here so that we are not excluding relevant information, nor advocating support, just covering the relevant issues objectively.

This should extend beyond the matter of research to include notable philosophical and historical views too. Therefore I propose that we remove this section from the ‘Research’ section and give it its own section (between ‘Research’ and ‘Scientific Criticisms’ ?). Also, that we rename the section ‘Failure to demonstrate its mechanism’ to drive home the relevance of its theme and address the concerns some editors have, that by giving coverage to alternate ideas, it might be interpreted as offering support towards them. I hope this seems fair to everyone.

This is the text I propose for the first part on the Humanist and Sagan controversy.

Proposed text

Failure to demonstrate its mechanism

In 1975, amid increasing popular interest in astrology, The Humanist magazine presented a clear and much publicized rebuttal of astrology in a statement put together by Bart J. Bok, Lawrence E. Jerome, and Paul Kurtz. This was authorized by the signatures of 186 astronomers, physicists and leading scientists of the day. Entitled ‘Objections to Astrology’, the statement offered a caution to the public against the unquestioning acceptance of astrological advice. It declared no scientific foundation for astrology's tenets due to the lack of any mechanism whereby astrological effects might occur; as demonstrated with the following words:

We can see how infinitesimally small are the gravitational and other effects produced by the distant planets and the far more distant stars. It is simply a mistake to imagine that the forces exerted by stars and planets at the moment of birth can in any way shape our futures.

Astronomer Carl Sagan, host of the award-winning TV series Cosmos, attracted notoriety by declining to sign the ‘Objections’ statement. For this reason his words have been quoted by those who argue in favour of astrology retaining some sort of scientific interest. However, Sagan’s stance was not taken because he thought astrology was valid, but because he found the statement's tone authoritarian, and because theoretical dismissals based mainly on the grounds of an unavailable mechanism can be mistaken. He was later to write of this:

The statement stressed that we can think of no mechanism by which astrology could work. This is certainly a relevant point but by itself it's unconvincing. No mechanism was known for continental drift (now subsumed in plate tectonics) when it was proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong.

In a letter published in a follow-up edition of The Humanist, Sagan clarified his position, confirming that he would have been willing to sign such a statement had it described and refuted the principal tenets of astrological belief. This, he argued, would have been more persuasive and would have produced less controversy.

References

Bibliography

• Das, Tapan, 2009. Why Astrology Is Science: Five Good Reasons. iUniverse, 2009. ISBN 9781440133718.

Grim, Patrick, 1990. Philosophy of science and the occult. SUNY Press, 1990. ISBN 9780791402047.

Sagan, Carl, 1995. 2. The Demon-haunted World: science as a candle in the dark. Random House, 1995. ISBN 9780394535128.

Comments on proposal

If objections exist please outline them clearly and specifically, in a civil tone that does not generate assumptions of bad faith. Also be aware that consensus is achieved by avoiding extreme positions and seeking the objective and informative approach that is typical of a respectable encyclopaedic resource -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to provide some background here, the Objections article appeared when researchers, notably Michel Gauquelin, were publishing statistical results in astrology and generating great interest. By drawing attention away from this effort to the issue of mechanism, the objectionists were setting up the straw man argument that astrology should have a mechanism first before anything else, as was more typical of science before the 20th century. Since the early 20th century science has been led primarily by statistical inference first before theory or mechanism. This straw man argument is also reflected in the "problems" that Paul Thagard argues about in his definition of the demarcation problem (what demarcates science from pseudoscience), that astrology "hasn't solved." He is alluding to the lack of mechanism.

The Objectionists claimed there is evidence to the contrary on astrology but they did not provide any, but used the mechanism argument instead. Evidence is what resolves scientific issues. Carl Sagan was critical of the position taken in Objections, but even he did not suggest any evidence against astrology (the reason being that there is no reliable evidence against astrology), but suggested instead arguments based on scientific principles. Philosopher Paul Feyerabend in "The Strange Case of Astrology" also was critical of the Objections article, and drew a comparison to the Malleus Maleficarum, which launched the Inquisition, only claiming it to be even less objective. Science does not proceed by decree, as the 186 who signed the Objections article were attempting to do. The logical fallacy of the Objections statement also resonated with a groups of scientists and academics who objected to the Objections article with a counter article signed by 187! Ken McRitchie (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, perhaps more weight should be given to cosmic cybernetics, which has a tradition of consistently developed theory stretching from astronomer Percy Seymour back to Kepler. This is the theory that there are "unheard" influences from the planets that individuals do not directly respond to, yet which the Earth does respond to. We know this as the Gaia hypothesis (James Lovelock) and Kepler was an early developer of this theory. Individuals repond to the astrometerological changes in the Earth. It is untrue that there is a lack of theory or attempt to demonstrate a mechanism that would explain astrology. Ken McRitchie (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you confirm whether or not you OK with the proposed text Ken? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The most important part of the Objections article is "there is no scientific foundation for its tenets". It would be best if this were also quoted in the section, before moving on to the more specific statement on the lack of mechanism. Otherwise, it appears that the signatories are objecting solely on the basis of the fact that there is no mechanism. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems non-controversial since the statement is in the source. I've added a little extra to accomodate that.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Zac, a little more clarification will help to frame this piece of text. The Gauquelin studies were providing a "scientific foundation" for astrological tenants at an alarming rate. In effect, Gauquelin's studies were providing statistical support and development for traditional planetary theory (the astrological properties of the planets). The authors were not so worried about Gauquelin's methods (some of them later participated in replications using his methodologies), but rather with the perception that popular Sun sign astrology was being validated. To put the brakes on this perception, the recourse they chose was not to support the scientific research and educate the public but to divert attention away from it by attacking Sun sign astrology and insisting (very prematurely) on a mechanism. A mechanism was/is not needed to continue any scientific investigation of astrology by using statistical inferences. The Objectionists did not trust their ability to educate the public, as evidenced by the efforts by the BBC to interview several of the Objectionists on their position. The Objectionists declined with the excuse they they did not know astrology well enough to make any further comment. Deep down, you might say their intentions were good, but they mishandled it and drew fire from other scientists and academics. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand Ken, and realise it is frustrating to omit the back-story, which sheds an interesting light on some aspects of the events. But it would be very problematic to go into the politics and controversies, since the purpose of this section is to outline why the failure to produce a logical theory that describes the astrological mechanism is relevant to science, though maybe not so relevant to those who have different ideas (philosophical, or metaphysical) about how astrology might work. Such details go beyond the scope of this section. When we look at each piece of text we have to evaluate it in terms of whether it's the kind of thing we would expect to find in an encyclopedia. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed text looks good. One suggestion: since this is a controversial issue, I'd really recommend that every sentence have a footnote, identifying the source that justifies it. About 1/2 the sentences in the proposal dont have footnotes. I know that I could probably look at the nearby footnotes, and maybe they would cover that other sentence, but for a topic like Astrology, I think we should just head-off future edit-wars and cite every sentence. --Noleander (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for commenting Noleander. I was very careful in compiling this to make sure it didn't steer from what is in the sources. I can add in more to qualify each comment, though they will go to the same sources. Let's get the passage approved in principle first. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is the above supposed to be the whole Mechanisms section? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 16:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the first part, concerning the Humanist and Sagan. I explained this in my introductory comments (see here). This process is easier if we break it down into digestible sections, which will help us identify if the real problem is related to the sources or whether (as I suspect) it is more about objectivity and balance. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason Sagan is so important here? Yes, he objected, but it's not needed even as a defense of astrology, since astrologists would have no objection to the Humanist conclusion that there aren't mechanisms. And that's made clear in the rest of the section, and the discussion is like: "The Humanist says there are no known types of mechanisms and astrologists agree." This is not an important section unless there is some central claim in astrology that conventional forces like magnetism are at work here. The statistical arguments would be much more relevant to any debate between astrology and science. B^e——C_ritical 16:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone did not get the point that the Objections article was about mechanisms, Sagan, acting as a responsible scientist, did not criticize the attack on Sun sign astrology (something he himself did), but with the irresponsible and unsupportable claim that a mechanism was necessary. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the reference to Sagan has to be self-evident within the text. I think it is sufficiently clear from this comment "For this reason his words have been quoted by those who argue in favour of astrology retaining some sort of scientific interest.[2]" I don't think we need to develop that further and give it more space - what we have adequately covers the point that whenever this matter gets raised in ongoing debates and discussions, Sagan's stance gets referred to. This does something that most astrological sources don't do - clarify that this does not make him an advocate of astrology. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a typo in "This is certainly a relevant pointn." Other than that I agree to it. Ken McRitchie (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Got it - thanks -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections Wendy Stacey (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and I think it's a worthwhile section to add. If Ken still wants more background detail, I think that might be worth an article in itself, linked from here; I agree with Zac that it would be too much for the general astrology article. — kwami (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I object to it because it amounts to a defense of a position which astrologers don't take. I suggest either this, or the following:

In 1975, amid increasing popular interest in astrology, The Humanist magazine presented a clear and much publicized rebuttal of astrology in a statement put together by Bart J. Bok, Lawrence E. Jerome, and Paul Kurtz. This was authorized by the signatures of 186 astronomers, physicists and leading scientists of the day. Entitled ‘Objections to Astrology’, the statement declared that there is no scientific foundation for astrology's tenets due to the lack of any mechanism whereby astrological effects might occur, and offered a caution to the public against the unquestioning acceptance of astrological advice.

Few astrologers believe that astrology can be explained by any direct causal mechanisms between planets and people, and have various conceptual frameworks in which to put their art.

• Acausal, purely correlational, relationships between astrological observations and events, for example, synchronicity.

• Divination.

• Some astrologers say that empirical correlations might stand on their own, and do not need the support of any theory or mechanism.

• Electro-magnetism within an intricate web of planetary fields and resonances in the solar system. Scientists dismiss magnetism as an implausible explanation, since the magnetic field of a large but distant planet such as Jupiter is far smaller than that produced by ordinary household appliances.

End of section. B^e——C_ritical 02:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Be-Critical, tenants are the organizing principles that enable mechanisms (and statistical inferences) to be described, not the other way around as you are trying to suggest. Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you relate that to something? B^e——C_ritical 05:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

One reason why I hesitated go into the mechanisms text right now, is that it is a more complicated than we are admitting. It really needs a lot of consideration and with current demands I'm wondering whether we can afford to open up a potential can of worms. Maybe a quick and uncontroversial fix of the current text is better in the short term, even in the knowledge that what we are publishing is wrong. This is what I am personally struggling to decide for myself.

The problem is, astrology only has no mechanism if it is incorrectly defined. In essense astrology is not a 'system' or a 'technique' but an area of investigation. Not all astrologers use the zodiac, and not all of them use houses, so I think it is wrong to mention these right at the start of the lede as if they are its definitive elements. From the original 'formal' definition established by Ptolemy, it is described as a branch of knowledge based on a liberal use of science and conjecture together. So on one level there is the philosophical principle of synchronicity, and that always applies, but that doesn't mean that astrology ignores gravtitational effects or other proven mechanisms where they are relevant. It is just that it can't be reduced entirely to such a principle. The main division of the subject is into the natural and judicial branches. Only judicial astrology is correctly described as having no physical mechanism, which astrologers are not interested in anyway. Natural astrology has always been associated with using the best of the knowledge that science provides, to look at how the relationship between the earth and cosmos creates reliably predictable shifts and changes. It is really a dis-service to the subject to imply that a partial definition of half its concerns gives the definitive position, and not correct that misrepresentation where we present it on the page.

But I am feeling the pressure of the underlying politics associated with this page, having got the impression that Wikipedia will not allow misrepresentation of this subject to be corrected, even on the page where the subject is supposed to be explained properly according to its own respected sources. Instead, because 186 hostile scientists defined it in a certain way, without even investing enough intellectual effort into their criticism to hit the salient points of criticism (think Sagan), WP wants only that hostile misrepresentation to get coverage. This is justified as preserving the interests of science, with the assumption that if someone has bothered to understand this subject then they cannot possibly have an interest in/concern for/respect/love of science too. We are being forced to separate the subject from an important element of its own concern, and describe it as some sort of enemy to itself. This is surely wrong. The word science means 'knowledge' and true science doesn't aim for things to be presented falsely, but looks to explore the truth of the matter as sincerely as it can.

Consequently, I am struggling with how to propose the amendment for the next passage of text that we need to consider. How to present 'alternative ideas' (which are actually not 'alternatives' but mainstream to the subject) in such a way that we don't allow any implication of questioning the authority of those 186 scientists. By describing the statement as important and significant to astrology, which it undoubtedly was, we hit the reason why its is just as important for the other side of the issue to be properly explained. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, WP articles are to be based on reliable third-party seconday sources, and astrology must therefore be defined and described as it is in such sources, not in sources originating from proponents of astrology itself, which are by their very nature promotional and self-serving. Self-published sources are to be used only when they are supported by reliable third-party sources.

Wikipedia is not a platform from which proponents of pseudoscientific and fringe "theories" are allowed to "present their case" or promote their cause in any other way. If there is to be any mention of the objections of proponents to their scientific critics, every sentence must be backed up by reliable third-party secondary sources. There are surely enough independent academic sources available that we do not have to resort to questionable and unreliable sources to write a matter-of-fact and informative article. If there is no mention in such sources, it must be assumed that the objections are not notable enough to include in WP. Special pleading and apologetics have no place on WP whatsoever.

This is handled very well in WP articles related to Creationism, largely thanks to the fact that there are many knowledgeable, vigilant editors with scientific backgrounds who keep watch over those articles. The same criteria that apply to Creationism-related articles should apply here.

As for determining notability of persons and alternative "theories", this, too, must be determined solely on the basis of substantial mention in reliable third party sources. Notability within the astrological "community" is of no significance according to WP policies. Nor is notability within the population at large. It is only notability within the mainstream academic community that counts, most especially when claims or objections related to science are the subject.

Last of all, when mention of objections to scientific claims are made, they must be clearly identified as non-mainstream views and be clearly attributed. Any attempt to usurp the voice of WP would be a gross abuse of the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP policy, but this does not mean that a valid dilemma does not exist, since any attempt to usurp the voice of reason would be a gross abuse of the human intellect. By "present their case" I presume you mean, explain the logic of the subject, because that is what I am talking about. This concerns the very definition of the subject, which is given in the subject's own most authorative and influencial texts. Are you suggesting that we are not to give reference to those? Can you find me the reliable third party sources that record the change of the subject's main theme and definition, and when it is supposed to have occured? If not, then it is entirely appropropriate to quote the essential definition of the subject's leading historical authority, (because there are plenty of reliable third-party references that define him as such) and give comparison to how the mechanisms argument relates to the principles of that, along with the other points. This is not advocacy but fulfilment of the WP objective: "we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view"." After consideration I realise that this is do-able, working within the policy-restraints, and that it should be done as part of this process. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"If there is to be any mention of the objections of proponents to their scientific critics, every sentence must be backed up by reliable third-party secondary sources" No, not at all. Just as you would be able to cite the ideas of a religion based on the scholars of that religion, so it is with Astrology. We can use in-universe sources to describe in-universe ideas, merely taking care that the sources are representative of the in-universe POV. These are not to be promoted, just described, and care taken to set them in context relative to the wider scholarship and context both of science and society as a whole. However, Dominus Vobisdu is right that if there are third party sources describing astrological ideas in a way which in-universe sources would agree with them, those sources should be used. We aren't here to promote a POV by censorship either. If a third-party source says something with which all astrologists disagree, we need to note that disagreement even if it comes only from in-universe sources. The test is whether they are representative of the general in-universe opinion. Let's get this straight from the start, so that we don't have to argue about it anymore. Else, for example, remove the first and second sources on the Intelligent design article [9]. B^e——C_ritical 16:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The passage in question has to do with a scientific dispute between Carl Sagan (and Paul Feyerabend and numerous others, which there is not particular need to mention) and the 186 scientists. These are all third party sources. Sagan was a vehement astrology skeptic but in this case he was defending the authority of science based on evidence rather than decree and influence peddling. Science cannot just decree that a mechanism is required for astrology when it is not required for science. Statistical inference is a perfectly scientific method and it has been by far the main means of scientific advancement for the past hundred years. There would have been no dispute if the 186 had asked for statistical evidence, but they asked for a mechanism. That is a straw man argument and Sagan is pointing it out.

The proposed rewording by Be-Critical is something else. It has a logical flaw to assert that mechanism is needed to support fundamental tenants, which Sagan was referring to. That is an epistemological error, and not what Sagan intended to mean. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right that science begins by observation without reference to explanation. It might be justifiable to say something to that effect. As I see it, my suggested text says "scientists assert there is no mechanism, astrologists agree there is no known mechanism." What you want to add, is that a thing is not inherently pseudoscientific/unscientific just because no mechanism is known. That is a reasonable addition if it is sourced, and Sagan is a good source. But let's not go into detail about Sagan: there's no need for defensiveness on either side. B^e——C_ritical 17:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You keep referring to persons who rent their accommodation. Do you mean tenets, by any chance? Britmax (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

@BeCritical: I don't have any problem with the emboldened text addition you suggested.

On the other hand, I am very opposed to the idea of cutting the Sagan comment. Primarily because it is notably relevant, in the way it is connected to the astrological reports of this matter. On another level, I think it should stay because it is interesting. It allows the passage to read well, and gives a break in what could be heavy-weight content.

I think we've done a lot to neutralise this, and it now reflects the sceptical view much more clearly than before. Bear in mind that we're also not adding more info that some of us would like to add, about the situation behind this.

Since most editors have shown themselves to be in agreement with the changes, I hope you'll be willing to compromise on that. It would be good to get this one to bed and move on the next section, which may be more tricky than this. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I rather think the rewrite above special pleading by WEIGHT and redundant, but I'm not going to object, at least for now, unless others also have a problem with it. B^e——C_ritical 19:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I sort of agree that the Sagan section is a bit to long. Dropping the whole sentence including the quote about Wegener would not detract from the article, and it would get rid of some of the semblence of special pleading. Actually, the paragraph also flows better without it, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant "tenets" :P thanks. Let's get some comments by other editors, especially on "no scientific foundation for astrology's tenets due to the lack of any mechanism whereby astrological effects might occur." The tenets of astrology have to do with macrocosm-microcosm, synchronicity, etc. These tenets are principles whereby astrological observations are organized. Without them there can be no "astrological" observations at all, let alone mechanisms or statistical effects. Mechanism do not describe tenets but tenets are necessary to describe mechanisms. The point Sagan is making is that it is not necessary for science to be defined by mechanisms. Mechanisms can describe only simple systems and cannot deal with the complexities that statistical methods are capable of investigating, which is why statistics has become the predominant investigation in all areas of science. No one doubts that Gauquelin's statistical methods were scientific and no mechanism is involved. Though he put forward some of his own theories, they weren't really necessary. Sagan is suggesting that even in geophysics, which is pretty hard science, Wegener had scientific evidence for his theories before the mechanism was discovered. Sagan was was not defending astrology at all but rather the integrity of science against a false representation of what science requires. Let's hear some other voices. Ken McRitchie (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion: There are a few minor gripes but no major and significant problems with this piece of text. Can we agree to include the comment about "no scientific foundation" and then accept this for now as preferable to what is on the main page? This does not imply that there are no other principles such as synchroncity, etc. I read it to mean there is no scientfically established foundation, (according to modern science) and with reference to things like physics/ celestial mechanics, etc. Others may read it differently, but we don't need a debate about that.

I'd like to suggest that we return to the remaining content in this section later; because I think it is more important to tie this up and move on to the text and references in the Carlson study section.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

To which proposal are you referring? There are at least two. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've put in an edit break that goes straight to it: Proposed text. This has incorporated proposed changes, including the addition "due to the lack of any mechanism whereby astrological effects might occur", which BeCritical suggested. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

After making the addition BeCritical suggested, one sentence was getting very clunky. I just made a copy-edit which keeps all the relevant words but reads more smoothly. This is what we had:

Entitled ‘Objections to Astrology’, the statement declared that there is no scientific foundation for astrology's tenets due to the lack of any mechanism whereby astrological effects might occur, and offered a caution to the public against the unquestioning acceptance of astrological advice. Its criticism focused on the question of astrological mechanisms with the following words:

Now it reads:

Entitled ‘Objections to Astrology’, the statement offered a caution to the public against the unquestioning acceptance of astrological advice. It declared no scientific foundation for astrology's tenets due to the lack of any mechanism whereby astrological effects might occur; as demonstrated with the following words:

The change is shown in the section "Proposed text" which is showing exactly what is being proposed as the edit for the change. Am happy to change it back if anyone thinks the edit affects any weight given to word order, etc. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 04:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the text in the link as it exists at this moment, no way. It seriously dilutes the message of the statement. The previous version was better was better. The whole point and PRIMARY message of the scientists' statement was that "there is no scientific foundation" for astrology. That must be mentioned as soon as possible in the paragraph, and not be buried or minimized. Also, the English is horrible. "Offered a caution to" isn't English, and it's wimpy to the point of blatant apologetics. You mean "warned". Also, change "due to the lack of any" to "and there is no". It simplifies the sentence structure and reads easier and clearer. Also, mentioning the title of the statement is not necessary. The title is banal, anyway.

Try this (right after "day"):

They declared that there is no scientific foundation for the tenets of astrology and warned the public against accepting astrological advice without question. Their criticism focused on the fact that there was no mechanisms whereby astrological effects might occur with the following words:

Also, far too much weight and far too much space is given to Sagan. Delete the "cosmos" clause. It's superfluous and a bit PEACOCKy. Please delete the Wegener quote in its entirety. It adds nothing to the article and, without abbundant context and explantion for which we have no room in this article, can be misinterpreted and misused (as it has been many times). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for the Sagan paragraph:

Astronomer Carl Sagan declined to sign the statement. For this reason, his words have been quoted by those who argue that astrology retains some sort of scientific validity.[2] However, Sagan’s stance was not taken because he thought astrology was valid, but because he thought that the tone of the statement was authoritarian, and that dismissing astrology because there was no mechanism was not convincing. In a letter published in a follow-up edition of The Humanist,[4] Sagan confirmed that he would have been willing to sign such a statement had it described and refuted the principal tenets of astrological belief. This, he argued, would have been more persuasive and would have produced less controversy.

Much more terse and to the point, and less subject to misinterpretation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There are two classes of question to be settled here: the objections to astrology and related subjects (and, where relevant, their refutations of course); and the policy towards discussion of fringe or questionable topics in WP. So far I doubt that I am saying raises many hackles or novelties. As far as objections are concerned, I am so dismissive of astrology that I have to mention the fact if I am to discuss the matter in good faith. The mechanism argument is of course important in two ways: unknown mechanism is only a disqualification when notionally every possible mechanism is refutable, which generally is not in principle possible; however, when the effect is to leave us with nothing falsifiable, that is not much of a recommendation either — it leaves us squarely in wishful thinking, homeopathic, invisible pink unicorn, territory. This raises a question immediately: on what terms do we tolerate IPU-type topics? (Hah! It just occurred to me to look up IPUs and good grief! There is such an article! Fair enough; the IPU article is a sort of meta-article, in which form sociological, philosophical, etc articles on fringe subjects are tolerable as long as each topic is sufficiently notable and the treatment sufficiently encyclopaedic...)

OK. Mainstream science has its own IPUs of sorts, QED/RT fundamentals, dark matter, strings, multiverses, GUTs & TOEs etc, but in spite of the exchange of much spittle & ink, neither the participants, the critics, nor the audience of such controversies and programmes suggests that such topics are in principle disqualified from serious research. However, think of N-rays and polywater to name but two in real science: when they were falsified they languished by the wayside. In this respect they differed from the real fringe topics, which clots and crooks resuscitate indefinitely. The Jacques Benveniste affair was doubtless innocent, but a good example of how far beyond reasonable doubt partisans can rationalise negative results in illogical fields. The astrological research that I have heard of, struck me as less innocent, but similarly persistent.

You see, scientific research techniques are like maths and stats: ask a nonsensical question, and you get a nonsensical answer; every second self-important idiot thinks he has what it takes to research anything on any topic, and not one in dozens realises how treacherous the traps are that the real world of experiment design can be, traps for anyone who does not properly formulate, not merely the research protocols and methods, but the fundamental assumptions of a research programme, even after statistical analysis to destruction. If anyone is interested enough, I can elaborate on the point, but those who have done it will know what I mean.

Now, the research on astrology isn't even based on nearly well-defined assumptions etc, and the assumptions are inconsistent both within any one work and between separate workers. No independent workers independently come up with consistent or self-consistent, let alone identical assumptions. Straight away that leaves us with poor prospects for meaningful research. Dud results are easy to rationalise away with demands for meaningless, let alone unattainable precision, such as the how to define the moment or location of birth. There are unresolvable questions about whether the moment of conception, gastrulation, quickening, or even birth itself is the crucial time for calculation. Then the very same protagonist will present detailed rationalisation of horoscopes for ancient historical figures, whereas there are whole armies for whom they have exactly as precise data. And in birth, what constitutes birth? Rupture of the membranes? Emergence of the head? Severance of the cord? The proponents shift effortlessly and repeatedly between demands and claims for tremendous, if meaningless, precision on the one hand, and the airiest hand-waving on the other. And then some of them have the naked cheek to apply statistics! Stats is an enormously powerful discipline, but it is an utter slave to GIGO, so not one of the studies yielding favourable conclusions is worth a cup of cold spit, except in terms of monetary gain to the perpetrator, as long as he concentrates on avoiding every approach to experimental virtue and presenting only trappings impressive to the unthinkingly impressionable.

In short, where the scientific merit of the field of study is concerned, no WP author or editor need apologise one bit for dismissing the allegedly scientific evidence for astrology, as radically as a professional chef might dismiss a little girl's mud-pies in a Michelin evaluation. There is more where this came from, but I should say that it is unnecessary to flog the dead unicorn any further for now.

But remember also and always, the crooks have been at it longer than you have, and not one worth his salt but can tie up a whole team of well-meaning callow scientists in any reasonable forum. It is their job. Why does the rabbit run faster than the fox? The rabbit is running for his life, the fox only for his supper. So watch it!!!

The second question deals with policy towards dealing with topics beyond the fringe, not to mention crookery and exploitation of the public. It is a difficult matter, ethically, socially, and legally. Except when legal counsel advises otherwise, WP should avoid naming names and should speak in terms of generalities such as "No study in this field has demonstrated any merit, and many victims of practitioners have died penniless..." rather than "Xenonradon's machine is a criminal scam...". Conversely, to say that "Many practitioners and patients claim great effect, and it is hard to prove them wrong..." is quite enough to fatten whole armies of criminal parasites. Anyone who has tried to cross-check the validity of WP articles by scanning Google, will have been shocked by the degree to which our pronouncements get uncritically plagiarised and recycled as being conclusive in blog after blog. It is quite worrying.

I have no easy answer, but we can probably achieve a reasonable degree of control by being a bit picky about our standards of admission of sources. As long as we are careful in preparing our criticisms up front, challenging and removing dud citations and demanding proper support for dud arguments, and keeping a few dozen rotten apples on our watchlists, I think we can achieve enough control to make it worth while. We need to sweep carefully in front of our own doorsteps though — there have been cases where senior editors have misused their powers to advance PC nonsense and suppress opposition (no names, no pack drill) and if we are to watch the standards of others, we need to watch our own with double care.

So someone has perpetrated something we are sure is nonsensical, but cannot instantly torpedo? Like the so-called research that supported astrology for example? Going beyond WP:BURDEN, I suspect that some sort of limbo status should be recognised or established (if it doesn't already exist; I am not deeply into such matters) by which one can read something, doubt or deny its merits, and if unable to establish the matter alone, one can mark it for attention by interested parties (a committee? A bit like this request for comment thing perhaps? Or maybe exactly this?) If no support materialises within a day or two, the material gets undone (it is of course still in the history file) but with an invitation for favourable partisans to try again and try harder if they think they have sound material. And of course critics would be similarly welcome to post material that meets WP standards without shrillness or vindictiveness. I don't know how to be fairer and more realistic about such things. JonRichfield (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I see on another WP page that Zac has suffered a personal family tragedy and is therefore much indisposed to continue this discussion. I wish Zac and his family well.

I will support the suggested edits by Dominus Vobisdu for the text under consideration. They are further clarifications of Zac's proposed edits. I must say that I also enjoyed JonRichfield's colorful metaphors and cautions. This is an extremely complex subject and it would be most useful if more editors could become familiar with the historical context and the content of the sources that are cited. Ken McRitchie (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am about to catch a flight, and thought I would put an explanation here of why I need to drop out of this for a while. Bottom line, a member of my immediate family died today in unexpected circumstances, and I have a lot of arrangements to make and support to give elsewhere. The post above looks very interesting, another time I would have given it more attention.

BeCritical, I just reverted a bunch of your edits - too many didn't make sense. You can't change the title 'core principles' to 'cosmology' for example; and why insert a phrase like "before it split with astronomy" into a phrase like "When it began"? Very little made sense to me and I don't have the time or energy to explain. Whilst Dominus Vobsidu's seemed OK (so I left those) all of you should propose edits here and give a 24 hour opportunity for comment; otherwise you will start a free for all on this article that will turn into an editorial blood-bath. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, to tie this up; I liked the Sagan quote within the text, but I would also accept Dom Vob's proposed edit. It is well written, and reliable; so that's fine. Please though - do the same with your other suggestions, and don't just put them in the main page without consensus. More heads are better than one.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your loss Zac.

The change you mention [10] needed copy editing, but I feel it continued a theme from the rest of the article, to note that astrology and astronomy were the same thing to begin with. And that was an historical section. And why can't I change the heading? It looks like cosmology to me, and it looks like cosmology describes the content a lot better than principles. B^e——C_ritical 01:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we have consensus for the rewrite. I've introduced the changes into the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing principles

One thing that's happening here is a misinterpretation of WP:BURDEN. The regular editors here are asking those challenging the appropriateness of including some of the content to justify their edits. But the burden is on those who wish to retain the text, not on those who challenge it. That's not to say that wholesale deletion of text is the correct path here. That also needs to be justified, especially when it is highly relevant and could be revised rather than deleted. I should add that I do not support the position that we cannot use unreliable/primary/astrological sources if they represent the opinion of the astrological community. We can, and we should, in order to accurately and thoroughly present the ideas of astrology. We should not censor here any more than we should at Santorum or Pregnancy (to name a couple of articles where such issues played out). Nevertheless, there's no need to justify each and every edit beforehand. Respectful edits such as I made to the Mechanism section, or those made by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (who added a bit of sourced and appropriate text) which retain information but restructures for POV issues or attribution or simply for clarity should be challenged if necessary. But there's no reason to go through months worth of rigamarole over them. There are other issues, such as the mention of negative evidence above, but I'd like to hear comments first.

Therefore, are there any objections to this set of edits? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 15:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have many and it would take a long time to justify each one of them. I do believe that you have the right focus of approach, and your input is very valuable here, but as a new editor to this page you are unaware of its difficult history, and the reason why it is necessary to go through "the rigamarole". We all know what a pain it is, but the legacy of this page is that its content swings from one position of bias to the other, interrupted by periods of silly stalement, where no one can make any kind of edit or addtion without it being immediately reversed. To demonstrate how difficult the situation is, not so long ago there was an active and heated discussion that took a whole month to complete, just to agree a 1-word change. To avoid that being the case for ever-more, it is better to take the time necessary now, to get the content right. We do that by identifying where the problematic issues lie, what principles apply in context, and working together to find the right solution. It takes time but it gives us the opportunity to create lasting improvements that will bring an end to the long-history of discontent attached to this article. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the page is difficult, and thanks. Can you respond to my question above? Is that supposed to be the entire section on Mechanisms? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 16:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen it already - I did. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Becritical asked you to describe your concerns about a specific set of content changes, and you responded with some general observations on the need for everyone to work together, as well as "you're-new-so-you-couldn't-possibly-understand" verbiage which smacks of ownership. While collaboration is unquestionably important, it would probably be facilitated if you could describe your objections specifically, rather than reverting with a general admonition to work together. MastCell ^Talk 23:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as you have the freedom to interpret my comments in a negative vein if you wish, I also have the freedom to make the comments that summarise what I feel inclined to say. I didn't invent this policy, and have loathed it myself in the past. But on a controversial topic like this everyone benefits if we slow down and work on content one section at a time. This ensures that everyone gets their say. You can be sure that your point of view will be given attention and consideration, and won't be overlooked just because some other editor with an opposing opinion got 'in there' first. Bottom line: there is no other way to gain consensus. I'm not interested in owning the content; I'm interested in facilitating the process by which everyone owns the content. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. So what were your specific objections to Becritical's edit? If you have many objections, you can just start with the most substantial one. MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would have been nice, but I'm not set on his answering that because I also have a newer suggestion above, and because if there is consensus on the text in the section above I'm not going to fight it unless others agree. Anyways, I'd like to hear what you think here. B^e——C_ritical 20:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Change proposals

Editors can propose changes below.

diff

Propose this change, per request by Zac. But seriously folks, there's no reason this page can't be edited collaboratively. There's no reason to revert wholesale just because someone didn't follow your idea of the right process. B^e——C_ritical 01:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Zac requested these particular changes. Cosmology is a misleading heading for the section on basic principles. This section is about how to analytically think about astrology, in particular the organizational premises behind astrological observations. It has to do with the astrological understanding of space, time, unity, number, and other very fundamental concepts. Renaming this Cosmology invites the insertion by less informed or careless editors of unrelated creation concepts and "activities of the gods," which will corrupt the section and cause confusion. The original "Core Beliefs" was better than Cosmology but not as good as Principles. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The suggested wording "Astrology, prior to its differentiation from astronomy, began as a study..." does not make sense. It seems to suggest that differentiation from astronomy had an effect on how it began. Please suggest something better. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Time for formal request for Arbitration Enforcement?

This article is seeing multiple instance of uncollaborative behavior. The main problem is akin to article ownership, insisting that almost all substantive edits be discussed first and then overwhelming the ensuing discussion in repetitive walls of text. (In fact, when posting this I edit-conflicted the section immediately above that illustrates the point.) I think formal action under the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions for this topic area could be helpful in producing a more constructive environment. But I would rather not go the formal route if there is a possibility that things could be worked out in an informal and amicable way. I would be interested in hearing others' thoughts on this matter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I too have been concerned about this behavior where nearly every edit is reverted on sight with numerous WP:SPAs/new editors coming out of the woodwork. Hopefully this behavior will stop. Yobol (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Gauquelin's research

Tell me about the sources here. It looks like it presents a conundrum, in that it's sourced mostly to fringe journals. It's hard to ignore or eliminate merely on that basis however, as it's important in the context of astrology. I get the impression there are few if any mainstream refutations. But in searching for names I found "leading empirical studies that have claimed to repudiate astrology, ... (e.g. Nanninga, 1996; Benski et al, 1996; Dean and Kelly, 2003)4 or obscured (Carlson, 1985)"[11]. I'm sure I could go over it more thoroughly, but someone here knows already. What's happening? B^e——C_ritical 20:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the section should be deleted in its entirety unless it can be supported EXCLUSIVELY with reliable independent third-party sources. It may be important for astrology, but it's not notable for science, and this section purports to be a science section. Gauquelin's "research" is self-published and non-scientific. The fact that it has generated little interest in mainstream scientific journals and publications is ample evidence that the study is of little scientific interest, hence not notable. Remember, WP is not here to give a platform to proponents of fringe "theories" to present their "research" or promote their cause. I can't see why it would be "hard to ignore or eliminate". It's pure apologetics and has zero encyclopedic value. Just because it's important to the astrological community does not mean that it is important to WP and its readers. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's important to astrology as a discipline/system of belief, then it's important to a WP article on astrology. Why would we discuss the main beliefs and controversies within Scientology, but not astrology? If it's important, we have to include it (how important it is I leave to the judgment of others). Also, why would we first say it's pseudoscience, then refuse to discuss the ways in which it uses scientific methods to try and promote or prove itself? That's like saying "it's a forest," then refusing to say what kind of trees it has. The trick would be to frame the subject well, or come up with refutations, or something, but just deleting it? I can't see any justification for that. B^e——C_ritical 21:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can do it using reliable third-party sources, have a go at it. But fringe sources are out, except perhaps for reference to Gauquelin's "research" itself in strict accordance with WP:SPS. Sorry, but WP is based primarily on what reliable secondary sources written by experts in the relevant field have to say. And since the field in this section is, or proports to be, science, fringe sources cannot be used, and the opinions of the practioneers of astrology are worthless unless they appear in reliable third-party independent secondary sources.

Demonstrating how astrologers MISUSE scientific methods to give their field an aura of scientific validity may be interesting, but it is probably beyond the scope of the present article (try the article on pseidoscience). There are better ways of doing that than concentrating on a single "study" of no validity, value or notability as a sort of case study. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources on which to base such a demonstration without having to resort to fringe material of dubious worth.

The easy way out would be simply to flush the whole noisome mess into oblivion. Frankly, I see little value in heroics here, and consider the easy way out the wisest course of action. If you disagree, userize the section and try to bring it up to WP standards at your leisure. But, for now, let's just jettison it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be all for it if you can justify it under policy. But I kind of think that there is policy and also the fringe guideline which contradicts this. Anyone else? B^e——C_ritical 22:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I take it you weren't aware of this recent conversation between Zac and Jimbo Wales about sourcing on this very article.[[12]]. Before we go any further, read through it and get back to me if you still have questions. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I did know about it, but haven't read every word. Even his most acidic comment "The Journal may have some value as a source, if it is influential amongst crackpots, to document the sort of nonsense that they are willing to publish while pretending to academic standards.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)" seems to be saying about the same thing I'm saying. I didn't read every word, is there something I'm missing? B^e——C_ritical 22:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Then I agree with you. As long as it's written from the clear and unfailing viewpoint that astrology is absolute nonsense. The one thing I would object to is any attempt to give the proponents of astrology a platform for self-promotion or apologetics. Once you open that door even the tiniest bit, the astrology trolls will have a field day. Be my guest and give it a crack. I'm curious what you'll come up with. Count on my help and support. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, although WP doesn't "write from a point of view." I'll see what I can come up with later. Also, I'm not fearful about these things. It's what prevails in the end that counts. B^e——C_ritical 23:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither Gauquelin nor Carlson were/are astrologers. Neither of them associated with astrologers and can hardly be described by any stretch as "practitioners." These researchers have become famous because of their scientific investigations of astrology. Wikipedia cannot avoid the need to describe their research and the ensuing discourse if it is to have a credible article on astrology. Professor Ertel has been the most instrumental in clarifying and resolving the issues surrounding both studies and until someone challenges his assessments, that's where it rests today. All of the parties involved are well aware of this state of affairs. Although the studies are famous, as with most scientific studies, it's a small world when it comes down to the actual participants. You can get an idea about Ertel from his website, which unfortunately he has not updated since his retirement in 2004. http://kiwi.uni-psych.gwdg.de/home/ertel/ertel-dir/index.html

You will find what you call "fringe" journals on both sides of the discourse on the scientific investigation of astrology and if you want to understand what it's all about there is no other way than to read the journals because this is something not covered in mainstream journals. Fortunately, offprints of many of the important studies and criticisms are available online. If you have specific questions, post them here. Some of the best sources of recent research are found in PhD. dissertations, but most of that work has not yet been published in any sort of journal because of the publishing conundrum. Ken McRitchie (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ertel published in Journal of Scientific Exploration. That makes him a fringe writer and his work is only usable in WP if it is notable fringe theory and needs to be described. He may also have done mainstream psychology and that work might be reliable but we will cross that bridge if we come to it. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ertel has no theories on astrology and has never done any research in it. As far as I can tell he has no theories on anything, though I'm not familiar with all of his rather extensive interdisciplinary work. His role in astrology and other "anomalies" has been as a skeptic and critic. His involvement has been to raise the scientific standards and the transparency of the experimental research he has looked into. Ken McRitchie (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Krivine describes him as friend of Gauquelin. Whatever, we're not citing JSE for anything except itself, lol. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Over time and through mutual respect Suitbert Ertel and Gauquelin became friends, just the same as Gauquelin and George Abell (one of his most vocal critics in the beginning) became friends. It's not all as black and white as you are trying to make it. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If a respected outside scientist publishes in a fringe journal, I don't see why it would be of less value to WP than if he had published in a non-peer-reviewed publication, and therefore he would be as good a source as his expertise made him. But I can't be here for a while, TTYL. I would urge people to exercise subtle discernment in these matters. See this section of FRINGE it should be of help. B^e——C_ritical 15:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If a respectable scientist, or anyone else for that matter, self-publishes or publishes the results of their scientific research in a fringe source, it means that they were unable to get them published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal. Undoubtedly because the did or would not pass peer-review because of their lack of scientific validity. Their expertise and reputation count for nothing, as this would be a case of the old logical fallacy appeal to authority. In the peer review system, scientific findings are judged on their own scientific merits, not on the reputation or expertise of the person who publishes them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu, please could you clarify what you mean by "Demonstrating how astrologers MISUSE scientific methods ... " Are you familiar with the tests involved?

Not only should these scientific studies be included to justify the pseudoscience claim (as pointed out by BeCritical), anyone who has read the history of these tests will know that they have played an important and controversial role among sceptics, independent researchers, astrologers and in the public eye through the Press.

These test results do not justify extraordinary claims partly because of the conclusions, but notably because they do not challenge any established scientific theory. It’s not exactly a test supporting creationism that challenges the theory of evolution or evidence supporting the fake Moon landings. In fact, these particular tests and analyses have been and should be viewed as a success for science over those who claim that astrology cannot be measured or tested under scientific conditions.

Nevertheless, these astrological tests would not be appropriate in mainstream scientific articles in WP that are outside of astrology. However, this page is about astrology. To try to suppress the only publications that print astrological studies (essentially because they publish such studies) is a circular argument. This type of redaction could be seen as a cover-up to push one POV – especially when such views are well documented in four paragraphs under Scientific Criticism of Astrology section. Robert Currey talk 18:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Christianity is about Christianity but we don't present the views as real, we present them as non-scientific beliefs that some people hold and we do it from a third party perspective, never attempting to insinuate that they might be correct. Astrology should be treated the same way. The article should present the definition, what people believe it is, and then the science should be presented as clearly rejecting it as anything but pseudoscience. That's essentially how fringe articles work. N^oformation ^Talk 00:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

N^oformation – Comparing astrology with Christianity is a mistake. Astrology does not require a belief like a belief in God – it can be tested empirically. There are many potential problems and artifacts in testing astrology under scientific conditions, the Carlson test has, according to most scientists, shown that it is possible. Robert Currey talk 13:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You have a mistaken conception of religion if you think that it requires belief in God. Some of the great religions of the world are atheistic, like Buddhism and Taoism. Astrology Astrology may not be a religion, but there are certain similarities that make Noformation's comparison a fair one. Certain aspects of astrology can, and have been, empirically tested, with no scientifically valid results to support the claims of its practioners. That is why it is described as a pseudoscience. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is indeed about astrology, but the sections in question are about scientific claims. Therefore, only reliable mainstream peer-reviewed sources are reliable. Astrology is complete and utter fraudulent bullshit until proven itself otherwise- in mainstream peer reviewed scientific publications, of course. There was nothing stopping Gauquelin, Ertel and co. from publishing their results in real scientific publications except that their findings couldn't pass peer review because they lacked scientific rigor and validity. The burden of proof was on them. Fringe publications are just worthless garbage; that's what "fringe" means. Claims of a "conspiracy" to "suppress" and "censor" pseudocientific "research" are, of course, ridiculous. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

DV, what do you suggest? The Gauquelin research is much too widely known for Wikipedia to just ignore it and the "burden of proof" argument, however defined, does not justify leaving it out, if that is what you are suggesting. Readers expect some information on this famous and controversial research and some guidance to the available sources. The problem, as BeCritical has pointed out, is that the research and the scientific discourse on BOTH sides has been published only in what has been described here as "fringe" journals. This would seem to mean that the research though widely known and discussed among scientists, philosophers, and students, cannot be presented one way or the other in Wikipedia. This represents a conundrum for the editors of this article who have talked themselves into this position. Ken McRitchie (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you just answered the question of how we should guide readers. As you said, this "research" has been published only in fringe journals, and is not part of mainstream scientific discourse. We just need to convey that to the reader - perhaps using essentially those exact words - and we've done our job. MastCell ^Talk 03:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. The reader is quite well warned already in this article. Certainly, there is more to be done to eliminate apologetics, but we do need to cover notable topics and we are free to take the best sources available and use them, if we give sufficient context to the reader. Look at the Creation science sources as an example, which uses this (exact source). B^e——C_ritical 05:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence whatsoever, from reliable sources, that Gauquelin's "research" is notable at all outside of a small-but-vocal incestuous subset of the astrological and paranormal community? Notability cannot be established based on inside sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree that there is hardly any current notability for this. That Eysenck chipped in is of interest in his biography but doesn't really tell us much about the current standing of astrology. By the way, I don't think it is correct to describe Gauquelin as a psychologist or a statistician. After his initial studies he didn't have a university post or publish in scientific journals but just wrote about astrology. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Gauquelin's doctorate in psychology from the Sorbonne (1954) should be enough to qualify him as a psychologist. Robert Currey talk 13:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree that he should be referred to as a psychologist. He earned the degree. Whether he actually practiced in the field is not relevant. We often have the same problem with Creationism-related articles. The consensus there is to use the designation if a higher degree was earned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could open this up to wider discussion for consistency. On other articles it has been argued that that the description "historian" should only be applied when the person has been working, i.e. teaching and/or publishing, in the field. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The place to do that would be WP:VP, not here, as it involves consistency between far-flung articles, and not just this one. Really, I don't see much point in doing so. As a scientist myself, I'm loathe to arbitrarily strip qualifications from someone who genuinely earned them. Gladly if the degree was from a diploma mill or otherwise bogus, but Gauquelin's degree is from the Sorbonne, and there's no reason to doubt its authenticity. All in all, it's a relatively minor point as this article is concerned. There are bigger fish to fry. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree that any wider debate has to take place elsewhere. Am looking for a source saying that Gauquelin had a doctorate. At the moment all I can find is this saying he studied psychology and then statistics at the Sorbonne. This is relevant to his biography. I am not trying to put him down just because he got interested in astrology. The detail might be relevant to the history of French philosophy. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Do you have any evidence whatsoever, from reliable sources, that Gauquelin's "research" is notable at all outside of a small-but-vocal incestuous subset of the astrological and paranormal community?" Well, no, but that's not relevant to this article, since it's about astrology. But, there's the question of whether, or how, notable it is within astrology, and I don't have an answer for that. However, I very much disagree with the underlying assumption of your posts, which is that public education has anything to fear from this material. For example, I found this source (not vetted yet), which gives very quotable text for use. I don't see a problem here. I would like to have a source which noted that there is absolutely no evidence, Gauquelin's research included, of stars or planets having any effect whatsoever on humans, because no causal link has be demonstrated. Thus, while there might be effects of timing on personality, the cause of such effect has to be demonstrated in order for it to lend any support at all to astrological doctrines. This is as I understand the issue now, but don't have any experience with this. B^e——C_ritical 16:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, this article may be about astrology, but this section is about scientific claims, so the opinions of astrologers about those claims and concommittant counterclaims don't count for much (unless published in reliable independent peer-reviewed journals).

Next, my question was two-fold, and included the astrological community at large outside of the apparently small subset obsessed with proving scientific validity. My guess is that most practitioners of astrology don't give a rat's ass about whether it's scientifically valid or not. I might be wrong, but I doubt it.

Has Eysenck's book been peer reviewed? I doubt that books published by Penguin are. If his arguments had any scientific validity, he would have published them with a publishing house that has a reputation for rigorous peer review. But he didn't. Which very, very strongly implies that he couldn't (he probably tried, and his manuscript was rejected)? So what value does his critique hold as far as the evaluation of scientific claims is concerned??? None at all.

The burden of proof is not on me to prove that there is no scientific validity to Gauquelin's self-published "research"? It's on him and on those who want to use his work to support the claims of astronomers. So far, I've seen zip. Absolute zip. And I have no reason to believe there is any (it certainly would be headline news in Science and Nature if any were found, with probably a Nobel Prize thrown in).

I know that you are trying to formulate some type of illustration about how the proponents of astrology use what they claim is science to back up their claims of scientific validity, but you're going to have to do that using proper sources. Otherwise, it would be just OR. I know you're having a tough time finding sources. Right now, I'm reading this: [[13]]. Yes, the problem of scientifically evaluating the claims of astrologers is complex, but the unanimous conclusion is that no scientifically valid results have ever been produced to support those claims. The only difference is in how that determination should be made.

It was not I that removed the material from this section. I'm all for giving you some time to clean it up, even though my better judgement says that you should do this in a sandbox, and not in the live article space, especially if it's going to take some time. However, I'll be patient and hold off deleting the rest of the section until you make your improvements. All I ask is that you be really fastidious with the sourcing concerning the validity of scientific claims. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's about astrology's scientific claims. It's not about "scientific claims," it's about "astrology's scientific claims," thus the astrological sources are appropriate. And read the link I gave you on how to use sources in a fringe articles. Also, all claims of astrology are inherently scientific, as they deal with effects in the physical and psychological world. Thus, according to your argument no astrological sources should be valid. That's just not the way it works here. But remove the section. It's obvious that there's no sourcing which would satisfy your standards and allow the section to be kept, so it will be a matter of editorial consensus. I simply feel that while you may be right in the sense of what ought to be, you are wrong according to Wikipedia policy and practice. You have a good point about how relevant it is relative to the overall subject: it's not very relevant. Perhaps we could take the whole thing out per consensus, and write the whole article without having to deal with scientific claims? B^e——C_ritical 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, scientific claims are scientific claims, and cannot be evaluated by clowns, er... astrolgers. I know the parity section inside out, as it is often used in the articles on Creationism. You missed two words: "RELIABLE" and "VERIFIABLE". To quote: "for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." You can't use just any old source just because you can't find better. It has to be reliable. The section specifically states the kinds of sources that are NOT reliable: "The Creation Science Quarterly, Homeopathy, Journal of Frontier Science (which uses blog comments as its supposed peer review), and many others." We also have a policy on self-published sources: WP:SPS.

I accept the fact that there may be reliable non-peer reviewed sources out there somewhere. But none of the sources produced so far qualify. When a source such as Eyesenck is questionable, we can't give it the benefit of a doubt. When in doubt, toss it out. You can use non-reliable sources to ilustrate what bullshit astrologers publish, as along as it's properly attributed and made ABUNDANTLY clear that the mainstream scientific community rejects it, as the parity section says. But you cannot use them to source acceptance or criticism of scientific claims, just to illustrate such claims. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that's what I said, what are you arguing about? B^e——C_ritical 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Then I did misunderstand. I seriously thought you had been arguing that if no reliable sources can be found, then an exception could be made to use unreliable sources for fringe topics. I did find it very strange, considering your comments about eliminating apologetics. That's why I decided to sit it out. I do recommend the book I'm reading, though. Does a pretty good job of dealing with the fine points of the arguments. Sorry for my obtuseness. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, we can use fringe sources if nothing else is available and it's notable. We just, as you said, have to put them in relative context. Are we really saying anything different? And right about the acceptance or criticism. B^e——C_ritical 19:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. We're on the same page. All the best! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem with making it abundantly clear that the mainstream scientific community rejects astrology. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The problem is when that opinion is presented as a scientific claim, in which case it needs to be supported by reputable evidence. There is none. Even in the case of the Carlson experiment, what was touted as the first real evidence against astrology turned out to actually support it.

Astrology is a strange case and the scientific view of it is the cornerstone of the demarcation problem of separating science from pseudoscience. To say that it has little interest beyond a few radicals is to dismiss your own interest in resolving the problems that it presents. Are you in this or not? Ken McRitchie (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The claim is "no evidence," and that's easy to support till a causative connection is established. At best astrology would have a correlation which is unexplained. B^e——C_ritical 20:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

...and that correlation could not be used to support the claims of astrologers. At all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Right and that's a significant point, do you have a source for that specific statement, that the correlation between birth charts and character traits actually doesn't support astrological cosmology, but is just an unexplained correlation? B^e——C_ritical 20:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Western astrology is going viral in China and soon the adjective "Western" won't really describe it.

The claim of "no evidence" against astrology is also easy to support because there is nothing reliable to cite. A statistical correlation might not be supported by a mechanism, but that is nothing new and hasn't stopped science from publishing such findings, especially when the results conform to theory. Why is astrology so different?

Gauquelin failed to find many things in astrology that he expected to find, but what he did find was that the statistical evidence supported the traditional astrological properties of the planets (theory) for which he had results. It supported those astrological claims. It is not quite correct to say the results are unexplained. The astrological explanation is not a mechanistic one but it has it's own internal logic based on its principle premises (tenets if you will).

No scientific study has refuted Gauquelin's results, but instead the results have been replicated by other researchers and the characteristics of these statistical effect are becoming better understood as the statistical investigation is refined. This may sound offensive to some, but mainstream science publications have had plenty of time (over 20 years in the case of the planetary eminence effects) to refute them, which they have not done. Scientists who tried very hard in the 70s-80s have stopped trying, though their vocal criticism has not diminished one iota. So here we have claims that no one has scientific evidence against. I don't know about you, but these findings and the inability of anyone to provide evidence against them seems highly relevant and a main feature of astrology to me. Ken McRitchie (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it's notable to some degree. If the results are correct, do they actually confirm astrology, or are they just a correlation in personality relative to the time of day of birth? B^e——C_ritical 22:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Gauquelin showed a correlation between planetary positions at the time of birth and eminence in certain chosen profession and as Ken says the nature of the planets corresponded to traditional theory. He did not however, identify evidence supporting astrological aspects (angles between planets) or for zodiacal positions of planets. Robert Currey talk 00:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The claim that astrology experiments would be published in mainstream science papers if they had any merit is wrong. Carlson was an exception for various reasons already explained. Unless an experiment is related directly to their specialist field like psychology, there is no reason for a science journal editor to consider peer-reviewing an astrology paper. They would refer the author to the appropriate specialist journals in the field of astrology, such as Correlation or ISAR – which publish peer reviewed papers that are both sceptical and supportive. In addition, there are very good reasons why an editor of a science journal might be reluctant to risk his or her credibility and that of the journal by publishing an experiment involving what is considered a ‘pseudoscience’ which arouses a great deal of animosity from some scientists who have not studied it.

This attitude is understandable since astrology can show statistical evidence of correlations but no evidence of causation. Science has historically rejected evidence without a mechanism as in the case of Ignaz Semmelweis whose theory of anti-septic procedures was rejected until after his untimely death, when Pasteur discovered germ theory. This attitude appears to be changing within mainstream science, but not in their view of astrology.

The work of Gauquelin was, as someone has pointed out, sufficiently high profile to be investigated by one of the leading psychologists in the world, Hans Eysenck as well as three sceptical groups in Belgium, France and CSICOP in the USA. CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer may not be scientific, but it claimed scientific investigation and included many well-known scientists as fellows including the editor of Nature. Also, I would be surprised if there was an astrologer who is not familiar with Gauquelin’s work, even though most do not know the details. Gauquelin’s studies have been replicated in subsequent experiments (Timm & Kobberl 1986), (Muller & Menzer 1993) and (Suzel Fuzeau-Braesch 2009) and influenced the theories of astronomer, Dr Percy Seymour. To try to minimize Gauquelin's work because there is no known mechanism or interpreting WP rules to push a circular argument that astrological journals are unreliable because they publish astrology, seems to be an attempt to cover-up inconvenient data.

The solution is to report these experiments, but to add a general comment that these findings have not been refuted or replicated in mainstream scientific journals allowing others to judge for themselves. Robert Currey talk 00:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

SPA edits nearing vandalism

User:Neckbrace has popped up today with a surprisingly good knowledge of WP for a newbie and has reverted a number of my edits and those of others. The most annoying is the reversal of the essential moves towards globalising the article. Actually, it is clear that this headline article Astrology has the main purpose of summarising the different traditions. The Indian and Chinese systems need to be given roughly equal weight to the Greek-Arabic-European tradition, and the popular "sun-sign" astrology also needs to be covered. All the detail that only relates to one of these practices should be in an sub-article. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, there has been a lot of 'bold' editing lately. 753 editors watch this page so there are bound to be reverts if your edits are incorrect as several were or controversial and without consensus or full discussion on the talk page.

Now I support your objective that the Astrology page should be universal. However, by what criteria do you consider that the Indian and Chinese systems should be reported compared with the Mesopotamian-Egyptian-Hellenistic-Roman-Islamic-European & Western tradition? Number of practitioners, followers, history, number of books, cultural impact, world-wide spread by continent or as this is the English WP - should it be books and publications in the English language? In all cases, western astrology predominates.

Also, keep in mind that what is popularly known as Chinese astrology - the year of the Rooster, etc is a misnomer. It is not astrology as it is based on an annual cycle, whose only celestial connection is the New Moon to determine the start of the cycle (like Easter or Ramadan) - there is no astro and it is closer to numerology. Real Chinese (celestial) Astrology exists, but it is quite specialised and recent reports suggest that western astrology is more popular in mainland China (as indeed it is in Japan and throughout most of the world outside India). [[14]] Robert Currey talk 10:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not "my" objective. It's policy. And no, number of sources in English is not a factor. And it doesn't matter if Chinese astrology is technically a misnomer, it is still a massive global phenomenon and should be covered adequately in this top-level article. It may be that we end up with only two or three sentences on each tradition, with links to sub-articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the policy on this? Robert Currey talk 12:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that this a top-level umbrella article, yet it seems to default into Western Astrology, which already has its own article, as do Hindu astrology and Chinese Astrology. Detailed information specific to Western Astrology belongs properly in that article, and the top-level article should contain only a brief summary of that material in this article. The biggest problem is the History section, which deals exclusively with the history of Western Astrology, and which also has its own article, History of Astrology. The relevant policies are WP:CFORK and WP:SPLIT. In other words, this article should be an introductory-type article about astrology in general introducing common features, and briefly overviewing each subtype without going into depth. For detailed information about any of the subtypes, readers should be directed to the subarticles. This is to avoid redundant material in multiple articles, which is hard to keep reconciled, as well as POV forking. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is not the place to go into detail about astrology, just give the basics and refer to the sub-articles. We need to include Chinese astrology, or rename the article. B^e——C_ritical 18:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Lede

User:Neckbrace keeps adding the sentence "a search for meaning in the sky" to the lede. I have reverted twice. I think it sounds terrible, even if sourced, and unnecessary. I also think it's kind of a vague and meaningless statement. If astrology in it's broadest sense is finding meaning in the sky, does that mean that looking at the shapes that clouds appear to make is astrology? If I find meaning in the color blue and I see a blue sky, am I an astrologer? Those do sound silly, yes, but that's what you get when you have vague statements. Other opinions? N^oformation ^Talk 03:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It bothered me and I changed it once too, so Neckbrace may be pushing 3RR? B^e——C_ritical 03:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

He just added it back in, has broken 3RR and the warning has been left on his page. I hate making 3RR reports, does anyone want to do it? N^oformation ^Talk 04:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't look at me. I just want to know why people don't want to call it "cosmology," and prefer core principles, unless it's just to make it sound more formal. But cosmology seems more appropriate to the content to me. B^e——C_ritical 04:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Since he did it again I went ahead and made the report. This is getting pretty ridiculous. N^oformation ^Talk 04:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else find this "new" editor jumping into this dispute at this time suspicious? Yobol (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly suspicious, but I haven't been around this article long enough to notice any trends with any specific editors. Did you have anyone in mind? He should be blocked for edit warring shortly, after that if the behavior continues with no discussion perhaps an SPI will be necessary. N^oformation ^Talk 04:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem rather vague - one can search for meaning anywhere. Astrologers seem on the other hand (bye and large) to claim to have found it there, by studying specific extraterrestrial objects (e.g. 'stars'/planets). This distinguishes astrology from meteorology, which searches for another 'meaning in the sky' - as in 'does that ugly black cloud coming this way mean that it is likely to rain?'. As a statement, it may well be true, but it doesn't tell us much. So no, it doesn't belong in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I agree that "search for meaning" is vague. It also gives it the feeling of a TV show introduction on alien visitations, crop circles etc. I have no problem with "belief" as it is stated now. Tampering with the lede is just inviting more careless editing and more trouble at this point. There are already too many changes being made without discussion. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute

I've applied temporary page protection to the article due to the content dispute mentioned above. Appears to be a consensus forming above, but this brief protection will allow time for all parties involved to discuss rather than edit-warring over the content of the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the attention but I don't know if full protection is what is needed here. We have a single editor that has been reverted for the same edit by three different parties, three of us have attempted to discuss on his talk page but he refuses. Since he's somewhere between 8RR and 13RR, I think a block until he actually responds on a talk page is in order. We have a lot of work to do on this article and it's been going decent for the last couple days until this happened. Would you consider unprotecting the page and blocking the reverting editor? Again, thanks for coming by, admins seem to be in short supply tonight! Nevermind, it looks like Fastily took care of it. Thanks Fastily! N^oformation ^Talk 05:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, it looks like you protected it for 3 days, just because one editor broke 3RR? That's not brief, maybe till sometime tomorrow would have been okay. Would you mind unprotecting sooner than the 8th? B^e——C_ritical 05:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that one editor violated 3RR, though that didn't help. It's almost as if editors who were watching could not tolerate the sense that the active editors were approaching a consensus, however distantly. The article has been decimated by editors who seem to have come out of nowhere and are not discussing their changes. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There may be consensus about one new editor to this page, but I am concerned about the tendentious editing of some of the mob of seven new editors who have appeared. Though some of their edits are constructive and necessary, most are without reference to the talk page, without consensus and with little understanding of the points. In most instances, these editors are pushing their personal beliefs about astrology rather than any knowledge. Astrology is a more complex field than it first appears. A lot of well-cited material that arouse through collaborative editing and research has been deleted without any explanation and sometimes replaced with original research or factual errors or points that contradict the lede. While some may consider this a victory for rationalism, the failure to make a case on the talk page and the desperation to bend WP rules to cover up uncomfortable facts suggests the opposite and that this is ultimately a loss to Wikipedia. Robert Currey talk 16:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

While controversial edits should probably be discussed here, there is nothing wrong with being bold and enforcing policy where it is blatantly being violated. This article is rife with policy violations, especially WP:FRINGE violations. If someone makes an edit you disagree with, you are free to revert it and discuss it on the talk page - nothing is ever permanent on WP, so I'm not sure why you're complaining. I came here, I think either from AN/I or from the fringe noticeboard and honestly I can't figure out how this page lasted as an advertisement for astrology for so long. That Dominic had to start and RFC just to demonstrate that fringe sources cannot be used the way they were goes to show that the regular editors of this page seem not to get or care about wikipedia policies on pseudoscience. Lastly, as far as pushing personal beliefs or knowledge goes, the point of NPOV is that neither knowledge nor belief goes into the article, but rather that of reliable sources as defined by WP:RS and guided by WP:FRINGE. Astrology is only as complex as the sources that we're allowed to use present it as. N^oformation ^Talk 18:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is fine, but my experience here has been that those who revert were not willing to discuss their problems with the edits. However, the focus on removing sources was partially wrong I believe, and the focus should have been more on attribution and context. Also, there is the issue of using this article merely as a jumping off point to other more specific articles, and also globalizing it. Anyway, if you aren't willing to go over the edits such as mine point-by-point, there isn't much else we could do besides what's been happening. Just reverting all the time is only going to get you accusations of WP:OWN. B^e——C_ritical 19:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think with the work that you, Dominic, and yes even Neckbrance, have done over the past week has made a huge improvement to the article. Sometimes it can be hard to go over things point by point but assuming the sourcing is correct it's just a matter of working out the details. As far as disputes go, I've seen much worse, I think in a month this article will be awesome and maybe even GA status. N^oformation ^Talk 20:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that Becritical and others would have liked to have had a point-by-point discusiion so as not to throw out the baby with the bath water, but that was impossible considering the sheer amount of blatant nonsense that had to be removed. When Yobol and I made our initial bold deletions, we cut more than a quarter of the article, almost all in the extremely apologetic "research" section, which was basically, as Noformation said, just an advertisement which violated countless WP policies. I'm happy that the RfC atracted attention to this article so that it is now being overwatched by editors familiar with sourcing of fringe subjects, and confident that the article can be brought up to GA status. One project that lies before us is cutting a lot of the material that is specific for Western Astrology and merging into our article under that title. There's no problem with reinserting material later if proper sourcing is found. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I just want to mention that I didn't purposely leave Yobol, Judith or anyone else out in my post, I wrote that in a hurry right before I left for class so it was just a minor oversight. N^oformation ^Talk 00:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Noformation – As you state, I am technically free to revert. However, whenever I have reverted edits that have not been discussed on the talk page with a request for discussion, I have simply been reverted notably by the new editors who have recently materialised. I have even been warned by one new editor that I was edit warring for doing so - please give me a break! Since this new editor neglected to warn the other new editors engaged in tendentious editing, he was clearly posturing to push his POV. However, argument by assertion and repeated reversion rather than by reason is the natural resort of a fundamentalist.

There is no way that this page could ever have been called an advertisement for astrology. It has always contained huge criticisms of astrology which are frankly not supported by evidence. Have you ever seen an astrologer advertise him or herself as a pseudoscientist? It is a controversial claim and pejorative term - yet there have been many instances where I have reverted or argued with editors who have tried to remove the reference to astrology as a pseudoscience – even if it is open to question (more on that in another post). However, to an extreme sceptic facts about astrology (that are not critical) may seem like an advertisement. Anyone who believes that it was an advertisement is going to edit selectively to redress their perceived bias. At the moment the page reads like an article from the Skeptical Inquirer and not an impartial Encyclopedia.

I am more than willing to discuss edits, though the onus is primarily on the editor to make their case for their edit on the talk page before making the edit. At the moment, the frenetic editing activity with so many editors makes it impossible to raise all the issues, though this can be done over time.

Dominus Vobisdu, your claim that it was impossible to discuss points “considering the sheer amount of blatant nonsense that had to be removed” sounds like an excuse to avoid trying to justify your edits in a way that could lead to any consensus. There is nothing bold about this behaviour - if it is such 'blatant nonsense', then you should have no problem making a persuasive case. As it is, you are using selective interpretation of WP rules and force of numbers using editors invited onto this page (many who fundamentally misunderstand the subject or the context or the history of the arguments) to bulldoze your POV and cover-up verifiable facts that challenge your personal beliefs. Robert Currey talk 12:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Etymology section

I'm minded to restore the admittedly bold but quite sensible alterations that I made. The logic being:

• Etymology sections in articles usually just give the etymology of the topic of the article. For example Arundel gives the etymology of Arundel and nothing else.
• Nevertheless, the etymology of "astronomy" is of interest here and can be briefly noted.
• The etymology of "astrology" is straightforward. A number of English words have "astra" or "astro" in them. Masses of words have "ology".
• Noting the Latin, going back to the Greek, is enough. We don't need to give the ancient Greek letters.
• We don't need to link to Wiktionary because this is simple stuff. Anyone with a deep interest in etymology will know how to look up more.
• The original meanings of "star", "planet" are of interest, but not in this section.

Anyone disagree with any of this? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool. B^e——C_ritical 20:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the last point. That's the entire reason for having the etymology. A look of people think astrology is about the stars, because "astr-" means "star". Some astrologers have gone so far as to say that traditional astrology isn't really astrology, because it deals with planets instead, and so it must be "fixed" before we call rightfully call it astrology. It's kinda like saying the Bible is stupid for saying Johah was swallowed by a giant "fish", when every child knows that a whale is not a fish. Except, of course, that when the KJV was translated a whale was a "fish". — kwami (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. It never occurred to me anyone could be so silly. Of course we should say that the meaning of "astr-" in ancient times was "heavenly body", not "star" in the present sense. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You evidently weren't here when we had a professional astrologer editing the article. One of her sources said exactly that. Several books published with the idea of "returning" astrology to the stars. Also, we still talk about one's destiny being foretold "by the stars", there's "my stars!" etc, which confuse people, and all of which I expect date from before the word star narrowed in meaning to fixed stars. — kwami (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Itsmejudith that this section can be substantially scaled back, and also with Becritical KWAMI that the original concept of planets as wandering stars needs to be briefly explained. I'm cutting the material on astronomy. It's irrelevant to this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's kwami, not me :P B^e——C_ritical 22:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I recall a country walk at night with a woman friend and her young son, when he pointed at a beautiful Jupiter near the zenith and exlaimed "Look at that star!", upon which she immediately "corrected" him, saying it was not a star but a planet. This sort of illiteracy comes from the peculiar notion that each word has one and only one meaning, and that poor woman was passing her illiteracy on to her son. Of course in astronomy and other appropriate contexts there is a clear distinction between "star" and "planet", but in literary English "star" covers a wider field. (As kwami points out with a couple of popular expressions.) It is, alas, important to remind people of this. As for the "ancient Greek letters" Itsmejudith refers to, I don't see them now - maybe they were removed since her post? All I see is conventional Greek letters, nothing rare or archaic. Axel (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Core Principles section

Why shouldn't this be called "cosmology?" B^e——C_ritical 21:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK on that. It should go later in the article. Many statements are still unsourced and I would be looking for good sourcing or thinking of removing. There is too much essentialism, i.e. an implication that astrology has always had the same core, and that implication isn't compatible with the history of ideas. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How about "cosmological tenets"? That would avoid confusion with mythological cosmologies, which are unrelated. Neither this nor "cosmology" are terms that astrologers use or would recognize however. They simply call them "principles." They are traced back to early Pythagorean and Hermetic concepts of harmonics and symmetry rather than Euclidean and Aristotelian concepts of measurement and causality. It's a somewhat different interpretation or world view. Ken McRitchie (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to add the Pythagorean or Hermetic "cosmology" didn't make sense and argue for principles, but it's a moot point now because that whole section has been wiped off the page. Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

According to a source of our Pseudoscience article "According to Brian Baigrie (1988, 438), “[w]hat is objectionable about these beliefs is that they masquerade as genuinely scientific ones.” These and many other authors assume that to be pseudoscientific, an activity or a teaching has to satisfy the following two criteria (Hansson 1996): (1) it is not scientific, and (2) its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific"."

So I'd like to discuss this revert. B^e——C_ritical 22:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is proving intent. When our professional astrologer was here, people made the argument that astrology is not a pseudoscience because it does not pretend to be scientific. They had all sorts of references to back up that POV. Part of that was a mischaracterization of science (astrology does not claim a mechanism, or causality, therefore it's not pretending to be science), but still, we found several assessments of pseudoscience that didn't require there to be intent to deceive. Also, most astrologers are honest and not attempting to deceive anyone. What makes it pseudoscience is what we have already in the lead: it makes scientifically testable claims without ever testing them or considering the evidence. If astrology were based on Gauquelin's research, and fared better or worse depending on how that research fared, then it would be scientific, if poorly supported. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't quite make sense to me, because you don't call religion or every other stupid belief that people have "pseudoscience." Where do you stop calling things pseudoscience, if not when people stop claiming it's science? B^e——C_ritical 22:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If a religion makes a scientifically testable claim without testing it, then it is pseudoscience, though people seldom use that word for organized religions, probably because they'd offend. Scientology with its theta meters is pseudoscience, and there have been hundreds of similar movements. The numerology found in the Bible is pseudoscience, at least to the extent that it makes testable predictions. Well, not at the time those passages were written, since they had nothing better to go on, but it would be if people applied it today. But if it's a claim like Jesus died for our sins, how do you test that? You'd have to interview souls entering Heaven and ask them how many had accepted Jesus, and then demonstrate that Christianity had failed to contrast those figures with the predictions of other religions.

I don't know what Baigrie in your quote meant by "masquerade". Is a specific claim involved? It wouldn't have to be, with the way I've seen the word used. But the word also has an implication of deception, which is wrong. Deception makes something a fraud, not pseudoscientific. A lot of psychics, palm readers, and astrologers are sincere people, truly believe in what they're doing, and often are motivated to help people, as they see the beneficial effects they have on their clients. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you post one of those sources? And you're right, even a claim like "Jesus died for our sins" is pseudoscientific under your definition. What's wrong with an experiment like what you describe? It's a testable claim, and all you have to do is ask the souls. Since such an experiment is eminently doable -assuming the proposition is correct to begin with- there's nothing besides the fact that no one is claiming scientific validity to keep us from calling it pseudoscience. And consider the word: pseudoscientific, that is fake science. Nearly every claim is potentially scientific, but not every false claim meets the definition of pseudoscientific. B^e——C_ritical 22:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Religion unfortunately has a special status in most societies wherein it's taboo to criticize or comment on people's irrationally held beliefs. If the bible had not been written and passed down over thousands of years, and today someone tried to posit the bible as factual, it would rightfully be called something along the lines of peudoscience/pseudohistory if it made the same metaphysical claims that it does now. In fact, we definitely consider Creationism, Intelligent Design, etc, to be pseudoscience.

As was pointed out in the Scientology example, we refer to their methods and beliefs as pseudoscientific and pseudofactual just as we do the Raelians or any other modern day cult, which is simply a religion in training. Astrology, however, goes beyond religious claims by making very specific metaphysical statements that contradict what we already know for a fact about the universe and so it's not much different than a crackpot with a Perpetual motion machine or a Theory of Everything that doesn't fall in line with previously observed phenomenon. The entire premise is that balls of gas and/or rock in the sky somehow influence our insignificant lives here on this tiny, insignificant rock. Making a statement like that is pseudoscientific, with or without a mechanism. Whether it technically falls in line with this or that definition of pseudoscience, the bottom line is that calling it pseudoscience is a lot nicer than just calling it bullshit. But as an encyclopedia of knowledge, not wishful thinking, we have to present astrology as what it is.

With that said, I wouldn't necessarily have an issue with not specifically calling it pseudoscience so long as it's presented in the context of being an unsubstantiated and unjustified belief that happens to be held by a lot of people. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't even have a problem if we didn't mention that most of those people are teenage girls. Ok I'm kidding, put away the pitchforks. N^oformation ^Talk 00:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I know you are kidding and I will keep my pitchfork out of this ;) but I sense you are confusing the field of astrology as a whole with newspaper sun sign astrology. Certainly the stats suggest that there are more women interested in astrology than men, but for the record there is no evidence of a special interest by teenagers of either sex. Robert Currey talk 14:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL

Well yes, except that I went to Raëlism and Scientology and did a search for pseudoscience and didn't find it. Astrology has just as much claim to being grandfathered in as something you don't call pseudoscience as any religion. And religions of all sorts make just as specific metaphysical claims as Astrology, indeed claims that are essentially the same such as "I was lucky today because of the planets" versus "Saints healed me" etc. Anyway, without very good sources which trump the ones in the Pseudoscience article, I think we should go with the sources we have, and also with what I think is logic, that is that you don't call something pseudoscience if it doesn't claim to be science (unless we're ready to go and try to categorize Catholicism as pseudoscience) . Given that Astrologists categorize their beliefs more as Divination than science most of the time, I really think my little caveat is appropriate. B^e——C_ritical 01:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If we can get back to the topic of the present article rather than the Bible and such, note there quite a few statements in the article that astrology conducts "research" and so forth. Thus sure sounds like a claim to status as science, which I agree is a requirement to qualify as a pseudoscience. But in the end what I think doesn't matter -- there are many, many, many sources of great prominence and reliability that describe astrology as a pseudoscience. Omitting this fact would mislead the reader in a very serious way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

But since nobody's suggesting that we leave it out... B^e——C_ritical 01:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I must have misconstrued comments like "Astrology has just as much claim to being grandfathered in as something you don't call pseudoscience..." etc. Apologies if I misunderstood. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see, no problem, what I meant there is that there is a lot of astrology which is just folk culture, or whatever you want to call it, and makes no claim on science whatsoever. This entire section is over this issue. B^e——C_ritical 02:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"the saints healed me" – that would be pseudoscience. People actually have done scientific studies of the healing power of prayer. (It works – just so long as the person knows you're praying for them. Rather like executing condemned criminals by casting a hex on them in Vodun: only works if they know about it.) But faith healers do not do that research, and they only concern themselves with it if they think it validates them. Selective attention to the evidence is a hallmark of pseudoscience. Read the ref in the lead: astrology wasn't pseudoscience at first, because there was no scientific theory that addressed the same issues. Now science does. The same with salvation: if we could interview souls in Heaven, then ideas of salvation would be pseudoscience if they weren't based on solid evidence. But since we can't do that, it's outside the realm of modern science. Therefore religions which make claims about salvation are not making scientifically testable claims. Therefore they are not pseudoscience.

Or, more briefly: Astrology could be a science. We can test its claims and compare it to other theories. Ideas of salvation cannot be a science, as there's no way to test their validity with current knowledge. "Could be but isn't" = pseudoscience. "Can't be and isn't" ≠ pseudoscience. — kwami (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be disagreement in the sources, with some painting with a broad brush, and others being more specific. So I concede about the edit.

I do contend, though, that any statement which makes factual claims, yet is untested, is unscientific, that is to say anti-scientific or what one would call pseudoscience in the loose sense. So I'd say salvation is pseudoscience. I just don't think it's appropriate to call it that on Wikipedia, unless it is also making a claim to have scientific backing. B^e——C_ritical 04:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Astrology and astrologers do not claim to be a modern science. I think the problem is where scientists get into the act and try to find out if astrological claims are true. It is very difficult to gather the data for an quantatative experiment, but it can and has been done several times. If these scientists conduct research as Gauquelin did, then does their research automatically become pseudoscientific? Does astrology then automatically become pseudoscientific? There is a constant threat to science that some scientists will investigate astrology and try to find something. Science will be brought into the situation. How does science defend itself against such an act? Pseudoscience of course!

Because, it turns out, the answer lies in whether the investigating scientist found support for astrology or not (and the slight problem of finding a publisher with peer reviewers familiar enough with astrology to accurately regognize whether the claim being tested is astrological or not). For example, Gauquelin suffered the misfortune of finding support for some claims predicted by astrology. His research is clearly pseudoscience. And now astrology is pseudoscience because he was a scientist and he made claims. It doesn't matter that other scientists refined his findings in independent studies. They are also pseudoscientists.

Carlson enjoyed the good fortune of finding no support for astrology (and getting a publisher - yay!), so his was clearly science. That is until a number of scientists found that he made very serious and quite obvious and illogical mistakes and showed that it supported astrology. Clearly then it was pseudoscience. But wait, we can save the situation by claiming that the critical scientists were actually not scientists but pseudoscientists! They had to be because they showed Carlson's results to be positive for astrology. Carlson was the victim of science heretics and even though his work is obviously flawed, it is still scientific. Carlson was just a student, so we forgive him. All is well. Ken McRitchie (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say to that, except that I'm sure there is plenty of prejudice within science since it's a human institution. Just the corporate influence is appalling, and I'm sure other biases are there as well (not that it has any effect relative to Wikipedia). I do consider that astrological studies may have been good science, and picked up on some correlation. I don't know enough about the subject, and I'm just curious about one thing, and that's what the results were interpreted to mean. And the Mars effect, I don't understand that: is that a yearly thing, I mean is Mars position in a natal chart something that changes on a yearly cycle, a monthly cycle, or a daily cycle, or what? Is it a regular cycle? Sorry, just curious, because if it's a regular cycle then it might be hormonal or seasonal, and I'm not sure if the study took such things into account? I'm not sure why scientists seem to have taken the results as a confirmation of astrology -if the results are real- rather than something with more mundane causation? Especially if in the past the effects were more pronounced, Astrology might have picked up on them and ascribed them to the stars. B^e——C_ritical 05:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Curiosity is a sign of intelligence, no need to apologize : ) Ken McRitchie (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether astrology is a pseudoscience or not comes down to definition. The original classic definition by Karl Popper that a pseudoscience was not falsifiable now no longer applies to astrology since the Carlson test showed it was possible with astrology – even if Carlson’s methods were criticised and his conclusions were faulty. Since then the goal posts that defined pseudoscience are continually moving and the following should be considered:

1. Astrologers don’t claim astrology is a science. If anything some see parts of it like Gauquelin as a proto-science requiring more replication and a mechanism. As discussed, for anything to be pseudo requires pretence.
2. Researching any field cannot make it a pseudoscience. As Ken, points out are Carlson, CSICOP and other researchers who investigate astrology scientists if they confirm a null hypothesis or pseudoscientists if they get positive results?
3. Astrology does not rely on claims that contradict science. Though many astrologers might speak of the ‘influence of Jupiter’, very few posit a causal relationship or pretend there is a known mechanism (other than for Natural Astrology: the solar and lunar tug and the tides). (This is like an astronomer saying that IO is a living moon because it has volcanic activity while our moon is dead – it is a metaphor). There are many fields that identify phenomena without a known mechanism such as continental drift (now plate tectonics) or the efficacy of aspirin where the mechanism was not known until 1971. A lack of mechanism does not make a field pseudoscientific.

However, this question is academic in the sense that astrology is classified as “generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community” by Arbcom and therefore should be stated that way with no spin in the article. Robert Currey talk 14:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, so then there's consensus to leave the statement as it is, "While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience..."? B^e——C_ritical 14:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As it is following a ruling and given that pseudoscience is so loosely defined, I would support following Arbcom's terms: “It is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community”. Robert Currey talk 15:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is preferable. The statement as it is now is: "While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience because it makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations."

The first assertion "superficial resemblance" is not in the sources. Thagard says instead that the discipline has to "purport to be scientific." Astrology does not purport to be scientific, but the scientists who investigate astrology do in fact purport that their studies are scientific. That makes things a bit more complicated.

The assertion of "little attempt to develop solutions to its problems (e.g. MG found no evidence in signs so that is still a problem). The scientists who have gotten involved have made numerous attempts. MG tried very hard to find evidence of signs and others have too. Other scientists have researched other parts of astrology, Carlson for example, who we also cite.

The assertion is no concern for "competing theories." What competing theories? Astronomical and demographic artifacts? In the case of MG, those were ruled out. Astrology does not contradict other theories. Carlson compared astrology with personality profiles, which we cite. He didn't actually express a concern that he was matching competing theories but he was comparing two theories to see if they could get the same results, so I don't see how this assertion holds in view of the referenced material.

The last aserrtion is "selective in considering confirmation and dis-confirmations." Thagard doen't even give an example, so what is he referring to? Astrologers admit they are sometimes (maybe often) wrong. As far as the bold scientists go, what was MG being selective about? Or Ertel? What was Carlson being selective about? Oh well, Carlson is different. He made a conclusion that was illogical even if his facts were right, which they weren't. We cite Carlson, and he was not being "selective" at all. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" won't do at all. It implies that this view is confined to the scientific community, which is false. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be an acceptable phrase actually. Wikipedia follows the scholarly community, and what they consider to be correct is all that matters. Such a statement therefore is specially suited for Wikipedia, and has the added advantage of being more persuasive than other formulations, due to the appeal to authority. B^e——C_ritical 17:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As Becritical said, WP is based on what the mainstream scholarly community reorts in high-quality reliable sources, and the overwhelming consensus is that it is pseudoscience. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but we need to avoid implying that only scientists view astrology as pseudoscience. Many (most? practically everybody?) outside the scientific community think it's pseudoscience too. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So what would you say in such a situation, how would you word it? B^e——C_ritical 21:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

People outside the scientific community are persuaded to believe that astrology is pseudoscience only because of an appeal to the authority of the scientific community. Where else would such a strange and difficult to define concept as pseudoscience come from? Ordinary people don't think such things. The belief emanates from that community. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

@Becritical: The best wording is "While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience...". This covers the fact that the overwhelming majority of the scholarly community has concluded that it is pseudoscience, as well as the fact that the general public is mostly in agreement. There's nothing tenative about this; in fact, astrology is considered the prototypical pseudoscience. I would oppose any language that implies that this opinion is more limited in scope than it actually is. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There are more than 1,000 Google Scholar refs for +astrology +pseudoscience. I doubt if you will find a more archetypal trope in epistemological discourse. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There are in fact, 1,940 listings in Google Scholar but there are 58,500 for +astrology +science - does that make astrology a science?

Pseudoscience is a philosophical term on which few scholars can agree. The public have no idea what pseudoscience means and there is no evidence that a majority believe that astrology is a pseudoscience or even think about it. At least we can all now agree that the argument that astrology is a pseudoscience because the public wrongly believe that it is a science is false - even if we are following different reasoning.

I understand that when as one new editor here claims astrology is “utter fraudulent bullshit”, it is natural to believe that everybody thinks this way. Moreover, these type of editors feel it is their moral duty to go beyond normal encyclopaedic protocols, WP policy, bypass rational argument and in this case, even Arbcom’s wording to add their personal moral spin on this 'heresy'. The problem is that while the BS contention may apply to some practitioners who claim to be astrologers and some techniques, it does not apply to the study of astrology. I will back this up with a post elsewhere. The fact is that there are and have always been many scientists who reserve judgement about any field especially one where there is a history, evidence, theory, libraries, schools, huge cultural impact and both a scholarly interest and popular following, until they have investigated it. Often it is these scientists who resist groupthink who come up with the most valuable discoveries. Robert Currey talk 11:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Same problems at Psychological astrology

A lot of the blither about the Carlson study is repeated in the article on Psychological astrology. I've deleted it, and would appreciate if others would add that article to their watchlists as well, as well as bring other instances of content forking to our attention here. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think there was a consensus to remove that material from either article? It was very much under discussion and still is. There was no consensus. Ken McRitchie (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Help with the lead

We need an introductory paragraph of the lead which gives the overarching definition of astrology on an international level. B^e——C_ritical 02:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Overreaching would be a better description of what the lede has become after the onslaught of recent undiscussed edits. Yes, the article should be international, but in fact "Western" astrology, in the Hellenistic tradition, is as global as practically everything else Western. It is the one and only international system. Undue weight has been given to Chinese astrology, which is just a simple entertainment that pales by comparison to Western astrology. Undue weight is also given to Indian astrology, which varies only slightly from Western astrology (mainly in the positions of the signs) but has a different local terminology, which is really irrelevant and unnecessarily confusing. The lede is too long. The writing is unclear and wordy with too many concepts introduced. There are numerous inaccuracies, not the least of which is the statement concerning pseudoscience, which uses an outdated definition that conflicts with the current reality and is unsupportable. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

So edit it. I suggest you leave the pseudoscience part at least till there is some other consensus, or a consensus about it. What do you think of making this article just a place to direct the reader to more specific articles, with only brief summaries retained? B^e——C_ritical 06:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Speechless at the cultural arrogance of that post. How dare you dismiss millennia of Chinese and Indian history in that way? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There is still no consensus about sources. The conundrum is that if references to peer reviewed articles in astrological journals are removed, as they have been without discussion over the past week, then there is no critical discourse and no NPOV. While it sounds good in principle to make this a summaries article as you suggest, I don't think that will work. There are many contentious issues relating to astrology that will not go away by themselves without critical dialog and there needs to be a place for editors to hash them out and this is it. If this article didn't exist, we'd have to create it. Suppressing astrological sources from the article does not make the article or the subject matter any less controversial. It is just plain ignorance. Ken McRitchie (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Two separate issues are getting mixed up, perhaps I contributed to that, but it is better to separate them. In the overall series of articles there is already one on Western astrology. The other one is about the sources that we should use, and those should mainly be scholarly sources and reflect the consensus in scholarship. A few months ago I and another editor defended the use of astrology magazines in Astrology software, because those were authoritative for that topic. But they are not authoritative for the standing of astrology in science and scholarship. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, I am back on the question of due weight accorded to the different branches of astrology. I think you are going to have a hard time defending the emphasis on western versus localised versions of astrology in the lede. There are many other different cultural versions and deviations – most are derived from the ancient systems that developed primarily in Mesopotamia with some techniques like the decanates originating from Egypt. However, there is a huge difference between these localised systems and western astrology. Western astrology predominates throughout the world – it’s not local to one country, one continent, one culture or to any religion. As a result, it has had to adapt and refine to cope with centuries of criticism. Trying to put western astrology on the same footing as Chinese astrology is like saying that in an article on French Language, a local language like Breton should be given the same status as French even though it is a French language. As has been pointed out, even in China, Western Astrology has a large following. And, for the above reasons, all the information on Chinese astrology appears to have come from one of only three poorly sourced articles on the subject on WP (with highly commercial links at the bottom). Of the two localised systems, Indian astrology should have much more 'ink' than Chinese.

From a sceptical point of view dividing up the article in this way makes sense as it dilutes Western Astrology and hides the significant developments in the last thirty years. Robert Currey talk 15:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert, If I understand correctly, I think you meant to say that dividing up the article does *not* make sense. Itsmejudith, it's good to have more women editors (assuming you are female) as there is an disproportionate representation of men in Wikipedia. It has been only a couple of years since the ban on websites with astrological content was lifted in China and there is a voracious appetite for Western astrology there as that country catches up. It is sad that while China is opening up, there is a drive toward suppression and censorship here. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, I am coming to all this from an interest in history of ideas. Chinese ideas, Indian ideas, interplay between ideas. Ideas in general. Scientific ideas, proto-scientific and pseudoscientific. All that sort of thing. And I like to see articles in neat series and on topic. Topic Astrology, what does it cover? Astrology. Any specific kind? No, all kinds and any kind. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the lead is over-detailed: too much material that should be in the body is crammed into the top. I say we have one paragraph that lays out a general definition of astrology, a second paragraph that summarizes what is currently in the next three paragraphs, and then a closing paragraph that combines the current last two paragraphs. the details should get moved down in to body sections. --Ludwigs2 17:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The lead is now over-bloated. I've moved the material to a section called "Varieties of Astrology", and left only the first sentence in the lead. This creates a duplicate section with the "World Traditions" section, and the material in the two sections should be merged. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Help with cosmic cybernetics

There is another area of "research" and that is the efforts known as "cosmic cybernetics." CC researchers are not scientists but software engineers. There is no theory involved in this research and no claim to science, yet it is still "research." The whole effort here has been to develop computer models that can replicate and anticipate specific events ranging from radio weather to economic indexes. The Dow Jones Industrial index is a favorite because it provides a good historical spectrum of data. CC is entirely based on harmonic configurations, i.e. aspects including obscure minor aspects, of the planets. It has a history that emerges from weather almanacs, John Goad, Johannes Kepler and back to the early Pythagoreans. Any aspects are used that get results regardless of what the astrology books say. Like any software development, the whole discipline is entirely performance driven. The best model developed so far is said to be the Tao Oscillator, which it is claimed has outperformed any comparable modeling system for the DJI. The problem with CC researchers however, is that they don't publish anything formal. It would be nice to have something on them but I'm not sure where to get it. Ken McRitchie (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't sound notable in any way. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition to being transparent fraud, obviously not-notable. If one could predict the future level of the DJI with accuracy greater than chance, they would be monumentally rich. Show me the billionaire. Hipocrite (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, a planet can be in a position relative to reference points, either one or more. Humans tend to adjust their lives with Earths position relative to the Sun. We have "summer seasonal" work, and we have "winter seasonal" work. Therefore, the alignment of the Sun and Earth directly affect the summer economical index, and the winter economical index. Point proven? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.163.65 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Major editing without discussion

Lately it has been the practice of a few editors to make major changes to the article without discussion. Users BeCritical, Hipocrite and Dominus Vobisdum are recent examples. I'd like to know what guideline or policy you are following when you do this because it certainly seems contrary to everything WP stands for to me. SLP (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLD, and the strong consensus that in-universe "peer reviewed" astronomy journals are not reliable sources. Additionally, I have not made major new edits to the this article - please provide an example of me doing so, or retract your false claims. Hipocrite (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You are reverting all of my edits without discussion. SLP (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous sections above where you can discuss - most of your edits revert already closed points. After reverted, you are supposed to go to the talk page - I addressed you on your talk page already. Hipocrite (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, let me make sure I understand - my reverts are major changes to the article, but the edits that cause me to revert are not major changes - or, perhaps, there's some discussion of your massive edits? Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Being an experienced editor, I'm sure you understand that my edits were undoing major edits done prior without discussion. The onus is on those editors to build a case for their actions ahead of any edits. SLP (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor who adds or restores material, according to WP policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

guys, would you give it a rest: he's a newbie. See wp:BITE. let's not use the jackass tactics we use on experienced editors until he's developed some kind of understanding of how the project works.

SLP, this is a tactic used by some editors in order to frustrate you into leaving the page or into getting blocked. it's called wp:BAITing. They will revert anything you do on principle because they don't like the kind of edits you make. it's stupid and childish, but there's nothing to be done about it except patiently slog through in the faint hope they will get bored with the game. I suggest you do small edits to different parts of the article over a period of time, do some work on other articles in between, and if they continue to stubbornly revert you over a period of a few weeks you can ask for an administrator's help. The most important thing is to be calm, patient, and avoid getting angry, because they will use that behavior to get you blocked. --Ludwigs2 18:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside this rather unhelpful assumption of bad faith, I wish to point the "newbie" to Wikipedia:Verifiability which states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." The bolding appears in the original, emphasizing the importance of this point. I realize that new editors are not necessarily aware of such policies, so you may want to have a look. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, your appearance at this page is troubling. I'm warning you that while your opinions and intellect are welcome here, if you continue your usual mode of operation, I will not tolerate it as I did at Pregnancy. I'm sure if you can follow your own advice there won't be any trouble. B^e——C_ritical 19:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ludwigs, nice to see you here. For me, the most important thing at the moment is the globalisation issue, i.e. that we have to give due consideration to Indian and Chinese astrology. If you have an opinion on that, would be glad to hear. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes as far as I can tell, there is general agreement to make this a jumping-off point rather than a rundown of astrological ideas, am I right? B^e——C_ritical 20:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Judith: I've already commented on that in the section above, and I'll do some revisions later today when I get a chance.

at SHB: I noticed that as well - I'm not an entirely naive goody-two-shoes type (anymore ). But I have a deep contempt for uncommunicative reverts, which effectively emasculate the consensus process. If one cannot support a revert in talk one shouldn't be doing it in mainspace, and in my experience people who do so are almost always doing it to aggravate others rather than improve the encyclopedia. Just making that clear.

To everyone else: it's a pleasure seeing you all again as well; I look forward to our collaboration. --Ludwigs2 20:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, your interest in history and the interplay of ideas (from your comments above) sounds noble. It should be pointed out however, that Chinese astrology has next to nothing to do with the observation of celestial bodies and though it should be mentioned with its proper due weight, it scarcely qualifies as astrology except in name only. There are no serious papers or discussion on it available. Chinese astrology and irrelevant details of Indian terminology are being used here to create a bloated, confusing mess that lacks a coherent discussion. It seems to me that you are part of this. It makes your assertion that the article should be open to "scientific ideas, proto-scientific, and pseudoscientific" unconvincing.

Certain editors of this article, who make undiscussed deletions of well-referenced content, have become increasingly intolerant. They will immediately strike down anything that contains a suggestion of critical thinking. There is no satisfying definition of pseudoscience that has not been shown to be false or in obvious conflict with the content of this article that has now been removed. Nevertheless the claims by these editors, when they do comment at all, that certain content is pseudoscience and sourced from banned references seems to be growing in scope at an alarming rate. It now includes critical reviews offered by PhD authors in peer reviewed journals, even against the research of an incredibly inept student. Have we entered upon a new level of censorship and suppression of dissent? Ken McRitchie (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Entered? we've been there for years. Look, pseudoscience is the most deeply entrenched locus of bigotry on project. trying to write a balanced article on a pseudoscientific topic on wikipedia is a bit like trying to run a minority woman for Grand Dragon of the KKK. It doesn't matter how reasonable she is or how politic you are, you're not going to get a fair hearing. I mean, I understand and appreciate the original concern - that the project doesn't want pseudoscience articles written from an advocacy position (that has and still does happen, and it makes the project look dull-witted when it does), but that's far too fine-edged a distinction for the die-hards: they attack any non-destructive presentation of pseudoscience as advocacy, and never (so far as I can see) think about the issue any deeper than that. it's sad. You're going to have to learn to be calm and balanced, because it's only by being persistently calm and balanced that you can make any headway. Sorry, but this is a fact of life on project. --Ludwigs2 22:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it is advocacy, or perhaps bias by suggestion. Why is that image of Newton in the article? The word astrology doesn't appear anywhere in his own article, and nor should it. Also, I guess it looks much more authoritative to call the golden ratio Divine Proportion, with capital letters no less. Moriori (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule out it's being appropriate. B^e——C_ritical 23:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed that image. I didn't see your last comment BC.Ken McRitchie (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't care, and don't know, but I think it would have been strange if he didn't at least dabble in astrology, considering his other pursuits. B^e——C_ritical 23:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Which kinda gives the show away. No evidence. No inclusion. Incidentally, notice how many times the word astrology appears in that article you linked to? Zilch. Moriori (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, once. In an external link to a paper that describes how singularly uninterested Newton was in astrology. Actually, though, like Becritical, I would have expected otherwise. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) yeah, well, early scientists were quite open-minded, often to the point of flakiness. Think about Tesla, who was an absolute loon. The demarkation problem didn't really exist until the 1930s or 40s. science was trying to solidify itself as a political force at that time, and part of that political solidification meant separating themselves strenuously from anything 'disreputable'. It used to be that scientists were happy just being right, but then they had to get militant about it… --Ludwigs2 00:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought Tesla's stuff would have worked fine except he didn't know that energy decreases exponentially with distance? B^e——C_ritical 00:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that Maxwell's equations were only developed in the 1860's (Tesla would have been around 10, then), so Tesla would have been an adult by the time they started being integrated into practice. That early in the development of the science there would have been a lot of room for speculative thought, and if Tesla was nothing else he was quite proficient at speculation.. --Ludwigs2 01:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, his ray guy sounds like Star Trek phasers. B^e——C_ritical 02:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, what are we going to do here? B^e——C_ritical 14:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that astrology is something that Newton never gave the slightest opinion on either for or against, though he had contact with plenty of people who studied it. He would have understood that astrology is a very deep and complex subject and if you are going to comment on it, you had better know what you are talking about. I'm sure he was much better informed than Dawkins for example. Ken McRitchie (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No doubt he would have reflected on the gravitational argument that the "Objections" scientists put forward so forcefully in 1975. Ken McRitchie (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No doubt. What do you think should happen to the article from here on out? B^e——C_ritical 19:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What Can be Done

1. A distinction needs to be understood between:

- Astrological "practitioners" -- those who consult with clients or publish their thoughts on the daily movements of the planets.

- Astrological "researchers" -- those who attempt to find underlying mathematical patterns or psychological correspondences in their observations. Many of them are scientists or historians with advanced degrees.

2. Researchers are not politicians and other researchers who replicate or refine original findings should not be described as "supporters." They are researchers whose findings support the original findings.

3. The statement on Landscheidt is completely inaccurate and is confused as to what he did. Please check the references. He did not make "claims" but hypotheses.

4. Gauquelin did not "state" his findings but published them. The scientists who confirmed that Gauquelins' methods were free from error and artifacts were not "supporters" but were often his enemies. Professor Ertel's replication and refinement of Gauquelin's research used data ranking, which is in fact the usual way of evaluating this type of data. Astrological research will never again pass peer review without this. His findings should be re-inserted into the article. It resolved the dispute over selection bias and settled the issue.

5. Professor Ertel's criticism of Carlson's student experiment should be re-inserted. Anyone can criticise anywhere, anytime. Even a child can shout that the emperor has no clothes and this is a similar case because the errors are so obvious to anyone once they were pointed out. It was exactly one of those situations where people suddenly snapped out of it.

This is enough for now, but there is plenty more. Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see your suggestions as to how this might play out in the article, either by editing it or telling us here. As I said above, there should be no problem using sources from within the astrological community as long as they are clearly stated to be the opinion of that community. B^e——C_ritical 02:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about bias, just be unbiased. That which you fight against, you become. As BC said, say what you'd like to see in the article, give what sources you have, and we'll work it out. --Ludwigs2 04:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: #4 and #5. IIRC those passages were removed because they were sourced to non-mainstream journals. We cannot use fringe science to criticize mainstream science. The Carlson article was published in Nature, which is one of the most respected journals in the world, so to use an astrological publication to criticize it would be an NPOV problem. N^oformation ^Talk 09:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to just get repeated. Maybe we need to take it to a noticeboard. Sure there were NPOV problems with the text, but that doesn't mean that the subject can't be mentioned. And of course we can use fringe science to criticize mainstream science, we can use babytalk to criticize Kligon if it's notable to the subject. We just have to be clear who's talking when. Dominus and I got that straight above, and I think we need to stop speaking of censorship and start talking about attribution and contextualizing. B^e——C_ritical 13:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Noformation: I tend to agree with BC. Just speaking generally (I haven't seen the articles in question, so I can't really comment on them), this is a fringe science encyclopedia article we are working on, so reliable sourcing issues are somewhat different. The journal Nature - no matter how respected it might be for issues of science - cannot be expected to be entirely reliable for issues about astrology, because astrology is not a science. You're right that we cannot use fringe publications to criticize mainstream science, but we can use fringe publications to describe fringe science so long as (a) they are reasonable representations of that fringe science, and (b) they are not used in our article to contradict mainstream science directly or advocate for fringe beliefs over and above science. --Ludwigs2 13:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I'm very much against even mentioning the criticism of mainstream science by fringe sources, even with attribution. That would be a grievous volation of WP:UNDUE. If such criticism were notable. it would have been published in mainstream peer-reviewed publications. I MIGHT be OK with mentioning examples of fringe "research" of proven notability (based EXCLUSIVELY on third party independent sources), as long as it is made ABUNDANTLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY clear that such research is considered complete bullshit by the mainstream scientific community. I'm dead set against anything that might be construed as giving such "research" and "criticism" even the slightest trace of a hint of a shade of scientific credibility, validity or legitimacy. There is no notable controversy or debate within the scientific community about the fact that astrology completely lacks scientific merit. There is some debate about exactly WHY astrology qualifies as nonsense, but not about the fact that it does. Basically, by far most of the "research" carried out by astrologers is self-serving patent nonsense that has not generated any interest outside of a small subset of the astrological "community", whatever that is. The few instances that have have been scientifically examined have been found to be deeply flawed or fraudulent. None of these studies has produced even one iota of credible scientific evidence for the claims of astrologers, and that has to be clearly presented as the take home message of the article. Attribution cannot be used as an excuse for turning WP into a platform for astrologers to masquerade as "scientists" and present their "research", or to engage in aplogetic criticism of genuine scientific research. I share Ludwig's concerns about advocacy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right that it would be a violation of undue in an article on something related to astronomy for example but "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." I don't really understand the vehemence here. There's no challenge to science going on, but for instance what if astrologers had noticed something even if they had the causes wrong? There's no guarantee that a correlation between astrological predictions and reality is false, it's just that the causes are different. But that aside, okay maybe we should exclude fringe ideas from Wikipedia, but that's not the way Wikipedia's currently set up, and under the current rules that's censorship. I think we really need to have a little confidence in science here, and also realize that if the reader doesn't have any concept of scientific reality they aren't going to attain it because we refuse to discuss fringe ideas. The best we would hope for would be that because we didn't discuss the ideas, the fringe POV would look fresh and new to people and therefore more plausible. In short, I think censorship here at Wikipedia would screw the cause of science generally. B^e——C_ritical 14:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The previous attempts to include criticizm's of the Nature article wrote statements by duped true-believers in Wikipedia's voice - cf. [15] - "deeper flaws in method and analysis emerged. Carlson had disregarded his own stated criteria of evaluation, grouped data into irrelevant categories, rejected unexpected results without reporting them, and drew an illogical conclusion based on the null hypothesis." - attributed to no one - thus stated as fact by Wikipedia. Since that's, in fact, the view only of true-believers, that needs to be made clear, and not made clear by citing their name and their studies, but rather by summarizing it, with something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astrology&diff=next&oldid=453711982 "Astrologers attempted to poke holes in his analysis, attacking his design, and his methods." Hipocrite (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah that was horrible, and I can see just eliminating the text till it could be NPOVed. But not completely censored in the end either. B^e——C_ritical 15:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Dominus: This is a general knowledge encyclopedia. It's purpose is to give information on a broad variety of notable topics. It is not intended to judge those topics beyond the simple task of giving clear and accurate information. Astrology is a notable topic, and we are here to explain what astrology is (which obviously includes its weaknesses and fallacies). We are not here to debunk astrology.

If you are seriously concerned about debunking fringe topics (as seems to be the case), you should do so in an appropriate medium, such as a wikipedia science article or a specialty scientific encyclopedia. had you made the above argument on the astronomy page, I'd support you 100%; making it here, however, amounts to skeptical advocacy, and advocacy is inappropriate on project anywhere. You need to be able to draw a line between opposing the advocacy of others and engaging in advocacy of your own. The first is appropriate; the second is not. Are you clear on this distinction? because the hostile tone of your post suggests you may not be.

Hypocrite: I'd agree with that, though I wish you wouldn't use terms like 'duped true-believers'. The more you use ad hominem arguments to create prejudicial division, the less credible your argument becomes. Seriously - when you used that language I begin to wonder whether you are not a 'duped true-believer' of a different perspective, because only zealots need to vilify their opponents to win a point. That kind of language has no place in rational scientific discourse. Astrology is not wrong because people are duped into believing it (remember that most people are 'duped' into believing the Theory of Gravity, since few have the mathematical skills to understand it); astrology lacks scientific rigor, and we should focus on that rather than the qualities of the people who believe in it. --Ludwigs2 15:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem covering significant astrological ideas as any good encyclopedia should. The problem comes in determining which astrological ideas should be given WP:WEIGHT; in this instance, we know something has enough weight to be covered by their coverage in mainstream sources, rather than just in fringe (or even just anti-fringe/skeptical) journals (we are not here to give undue weight to fringe or anti-fringe positions). For instance Gauqelin's research deserves to be mentioned as it has been mentioned in New Scientist and Psychology Today. If astrological ideas are not mentioned in mainstream sources (say their critiques "published" only in fringe journals), the fact they are not covered in mainstream source means they do not deserve more than a mention in one sentence, if any weight here at all. If we start including mention of any and all astrological ideas just because someone published it in an astrological fringe journal, that way lies madness as any and all kinds of fringe ideas of dubious weight should be included then. These fringe journals should be used only as a supplement to established reliable sources for clarification, not to introduce new ideas. As an aside, I note that the developing consensus in the RfC above leans heavily towards removing/limiting the use of these journals as well. Yobol (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yobol: Unfortunately, that logic is problematic on fringe topics. Most of the information that pertains to astrology is going to be found in 'fringe' publications - 'mainstream' sources are going to be almost exclusively critiques of astrology, and relying solely on critiques for information will build a deeply skewed presentation of the topic. If we are committed to giving an accurate description of what astrology is we have to focus on what would be considered a mainstream source for astrology (which will almost invariably be fringe sources with respect to the general world). those sources can be used to paint an accurate picture of astrology, and critical sources from mainstream literature can add appropriate balance and perspective.

There is no other way to write fringe article that does not create intense bias. --Ludwigs2 15:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Yobol in using mainstream sources as a means to decide what is notable about astrology. He's talking about independent sources. Yet at the same time, there might be things important to astrology which haven't been covered because they don't much interest outside observers. So I would use as sources for astrological POV say astrological textbooks, or their journals to the extent that these are on topics widely thought to be important. That is to say, I think astrology is a fringe theory which to some extent is "only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia." So go with Yobol to the extent we can, but there will be ideas which require use of in-universe sources, which BTW are reliable sources for their own POV. Basically what Yobol said was pretty nuanced and we should go with it. I think we're saying the same thing in slightly different ways. B^e——C_ritical 15:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, with a very particular eye to the caveat. I just want to be clear about the advocacy issues here:

• We should not be writing an article that tries to persuade naive readers of the value of astrology.
• We should not be writing an article that tries to dissuade astrology believers from their beliefs.

If it's possible to write our article from 'mainstream' sources in a way that is complete, informative, and doesn't fall into that second form of advocacy, that would be best. But if we have to choose between negative advocacy and the use of fringe sources, then it would be better for the encyclopedia to go with fringe sources. --Ludwigs2 15:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The criticisms published by psychologists Hans Eysenck PhD. (1986), Joseph Vidmar PhD. (2008), and Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009) (among others) were not criticisms of science or the journal Nature. They were criticisms of the methodology and analysis of an astrology experiment done by a physics student that used a personality test. If I understand correctly, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to judge whether Eysenck, Vidmar, and Ertel were correct. It is up to the experiment's author Shawn Carlson or other scientists to respond to the discourse. This has not happened. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If criticisms are published in true, mainstream peer-reviewed fashion, they belong in the article to be discussed, if they are published in fringe "peer-reviewed" astrology journals with no independent mention in mainstream sources, they do not. Yobol (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2 earlier: I'm not saying remove all fringe journals as a hard rule; I understand that description of notable/significant astrological topics may require using astrological literature to provide the best description of what astrologers believe. What I want to avoid is filling this article with material from these journals which are given undue weight; we should not pretend that criticisms "published" in fringe journals are on par with mainstream science. Yobol (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If you write a biography of a crackpot, and I don't want to contaminate the atmosphere here but this is hypothetical, so if you write a biography of a crackpot, and somebody says something negative about him in the Wall Street Journal, and he writes a response on his website, then we would be quite justified in quoting his response. It's the same with astrological responses to criticism. The astrological sources can be considered sources about themselves. But I agree that we need to keep the references as brief as we can while still getting the main ideas across. We have to be cautious about that because it's easy for fringe sources to create mountains of text. B^e——C_ritical 16:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but there is a significant difference between this article and a biography; while there is an "official" spokesman for the biography (namely the person himself), astrology has no "official" spokesman or society - there are a bunch of people who probably view astrology differently with their own ideas published in one of any number of fringe journals or books. While I would agree that any astrology journal or individual astrologer should have a response to criticism about that journal/astrologer in the Wikipedia article about that journal or astrologer itself, in a general article like this I don't think that holds true. I agree that significant astrological responses to criticisms should be covered, but again, we need independent sources to determine which responses are significant and which are just the opinion of one astrologer in one journal. Yobol (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would scientific peer-reviewed sources be the ultimate for science, and peer-reviewed astrological journals not be the ultimate for astrology? B^e——C_ritical 16:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If there were processes in place where I would have confidence that the "peer review" as conducted by astrologers of these fringe journals were as rigorous as mainstream science you might have a point; somehow I doubt that is the case. These fringe journals are little better than self-published sources, and should be treated as such (reliable for opinion of the author/journal, not reliable for much of anything else). We don't include every crackpot 9/11 conpsiracy theory or rebuttal that is on a self published website, we only cover significant ones. In much the same way, we should only cover significant astrological theories too, as established by independent sources. I should note from the WP:FRINGE guideline you yourself noted: "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." Yobol (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The peer review doesn't mean anything about right or wrong, only what astrologers want to publish as representative of their best work, and in that sense they're just as rigorous as anything minstream. The fringe guideline is contradictory in that sense, and I recall it isn't exactly fully vetted (first it says no non-RS, then it says you can use them). In practice WP uses sources which are reliable in context, and 1) astrological sources are RS for astrological beliefs, 2) given such sources, WP does not ignore issues which are notable in context and 3) the context of this article is astrology. However, I'll concede whatever argument you want to make along those lines, if you will first go over to the Creation science article and a few others, and eliminate any in-universe sourcing. That will cause a big enough stink that this issue will be settled once and for all. Till then, I suggest we take those kinds of articles as examples for our sourcing here. I think this last is a conclusive argument, and that you need to actually do this before you continue arguing to exclude astrological sources. But for example, I think this isn't too bad is it? B^e——C_ritical 17:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I posted here, please feel free to correct me if I didn't represent the argument properly. B^e——C_ritical 17:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It’s hard to see how we can avoid the widespread critical response to the Carlson experiment. In suggesting that all is well with the Carlson test, the article becomes highly misleading. The justification for this one-sided report is that a 26 year old experiment by a student published in a mainstream science journal should not be compared to criticism by at least three authoritative and independent experts in psychology in ‘fringe’ publications. I know some here don't know the background to these tests and others are misunderstanding basic points - here is the background:

1. Carlson was (when he began the experiment) a 19 year old physics (i.e. not social sciences) undergraduate doing tests sponsored by CSICOP. Several years later, his paper found its way into Nature through unusual circumstances under the auspices of the editor Maddox, who also happened to be a CSICOP fellow.
2. CSCIOP: In case, my questioning of the surprise inclusion in Nature (above) sounds like paranoid conspiracy theory, CSICOP had recently had the setback of having their data uphold Gauquelin’s theories about the Mars effect and a co-founder of CSICOP who had been asked to run the project to debunk Gauquelin, accused the organisers of falsifying data and covering up errors. See here [[16]]
3. Widespread Criticism and no support or replication: Since 1985, there have been seven mainly peer reviewed papers plus one book and an article that have addressed many obvious flaws in Carlson’s paper. The eminent Professor Hans Eysenck criticised the test and stated that "The conclusion does not follow from the data". In 2009, by following Carlson’s original experimental protocols and removing his sampling errors, Professor Ertel has shown that the results in his two tests were statistically significant (p=0.037) and marginally statistically significant.
4. Independent Authoritative Critical Sources: Five of these papers were written by independent experts including three psychology professors and a psychotherapist. I am not proposing citing my own paper recently published in Correlation and the peer review was led by Dr Pat Harris or a critical review by astrologer, Dr Geoffrey Cornelius in his book (not self-published), The Moment of Time (2003). However, I have included a graph from my paper, in case anyone wants to ask about the data - which can be independently verified.

   

   Histogram showing how astrologers in the Carlson experiment successfully rated CPIs as a match with birth charts.

5. Reliable Sources? Though these publications are not considered mainstream science, they are the only reliable and verifiable sources for astrology. In particular, Correlation and ISAR are the preeminent journals in the field and are peer reviewed. For astrology, especially the application of statistics to astrology experiments (where there are always problems with artifacts) they are arguably superior to mainstream science journals and recognised as such by astrologers, independent researchers and sceptics. The circular argument that astrological journals are not acceptable because they publish (fringe) astrological research, may apply on other (non-astrological) WP pages, but it is absurd to withhold important articles about astrology here.

I fail to understand why a number of editors appear to be arguing so vehemently in what appears to be a whitewash of CSICOP’s bungled and arguably shady attempts to discredit astrology.

I cannot see any reason why the criticism of the experiment is not published in full, but I would argue that it should be made clear that these comments and analyses come from fringe and not from mainstream scientific journals. The reader can then make an informed judgement.

Robert Currey talk 17:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to edit reflist so it does not include every reference on the page Robert Currey talk

@Becritical: "Peer review" as a concept only means anything if it is a true editorial process, which confers reliability. A journal labeling itself "peer-reviewed" does not in and of itself confer this reliability. I have no problem using "in-universe" sources as long as their inclusion is established by independent sourcing first for WP:WEIGHT purposes. If there is material used in creation science that are not mentioned in independent sources, you have my support to remove them. On the other hand, to say that I have to fix another page (should it need to be fixed) in order to edit or comment on this page seems somewhat unhelpful. You seem to make the assumption that all astrology fringe journals are equally valid as representative for the general position of all or a significant portion of astrologers. I happen to disagree, and believe "publishing" in fringe journals makes it only reliable for documenting what that author/journal believes - certainly not all things published in any fringe journal is a notable view. If that is the case, we have to find a way to establish what is a notable view - by using independent sources. If after establishing a view is notable through independent sources we find that using "in-universe" fringe journal best describes the astrological view, I have no problem using them. But we have to establish that the view is notable first to include in the first place. Astrology as a discipline has been around long enough (as opposed to other fringe topics) that there should be plenty of independent sources discussing significant views of it that we don't need to rely solely on fringe journals. Yobol (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Good points. How would that apply to responses to the Nature article.? Suggesting that if you're right we should fix the other articles was only meant to make a point that Wikipedia doesn't seem to require elimination of fringe sources. B^e——C_ritical 19:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In case editors don't know who Professor Hans Eysenck was, he was responsible for what we know today in psychology as extroversion and introversion, which is still one of the few evaluations of personality that is reliably quantifiable. He was the founding editor of the journal Personality and Individual Differences, and authored about 80 books and over 1600 journal articles. He was not a fringe or crank scientist, yet he was critical of the Carson experiment in Nature. The interesting observation of note to this discussion is that he not publish his criticism of Carlson in his own prestigious journal, or any of the other journals in which he published, but instead in the peer-reviewed astrology research journal Astro-Psychological Problems. Ken McRitchie (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Becritical: If there are critiques published or discussed in independent sources, by all means include it. If these criticisms are only published in self-published/astrology only venues, I don't see why we should include them, especially the ones that have been removed. What was happening was a study published in a very prestigious journal was being critiqued as science by material in fringe astrology journals; we have no business "debunking" the scientific merits of a scientific study with fringe journals as if both are equally scientific. Yobol (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yobol: from an academic perspective, peer review means - as the title literally implies - a review by peers expert in the topic. It's not magic: it confers reliability because it is assumed that the experts in a field are the best people to determine what is valid representative work in that field.

The problem with what you're posting is that you presume (for some reason I cannot understand) that people who are experts within a given field are automatically competent to judge material outside of their particular field. This is (again from an academic perspective) incorrect. Peer reviewed physics journals are not considered authoritative on issues of chemistry, or computer science, or the social sciences, or art history, because physicists have no special training or knowledge in any of those fields. There may be some overlap, but the term 'peer' means someone who has equivalent knowledge to the author in the specific field.

In this sense, a peer reviewed journal on astrology is a far more credible source for issues about astrology than a peer reviewed journal of science, despite it's overall lower status as a journal. a science journal might carry an article demonstrating scientific inaccuracies of astrology - that would be reliable, because scientists are assumed to be expert in their own disciplines wherever astrology overlaps - but scientists are not considered to be experts in astrology per se and cannot be considered reliable sources for research about astrology. Just to make this specific with respect to what I read above, research by a physicist comparing personality testing to astrological forecasting is deeply suspect: we have no reason to believe any physicist is sufficiently skilled in astrology to make a correct forecast by astrology's lights, or is sufficiently skilled in personality testing to correctly use it. We would need an astrologer for the former, and a social scientist for the latter; a career in physics simply does not qualify one to do these things. Now, the bar for reliable astrologer is fairly low (for all I know Carlson is skilled with astrology, though I don't believe he has ever made that claim), but the bar for personality testing is fairly high and Carlson clearly does not qualify as an expert in that field.

I'm not trying to debunk Carlson here, mind you, I'm simply explaining that the concept of 'peer review' does not give one carte blanche to say anything about anything, anywhere. An article which covers topics in which the 'peers' being referred to have absolutely no expertise is not a reliable source; you surely would not accept as reliable an article on stellar physics that was published in "The Political Science Quarterly" or the "Journal of the Association of Art Historians" (both highly-ranked peer-reviewed journals in their disciplines). so why are you insisting ont he reliability of the converse? --Ludwigs2 19:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

We have to be clear on what is being peer-reviewed. If the astrology journal was being "peer-reviewed" for articles discussing the esoterica of astrology, certainly it would be reliable in as much as the peer-reviewers and the process represent the best in the field of astrology as a discussion of the esoterica of astrology. However, we have been discussing the science of astrology; in this context, the fringe journals would not be reliable as they are generally not equipped to evaluate the science (I would encourage you to read the details about the Carlson study; the experimental design showed that astrologers were making the prediction, not Carlson). I would certainly not claim to say that a physicist is more reliable for the beliefs of astrology than an astrologer; however, I believe that a physicist publishing in Nature is a reliable source for the science of astrology, while things published in fringe journals about the science of astrology is not reliable. Yobol (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. The only difference we seem to have is whether to include the astrological response from the astrological journals. I would say we should, if we put it correctly (unlike what was in the article). I think you'd say that we can't include them at all because no independent source has mentioned this astrological response? B^e——C_ritical 20:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if the only critiques of Carlson comes from fringe journals and there is no independent coverage of those critiques, then a discussion of those critiques do not belong. If there is independent coverage of those critiques, then they should be discussed (likely very briefly for appropriate WP:WEIGHT purposes). Yobol (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Does any have a Britannica subscription? [17] B^e——C_ritical 21:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What is "independent coverage"? Ertel's criticism (2009) Journal of Scientific Exploration had independent coverage of Vidmar's criticisim (2008) Correlation, which had independent coverage of Eysenck (1986) Astro-Psychological Problems. Independent follow-up experiments, all of which describe Carlson's experiment and all of which claim evidence against astrology, are: McGrew and McFall (1990) Journal of Scientific Exploration, Nanninga (1997) Corrrelation, and Wyman and Vyse (2008) The Journal of Psychology. You can see that there is a discourse taking place and that JSE, which only occasionally publishes astrology research, and Correlation, publish both sides. APP is no longer published, but I doubt it would have taken sides either. Ken McRitchie (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Coverage in non-fringe reliable sources, unlike the ones you have brought up repeatedly above. Yobol (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yobol: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'science of astrology'. If the journal Nature wanted an article on the 'science' of astrology, it would be placed in the Research section of the journal, and would have been actual research by appropriate academics using the established methodology of their fields. what you have is a commentary written by a physicist using social-psychological methods he was never trained in on a subject matter the reviewers are unlikely to have any expertise in. I'm willing to give it a lot of credit, mind you, but a donkey doesn't turn into a horse just because you keep calling it one. If you are going to use scientific sources, please do not use them in ways that violate the fundamentals of good research. --Ludwigs2 23:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your (or my) personal opinion of Carlon's article aside, what are your proposing for the article? That it isn't a reliable source? That it is no better than a fringe journal? Yobol (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that we treat it as a notable published opinion, one which carries weight as one side of the debate about astrology, but which is not treated as a definitive scientific statement on the matter. Carlson's opinion is certainly well-reasoned, and the journal is notable, but it is not clear that Carlson has the necessary expertise to make the claim he is making. Use him properly with attribution, add in authoritative critiques like Eysenck's to give it appropriate balance, move on to more interesting things. fair enough? --Ludwigs2 02:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. You are placing much more weight on the qualifications of the authors, and much less on the qualifications of the peer-review board/journal than I am. I guess on a gut level, it seems like you're playing down Carlson's article because he is "only" in physics despite the fact it was published in a premiere scientific journal, and are placing much too much weight on fringe journal (for all the reasons I have already noted throughout this entire thread). As I think I've said all that I can say about the subject in as many ways as I can without repeating myself, I think we're just going to have to move on without an agreement on how to proceed. Yobol (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yobol: in some ways this is very simple for me, and I feel like everyone else is getting tangles up in complexities. Here's what I see:

• Carlson: a very bright person offering an opinion about something he's not really trained to evaluate, and publishing it as a commentary in a reputable journal (not, mind you, as research in his dedicated field).
• Eysenck: another very bright person who is offering a critique of research done in his field (by someone unqualified to do research in his field), and publishing it in a venue which is appropriate but not necessarily very prominent.

They are fairly balanced as sources, with reputability leaning towards Eysenck simply because he's trained in the correct field. If you think Eysenck could not have been published in Nature, think again - he has three publications in that journal. Had he chosen to refute Carlson there he could have, but he probably did not realize that the future of the Astrology article on Wikipedia would hinge on his doing so.

The complexity you are getting tangled in (along with others) is that you are trying to argue the case against astrology. There is no other reason to get into the qualifications of the authors (both of whom are eminently qualified in their own ways) except to try to dictate the outcome of the debate by deprecating the reputation of people on one side of the debate. It is pure ad hominem reasoning that has no place in rational discussion. Please be reassured that astrology is not going to 'win' just because we accurately portray the debate between Carlson and Eysenck. Astrology cannot win against the scientific perspective - the best it can do is temporize that it hasn't actually been refuted yet - so all we need to do is present all sides of the dispute frankly and dispassionately and allow people to draw their own conclusions. --Ludwigs2 02:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I also feel this boils down to a simple proposition, though one that is different from yours: Nature is a reliable source for discussion of science, fringe journals are not. I am very explicitly not looking at the qualifications of the authors, but the qualifications of the source of publication - which is where reliability for Wikipedia purposes comes from. Trust me when I say that I have no wish to argue anything; I am just applying policy and guidelines as best I see them. To me, there is something absurd in equating an article published in Nature is on par with one published in a fringe journal. *Shrug*. Yobol (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No one is asserting they are on a par except you, and I don't know why you're doing it. The only concern in my mind is that we develop an article about astrology that actually reflects what astrology is and says and does in the real world. Policy and guidelines are intended to help us do that; they are not there to hinder us from producing a reasonable and neutral article. I don't know whether you wish to argue for one side or not. What I am suggesting to you is that you are arguing for one side whether you know it or not. You are effectively trying to dictate that only voices from one side of the debate are reliable, and that is bias at its worst. It is precisely the same tactic that has (for instance) historically been used against women (e.g., one tells them they cannot vote, and when they ask why they cannot vote one tells them they are not qualified to ask the question because they are 'women'). Is that where you mean to go with this? --Ludwigs2 04:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Are these anything? [18][19] [20] [21][22]. I know they mention Gauquelin but not what they say. B^e——C_ritical 23:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Carlson knew anything about astrology before the experiment. However, in an interview with the Boston Globe (2005), Carlson claimed that before University, he had “supported himself as a street psychic and player of Three-card Monte”. It’s impossible to tell if Carlson had known a bit about astrology, whether he would not have asked the astrologers to do blind selection from three candidates within a homogenous group (mainly students of the same age at the same university).

The greatest issues with the Carlson test came down to the experimenter’s lack of knowledge in the social sciences which resulted in analytical and design problems that were apparently not identified at peer review. For any assessment of this experiment, it is essential to read both Carlson’s (1985) and Ertel’s (2009) papers.

The reliability of astrological sources like Correlation has been questioned for being outside mainstream sciences. However, beyond some knowledge of astrology, the assessment of the Carlson experiment boils down to simple mathematics and the analysis of data (i.e. not physics or chemistry or molecular biology) – a field at which astrological researchers and the three independent psychology professors would have been at least as competent as any panel from a mainstream science journal. Robert Currey talk 23:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not the criticism and math of the three professors that showed Carlson to be wrong. That was the easy part. The hard part is finding a way that it can be referenced in Wikipedia. Yobol and Noformation have put up a formidable defense to suppress it. They claim that the professors' critical articles are tainted by appearing in what they describe as "fringe" journals and therefore that criticism and math is banned and Carlson's experiment is safe. Any mention of the criticism and math they claim would require its coverage in "independent sources," which they claim must be "non-fringe reliable sources." So the references are led into a circular argument.

Now, just to check, how about this? Professor Eysenck is a non-fringe reliable source regarding the scientific evaluation of psychology and indeed helped more than just about anyone to define the psychology of personality as a mainstream science. The Carlson article attracted his attention and he was critical of it. This attention immediately brings the issue into the notice of mainstream "non-fringe" science. Once that happens there's no going back. Non-fringe science journals must be open to the non-fringe criticism of what they publish, and it is only reasonable that it will come from the sources most concerned with the issue they have touched upon, and these sources in this case are astrological research journals. Eysenck's actions were in keeping with this mode of scientific discourse because he led off the necessary criticism by indeed publishing in an astrological research journal. From that point, the journal is not so fringe. Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I posted some links above which reference G in what appear to be mainstream journals. I leave it up to others to vet them as RS, but did you review them? B^e——C_ritical 01:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Reputable astrologers

What's a "reputable astrologer"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone who is well-versed in the rules and principles of astrology (such as they are) and generally respected by other people who follow such issues. It's the same basic metric used for judging reliability in any other topic, it just happens that the rules and principles in this question are highly questionable. Remember, even ridiculous things can be done well. --Ludwigs2 15:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I'm not sure there is such a thing. The cited source for the article is Nature, and I find it hard to believe that they would call any astrologer "reputable". In fact, taking a closer look at the source,[23] they use the term "reputable" in quotation marks.

How about we do one of the following:

• Use quotation marks around "reputable" just as Nature did.
• Reword the sentence to quote Nature (which would include their use of quotation marks).
• Remove the word reputable from the article
• Some other idea I didn't think of.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, Carlson is entitled to be pissy if Carlson wants to be pissy; we don't have that liberty here. Honestly, I do not understand these petty efforts to be demeaning or dismissive of the topic: are you afraid that science can't stand up to astrology on its own merits, so that we have to bolster it up through name calling and innuendo? Please… Just write the article and leave the grammar-school playground stuff at home. --Ludwigs2 20:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I did an edit. And the word "reputable" is used without quotes in the actual article conclusion. B^e——C_ritical 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: Please comment on content, not the contributor. I offered 3 possible ways to address this. Are any of them to your liking? Do you have any other ideas? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems that BeCritical has addressed my concern.[24] Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

same to you, bub. --Ludwigs2 23:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Some math

"While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience because it makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations."

Obviously the math will be simplified, but just bear with me, anyone who can observe science should agree:

Variables - Man, Rain, Sun

Equations:

1. Man + Sun = emotion 2. Man + Rain = emotion 3. Man - Sun = emotion 4. Man - Rain = emotion

These 4 equations represent some very complex relationships man has between his environment and himself. Let's try to discuss some hypothetical scenario's for each.

1. If the sun is shining, man will feel something. I might feel "good" or "hot" or "cold" (Cold in the winter, rain or shine ;p). The very presence of the sun can be described by a man as agressive or welcome, and that description in itself is a physical proof of astrology.

2. If it's raining, man will feel less inclined to be happy. I might feel "sad" or "depressed" not just because of sublimation, but because of the lack of sun. The removal of the sun can be very disheartening to me, and that is proof of astrology.

3. If the sun were to disappear, or for some reason be forever eclipsed by some object in perfect alignment between Earth and the Sun, one would arguably feel "depressed" or "questioning" by the lack of sun. If I did not have the sun, I would feel depressed, and that is proof of astrology.

4. If we did not have any rain, I would wonder about what is going to happen. Some might feel "confused" and "fearful" about their surroundings. I would feel "wierded out" and that is proof of astrology.

Any more proof you guys need? Like, are we done with claiming "The laws of thermodynamics don't exist just for the astrology argument" yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.163.65 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Well, you made a lot of assumptions but let's assume they're all correct and humans do in fact respond that way to those various stimuli. That would be indicative that humans could have emotional reactions to the weather. In no way does this insinuate that the positions of the celestial bodies at the time of birth have any affect on the personality traits of anyone, and nor does having an emotional weather response have anything to do with which house mars is in. What you are talking about is not astrology, it's just a simply observation that in a broad sense is obvious. However, get that published in a peer reviewed journal and if it's covered in independant sources we'll surely mention it in the article. N^oformation ^Talk 21:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to support (or oppose) the IP's post - I wasn't quite sure what point he was making - let me just say this. Astrology is a silly concept (at least I think so), but astrology is not a scientifically refuted concept, not in the way that, say, phlogiston is refuted. This is an important distinction. There are people who want to leverage that ambiguity in order to advance astrology as a possibility; we should not allow that. But we cannot leverage that ambiguity in turn to refute the concept when science itself hasn't actually gotten around to doing so. Yes, we have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, but throwing the eggs at each other doesn't count. --Ludwigs2 02:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The difference was that phlogiston was a scientific concept. It was testable, and it failed the test. Astrology is seldom so coherent. Where it has made specific claims—such as being an electromagnetic effect—it is easily disprovable. That is why astrology no longer proposes a mechanism. Also, the effects are testable, and they many have been disproven. Of course, it's normal to modify a theory to accommodate disproof. Yet even the tests that claim to have found a statistical correlation between the planets and personality concluded that sun signs are meaningless, and somehow astrology continues to use sun signs. — kwami (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to support astrology. I'm just trying to point out that Wikipedia is not a meat-grinder for fringe topics. No one gets up-in-arms about phlogiston because phlogiston has been thoroughly refuted. Astrology is less refutable because it's less systematic, but it should not get harsher treatment because of that. It's not our job on wikipedia to refute astrology, any more than it's our job to advocate for it. A naive reader should be able to read our article without having our opinions shoved down his/her throat, whether pro or con. --Ludwigs2 06:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason we get so hard-nosed with fringe stuff is the advocates who will take advantage of any oversight or generous approximation. If no-one were trying to whitewash our coverage, I think we'd be much more relaxed about it. I know that when I come across an article where someone's trying to push some whacko idea, I tend to go over it with a fine-tooth comb to make sure nothing's sneaking in. For the same-quality info in an article that no-one was trying to subvert, I'd be more likely to think, eh, close enough, and forget about it. — kwami (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Astrology is a silly concept – well that is if you follow the spurious definition provided in the lede. However posing that there is relationship between astronomical bodies and life and events on Earth is not such an implausible concept. At one stage Cicero ridiculed astrologers for claiming that the tides had any connection with the position of the Moon. While Natural Astrology (tides, weather, seismic activity etc) is easily testable and has found increasing validation from science and mechanisms identified over time, judicial astrology which concerns human life has remained controversial for at least 300 years. Some of the reasons for this rejection were justified: astrologers made unreasonable claims and some was not – like the religious objections, the Copernican revolution and the later discovery of outer planets – which have enhanced astrology. However, there has been a revolution in astrology due not to sun sign columns, but the theories initiated by Carl Jung and others, the evidence of Gauquelin and subsequent replications and a growing body of scientific evidence suggesting a more complex Universe with humans interacting with all manner of previously unknown natural cosmic rhythms. I am writing a book on this among other topics. These advances encourage the fallacy that any astrological phenomena that can be shown to have a mechanism can no longer be astrology and should be relabelled as science. Robert Currey talk 09:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

@kwami: Honestly I understand that sentiment. I myself (unfortunately) often take a strong tone with people on-project who are aggressively taking advantage of everyone's good nature to push their POV. But you should understand the problem from my perspective: when I take a strong tone with fringe POV-pushers (which is not uncommon for me) no one blinks twice; when I take the same strong tone with skeptical POV-pushers I get dragged through endless reams of muck. my block log is entirely (literally, entirely) the result of my trying to reign in unnecessary nastiness directed against fringe topics, and that is just an unacceptable bias on an encyclopedia. Just so you understand where I'm coming from.

@Robert: The argument you just gave is a really good example of the problem with astrology on wikipedia (and of many other fringe topics, for that matter). I would never dispute the idea that humans are more deeply interconnected with the physical environment than we realize. That seems self-evident to me (though I do understand that others disagree). However, what you've done above is blur a bunch of metaphysical concepts together and tuck them under the rubric of astrology. You've got your reasoning turned around: you're trying to salvage a centuries-old and largely defunct system of prognostication by rebuilding it from the inside out with more modern metaphysics. That's not a problem if that's what you want to do, but there comes a point when it stops being astrology (and consequently no longer belongs in this discussion). If I tear down a Ford truck and start replacing all its parts with Chevy equivalents, there comes a point when it stops being 'a Ford I'm repairing' and starts being 'a Chevy I'm building', and it just doesn't matter how much I want to keep calling it 'my old Ford'. This kind of thing is precisely why wikipedia has rules against wp:original research: the encyclopedia is not the place to point out how something could work, it's just here to show how things commonly do work, and you have to keep that distinction in mind. When you write your book, we can discuss including an article about it and what it says, but please do not write your book here. --Ludwigs2 15:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your stimulating answer, Ludwigs. While involvement in Wikipedia is very useful for research and debate is instructive, there would be no point writing my book if the content was already on Wikipedia before publication. Astrologers have been criticised for not seeking a mechanism (unlike mainstream science) and this has prompted me to put together some theories and models from different sources. However, to advance these here would as you say be OR and have a snowball’s chance in hell of staying on the page. A second criticism of astrology is that it has not advanced since Kepler introduced new aspects in 17th century. This is not entirely true, but I see no reason that it should remain static and astrologers should be prepared to jettison theories that fail and investigate new ones especially when supported by scientific evidence. So I don’t feel like I am reconstructing a Ford truck with Chevy parts, but using Ford (and other) tools to unlock unused Ford features, Ford parts to add features and looking under the bonnet/hood to check the Ford mechanics. The problem is that the current definition of astrology in the lede is OR and counter to most dictionaries or encyclopedias. Robert Currey talk 18:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What specifically is the problem that you see in the lead? --Ludwigs2 19:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok just looking at the first para, these are my thoughts:

1. Astrology has never been defined as a belief system. This confuses astrology with religion which relies on faith in the unknowable. Astrology can be tested empirically. This label is also original research as official definitions have ranged from a study, art, divination or discipline. By far the most common definition in dictionaries and encyclopaedia is as a study. See [25] here. Art, divination and belief can refer to the practice of certain astrologers but do not apply universally. (This was recently debated over a month and a vote came out 5 editors in favour of study and one against).
2. "visible astronomical phenomena". Western astrologers include Uranus, Neptune and Pluto and Indian astrologers use the Moon’s nodes. Only Uranus is visible under exceptional conditions to the naked eye – which is usually how visible planets are understood. The Moon's Nodes known as Rahu and Ketu marking the retrograding points at which eclipses occur, which are considered important to Indian astrologers and the western terms Midheaven and IC are all mathematical constructs and never visible even with a telescope. So visible is incorrect here.
3. “events in the human world” – events are part of the study. However, astrology also addresses dreams, emotions, decisions, personality descriptions, relationships etc that are not events and to natural phenomena like animal habits or earthquakes and moon phases that are not human. So the wording could be “life, events and physical processes on Earth” or “personality, human affairs, and natural events”.
4. “means a system of horoscopes” – it suggests that astrologers devise a series of horoscopes, when it would be one horoscope for a client (except with compatibility). Not a big point here and see next point for possible wording...
5. "Horoscopes that claim to predict … life history." You cannot predict 'life history' – since it is in the past. Astrologers in the west very rarely claim to be able to predict the future. So it could be “In the West, astrology most commonly means constructing a horoscope, which sets out the positions of the sun, moon and planetary objects at the time of birth. An astrologer interprets the horoscope to provide insight into an individual’s personality, potential and future trends.” (For the record, though natal astrology is the most common practice of astrologers, there are other branches like horary (answering questions), electional (picking dates) and mundane (analyzing world affairs) astrology and techniques like synastry (compatibility) or astrocartography (locational astrology). I don't think these details are needed in the first para.)
6. I can’t answer for the localised systems (Mayan etc), though it looks correct. I think the Indian (given the number of practitioners) and Mayan system (given the present news coverage) should be included in the lede. Robert Currey talk 23:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert, These are all good clarifications that need to be made in the lede. In my view it is inappropriate for someone to try to edit this article without an understanding of the very basic things you have just outlined. There should be some place in the body if not the lede for the different branches of astrology. Ken McRitchie (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Astrology is as much a belief system as religion, because both are untested yet testable. Religion does not rely on the unknowable: it relies on eminently testable propositions which have not been proved (and I stand by that in spite of the popular assumption that religion is untestable: it's generally not). We need to include mathematical constructs in the definition. We need to include psychology in the definition. And other corrections, although some of your suggestion includes the assumption that astrology works. Not that it doesn't work, but it's more of a Sherlockian kind of thing. B^e——C_ritical 15:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert, even science is a belief system. The difference is that science is a belief system that relies on a particular and fairly rigid form of empirical observation, one which astrology does not regularly follow. Most of your comments here are on the picky side: life history is not past tense but a general term for the course of a life, past and future; what objects are visible may change over time, but classical astrology relied on objects that were only visible to the naked eye; dreams, decisions, relationships and etc are all 'events'… if you set aside all the quibbling, how precisely would you change the lead? --Ludwigs2 15:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - some of my points were minor but they are IMO improvements and there is more. However, I am not motivated to try to write a proposed lede just now as the pages are so unstable and protected by thought police. Here are a couple of thoughts:-

There was a distinct phase late in the first Millennium BCE when Babylonian astrology moved from only visible objects to include invisible objects that were recorded in ephemerides. So astrologers were including the planets invisible by day, obscured by cloud at night or under the Earth and the Midheaven and IC. So when Alexander invaded Mesopotamia in the 4th century BCE there was an eclipse and while it was not visible in his location, it was considered a significant omen by the Greek and Babylonian astrologers. It may seem like quibbling but this was something of a paradigm shift and using the term visible is misleading except in the context of ancient astrology. Maybe the new editors want to keep it there to make astrology sound more primitive - I can't tell. I know someone had a problem with the words research and astrology in the same article. ;)

I believe it is possible and good encyclopedic practice to write the lede without making any claims about astrology either way. The definition needs to be in line with other sources and while it is possible that someone will unearth a source that defines it as a belief this is very much the minority definition and original research. I can come up with many more reliable sources that define it as a study. So in our role as editors, it doesn't matter whether anything is a belief system or religion is refutable (even though I raised the point), we should follow the sources on this. There are too many new people on this page misrepresenting astrology in an effort to add their group spin - experience has shown that like most pages on WP, these edits just don't stand the test of time. Robert Currey talk 17:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

main article reverts with no talk page discussion

There have been a series of highly aggressive reverts over minor changes to the final paragraph of the intro, with no discussion of the material in talk. This is - in my experience - typical of skeptical editors on fringe articles, who become collectively obsessed with creating strong debunking language in the lead rather than creating a proper critical argument in the body of the article. I am stating my reasons for the changes I offered here; I suggest we talk it out without further edit warring.

1. Exaggerated statements are counter-productive. trying to assert that 'all scientists' have a uniform opinion on any topic is obvious nonsense, and looks both angry and biased
2. Wikipedia does not establish 'truth', it repeats statements found int he real world. With a controversial topic, we do not assert that a derogatory label is 'factual', we note that that is the considered opinion of one side in the dispute.
3. The lead is not the correct place to develop an argument through sourcing. We develop arguments in the article body, where we have room to develop and balance multiple sources, and then we summarize them in the lead. trying to cram a huge number of footnotes into the lead to support some position merely congests the lead and (again) appears both angry and biased.
4. Use of poor sourcing to make argumentative claims is always ill-advised. The NSF source (which was crammed into the lead as part of a footnote, and appears nowhere else in this article) is inappropriate in this place.

Failure to use the talk page is simply going to get article locked down. continued tendentious reverts are going to force administrators to become involved. So my advice is that all of you skeptics calm down and develop the body rather than fight like spitting cats to keep unencyclopedic material in the lead. --Ludwigs2 13:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on edits, not editors. Stating that things are "typical of skeptical editors on fringe articles," is not appropriate behavior - it is both poisoning the well, and engaging in personal attacks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Commenting on obvious and predictable problematic behavior is perfectly appropriate. Skeptics on wikipedia do habitually strong-arm problematic material into article leads while refusing to use talk; I can dig up hundreds of examples if you like. Sorry --Ludwigs2 14:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your blatant personal attack on me personally [[26]] and your failure to discuss and get consensus for the obviously controversial changes you added THREE TIMES and were reverted by three different editors inbdicates that you have very little interested in civil discussion and consensus building. The second point is moot because we are reporting the overwheming agreement of mainstream experts in the relevant field. There is essentially no notable debate in the scientific community about whether astrology is pseudoscience, although there is some debate about WHY it is pseudoscience.

As to your points, the first is ridiculous. We report what the mainstream consesus is, and in this case, the consensus that astrology is unambiguous and overwhelming. Trying to minimize that is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. The second point is moot because we are reporting the overwheming agreement of mainstream experts in the relevant field. There is essentially no notable debate in the scientific community about whether astrology is pseudoscience, although there is some debate about WHY it is pseudoscience. Your third point is also invalid. The SINGLE SENTENCE is a fair summary of the rest of the article, and there are only two sources, both reliable, not a "huge number", as you assert. As for the fourth point, the source is indeed reliable and relevant.

In the future, discuss controversial changes here and build consensus BEFORE you make them and not engage in edit-warring and personal attacks. And retract all the personal attacks you have made. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like me to refactor something, I'm open to that. please raise the issue in my talk or some other appropriate venue. further discussion of it in article talk will be archived per talk page guidelines.

with respect to your meaningful comments: trying to remove argumentative statements in not a violation of WEIGHT. While I agree that the typical scientist considers Astrology to be pseudoscience, it is not our job to assert that some kind of formal consensus exists in the scientific community. The difference between the statements in question is as follows

• is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community - clearly and unambiguously true; we both agree on that.
• is pseudoscience or the scientific consensus is that… - attempts to make a 'factual' statement not generally attributable to the scientific community.

The the difference between the phrases is minimal at best with respect to actual content, but the second phrases are argumentative, pejorative, and improperly sourced. The fact that there is no debate is not in question; the point is that most scientists have more common sense than to make aggressive, definitive statements about something which has not undergone any serious testing.

Scientists are not given to ad hominem argumentation; that is the sole province of skeptics.

with respect to the NSF: that quote keeps getting bandied about the project by skeptics, and as has been discussed at painful length elsewhere on project, it is a gross misquoting of the actual document. Do I need to recapitulate that argument here? Short version: the NSF was discussing public education, and this quote was a footnote to that discussion. the document was not intended to be a definitive scientific statement about pseudoscience, and mostly amounts to a parenthetical aside within a different discussion. it is not authoratative, except in the minds of people desperately grasping after weaponry.

In the future, I suggest that you come to the talk page and discuss minor changes like this rather than trolling the article with endless reverts. You will notice that each time I edited the article I tried to accommodate what little I could glean of your issue from your entirely hostile edit summaries. that is not reverting, that is trying to reach some sort of compromise position. You (on the other hand) simply revert in order to enforce your favored version without discussion. that is reprehensible behavior. stop it. --Ludwigs2 14:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 - you write "You will notice that each time I edited the article I tried to accommodate what little I could glean of your issue from your entirely hostile edit summaries." I reviewed your reverts. Here's the before-and-after your first revert (skipping DV's intermediate edit) - [27]. Could you describe the accommodations you made in that edit, which was your only revert of DV? Your other revert was of Skinwalker. ([28] reverts [29].) Hipocrite (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with Ludwigs about the lead, although his version was weaseled and he's one of the main edit warriors. What I agree with is that some of the edits to the pseudoscience clause sound vehement, instead of cool and considered, and thus while they are stronger statements, they undermine the credibility. Science that sounds emotional undermines its own convincing power. People know that true science sounds cool, considered and more qualified than normal speech. There is a way that science sounds, and there's a way rhetoric sounds, and they aren't the same. Making a scientific statement sound like rhetoric undermines science, and that's the last thing we want to do here. So the versions by Dominus and others were accurate, but they undermine what we're trying to do. I suggest this text:

Astrology is pseudoscience, as it fails to provide a physical mechanism, makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations.[5]

We need a cool tone and simple wording. And we need to eliminate the redundancy of "superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience" which is actually saying "while astrology is pseudoscience it is pseudoscience." B^e——C_ritical 15:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was against adding the "superficial" comment, and greatly preferred the very version you want to revert to. I agree that it's redundant and distracting. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay sorry, misunderstood :( B^e——C_ritical 16:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That astrology fails to provide a physical mechanism does not make it pseudoscience. Lots of scientific investigation is done without an available physical mechanism. It's like saying the mechanism must already be know before research can be started. Nonsense. Whether astrology makes "little attempt" is debatable. Some investigators, such as Gauquelin, have made great personal attempts, which are well documented. To say "selective in considering confirmation and dis-confirmations" is mis-attributing client opinion to the practitioners and researchers. Here is my suggestion:

Astrology is generally considered a pseudoscience in the scientific community. Criticisms include that astrology is conjectural and supplies no hypotheses, proves difficult to falsify, and describes natural events in terms of scientifically untestable causes and relies on divination as a form of evaluation. It has also been suggested that much of the continued belief in astrology could be psychologically explained as a matter of cognitive bias.

These statements are clarificaitons of the references given. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right that not providing a mechanism doesn't make it pseudoscience. What makes it pseudoscience is 1) taking on the forms of science and 2) making statements which go beyond what can be supported by data. "Great personal attempts" seriously, I don't want to be rude but WTH? The selectivity comes in because even IF astrology has some correlation to events, it's too small to notice on a personal level, and thus selectivity along with being vague and general in its tone allows confirmatory data to be selected. That's why it seems to work.

I do like your text however, and could agree to it with some tweaking. B^e——C_ritical 16:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There are two points here that keep getting raised, so let's deal with both of them:

• 'considered to be' is not weasel wording - you will not find that issue on wp:WEASEL. On the other hand, unsupported claims of the 'experts declare' and 'science says' variety are explicitly precluded. to whit:

  Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. […] They can pad out sentences without adding any useful information and may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.

• The lead (again) is not the correct place to create and build a content point. that should be done in the body. All of the statements about why astrology is a pseudoscience should be place in the correct section of the body with proper attribution, where they can be discussed in detail.

You are confused if you think I oppose these ideas as content points. what I oppose is pointlessly aggressive language whose only purpose is to create an emotional bias in the lead. --Ludwigs2 16:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" is also highly acceptable, as it strengthens the case at the same time it attributes. B^e——C_ritical 17:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not acceptable with me. It greatly weakens the statement by limiting it only to the scientific community and introducing ambiguity. This has already been discussed above. When mainstream scholarly opinion is this overwhelming, it doesn't need to be qualified. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that "is pseudoscience" is preferable to "considered pseudoscience", per WP:ASSERT; we should have ample sourcing to assert that it is, but little outside of the field to say it's an opinion only held within one community. This discussion seems to come up again and again on lots of pages, and it seems the consensus often agrees on those lines. With that said, I also like Ken McRitchie's proposal, with that exception. Is there a way we could combine BeCritical's proposal and Ken's? If we did, would that be more agreeable to all editors here?   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

BC: I would probably be convinced of that as a compromise. I still don't approve of it entirely, mind you (again, it's making a universalistic claim that it is not possible to support except weasel-wise; but I recognize the political reality here). Honestly, the reasonable thing would be to avoid the politics entirely: forget about the whole 'pseudoscience' label thing, point out that the practice of astrology violates certain conventional standards of empirical research in the lead, and then discuss those violations appropriately in the body. But let's not even go there.

Jess: ASF underwent a revision a good while ago: the link you gave no longer points where you think it does. That aside, the purpose of that clause of NPOV was to prevent 'factual' assertions from being presented as mere opinion. However, the concept of pseudoscience is itself contested by reputable members of the academic community, therefore assertions of pseudoscience cannot rise to the level of 'factual' statements. It is not a fact that astrology is a pseudoscience; it is the considered opinion of the vast majority of scientists (and many people) that astrology is a pseudoscience. I'm not opposing the statement, I am simply opposing the hyperbole.

Dominus: This is not about strengthening or weakening a position; this is not a battle we are fighting. This is about writing an unbiased article. Mainstream scholarly opinion is simply that - scholarly opinion. I am not trying to minimize it, I am simply trying to tone down exaggerations as appropriate to produce a neutral presentation of the topic --Ludwigs2 17:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What about this?

"Astrology is a pseudoscience because it is conjectural and supplies no hypotheses, proves difficult to falsify, describes natural events in terms of scientifically untestable causes. It also shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations, and relies on divination as a form of evaluation. It has also been suggested that much of the continued belief in astrology could be psychologically explained as a matter of cognitive bias."

Might need a little trimming, but it incorporates the main points of both versions.

@Ludwig: I see no exaggeration. At all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dominus, I know you don't, but that isn't really my problem. If I could buy you glasses that would allow you to see common sense, I would, but unfortunately they haven't been invented yet.

So again (for the peanut gallery) you are trying to argue a position in the lead rather than in the article, you are weasel-wording to create an exaggerated appearance of consensus, and you are intentionally choosing combative, pejorative language in order to generate a repressive tone. it's shameful. --Ludwigs2 18:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume from your silence that you finally got my point. this is good, if true. if not, let me know and we can over it again.

Are there any further objections to my toning down the language in the last paragraph of the lead to a more reasonable voice? --Ludwigs2 21:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence of consent for your proposal. Your assumption is, of course, totally incorrect. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. However, if you refuse to discuss issues then it is not a matter of consensus - that is simply obstructionism (covered under wp:tendentious editing) That being the case, it is now up to you to explain what you think is wrong with my argument. do you:

1. disagree that your version involves weasel-wording, and the assertion of opinion as fact (despite the policy quote I gave, which seems fairly self-evident)?
2. disagree that tone of your suggestion, and of the original version, is combative and pejorative (which seems self-evident to me).

These are not yes or no questions: I understand that you would answer 'yes' to both those questions, what I am asking you to do is explain your disagreement in convincing terms. If you give a good argument you'll convince me, and we can resolve this issue peacefully; I expect you will likewise be reasonable and convincible in the converse case. However, if you fail to give any reasonable argument then I will consider it safe to discount your perspective as unreasoned (as I would expect you to do if I were unwilling to express a valid argument). Ball's in your court. --Ludwigs2 21:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

While waiting for the ball to come back from the other court I've done some more tweaking based on this discussion. I've changed "generally considered" to "considered" so the weasel word is gone. I don't agree with BeCritical that astrology is pseudoscience because it takes the forms (I think you mean language, not methods) of science because some forms of poetry deliberately use scientific terms as metaphorical devices and poetry is not pseudoscience. I agree somewhat that astrology makes statements that go beyond what can be supported by data, but I would suggest this is because of the "holistic, chart as a whole" argument that astrologers make. Science is extremely reductionist and this presents a tough problem. I would further clarify that the "divination" is not a blind yes or no proposition but a complex divination that relies on intuition, and this is not scientific.

Looking at Dominus Vobisdu's version, I don't agree that astrology does not evaluate competing theories. Astrology has evaluated and supposedly incorporated large parts of psychology. I don't agree that astrology is "selective in considering confirmation and dis-confirmations." What does that even mean? Doesn't science use confirmations and dis-confirmation to select what it considers to be scientific?

Astrology is considered a pseudoscience in the scientific community. Criticisms include that astrology is conjectural and supplies no hypotheses, proves difficult to falsify, makes statements that are resistant to analysis, and relies on divination and intuition to make evaluations. It has also been suggested that much of the continued belief in astrology could be psychologically explained as a matter of cognitive bias.

Better? Ken McRitchie (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that this 'criticisms' thing is all about trying to argue a point in the introduction. All we need to say in the lead is that astrology is not considered to be a science because of a number of theoretical and methodological issues; we don't need to spell those out in the introduction because they are argued effectively in the article body itself (where such arguments belong). trying to cram all that argumentation into the lead sounds combative, and puts far more emphasis on the criticism of astrology than is necessary or prudent from the perspective of neutrality. I would just as soon we keep this last paragraph simple and to-the-point, and use the article itself to spell out the scientific failings of the topic.

At any rate, I'll give DV a reasonable chance to craft a rational response to my questions (say a day or so), and if he doesn't I will follow the 'silence=consent' model and reassert my toned-down version. If he cannot produce valid reasoning, I assume he will do the correct thing under policy and allow the revision to stand. --Ludwigs2 01:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm strapped for time and maybe speaking foolishly, but seriously, does anyone here know anyone outside what can reasonably be considered the scientific community who goes around thinking "astrology is pseudoscience?" It's not a common word. B^e——C_ritical 01:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Lack of subject matter expertise

There seems to be an issue here that no-one talks about, and that is lack of subject matter expertise by certain editors, who nevertheless feel qualified to do sweeping changes to the article. I do not want to make this personal and I'm not mentioning names. But I think we do need to open discussion about the topic in general. SLP (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As well, the standard of writing shows that people are seemingly unable to step back from the trees to see the wood. Moriori (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It is incredibly difficult to write clear and informative prose collaboratively when there is this much infighting over trivialities. I write exceptionally well when I put my mind to it, but I am hesitant even to copy-edit here because I have no doubts that any effort I put into it will be utterly wasted: someone will (for example) note that I used the indefinite article 'a' instead of the definite article 'the', and that will prove to be such a horribly POV assertion that there will be nothing for them to do except revert everything I've done on the page. That's actually an intentional tactic used to frustrate editors; I've heard several people on project note that they revert specifically for that purpose. I'm sorry, but I do have better things to do than spend an hour cleaning up a page so that some… I believe the word I'm looking for is 'editor'… can spend ten seconds nuking it just to piss me off. --Ludwigs2 01:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's true SLP, but hopefully we can rely on those who do have expertise to correct us. The problem is sometimes that the posts from those within the astrological community focus on argumentation which is not relevant to the article under Wikipedia rules. They are all into what they think is reasonable, and not what we can actually do. It's interesting, but seldom helps. Ken McRitchie's suggested text above was one of the most useful things the astrologers have done recently. I would suggest you focus on policy and on bringing in editors who don't make pseudoscience their main interest on Wikipedia. B^e——C_ritical 01:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear, at least to me, what constitutes "subject-matter expertise" on a subject like astrology which is largely outside the realm of reputable scholarship. I don't think that a reliance on in-universe and non-mainstream sources is evidence of "expertise", at least not any form of expertise that will be useful on this particular project. Wikipedians tend to have very little patience even for actual, recognized experts in real scholarly disciplines, when they try to use "expertise" as a weapon, so I don't think it's a good way to go here. MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between scholarship on astrology and religion? None that I can see. So I would not dismiss internal expertise or sourcing. We're here partly to present what astrology believes and the only way to do that comprehensively is to use astrological sources [30] sometimes or astrologer's expertise. I disagree completely that religion is any less a pseudoscience than astrology, despite the tiny point at which astrologers have claimed science, because religion makes many more testable factual claims (or they would be testable if they were true). The same pseudoscience criteria apply to religion as astrology "little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations." Presenting this subject much differently than a religion is the wrong way to go. And BTW, who constructed astrological beliefs as "theories" in the above quote? B^e——C_ritical 04:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we're all talking at cross purposes here. SLP's original point was about editors who lack expertise, which I don't think is really relevant. Editors are not supposed to be experts, they are supposed to faithfully repeat what is in the expert literature. Mastcell's comment points out that that's a bit harder to do than it might seem: people are far too likely to squabble over whether a particular person or persons can be seen as 'experts', rather than reaching for a more centrist, 'reasonable' scholarship. But really, I think Moriori has it on the head. on fringe articles there are too many people willing to micro-focus on trivial one-up-manship (it's not enough that it be 'considered' pseudoscience, it must be 'definitely' pseudoscience… no wait, there must be an 'absolute consensus' that it's 'definitively' pseudoscience… no, wait…). it's a never-ending process of petty needling that's embarrassing to anyone who understands how the scientific process works; I certainly do not want to be associated with anyone who thinks that science advances through derogatory labeling or vapidly hyperbolic declamations. But I do not see an easy way to fix that problem. As I said earlier, there are no corrective lenses that will get people to see common sense once they have lost sight of it. It's just gone, and all that's left at that point are bad choices.

B.C., I don't think it's that simple. religion does things that science can't (take a broken iPad to a tech, take a broken heart to your minister; don't try it the other way around unless you want to be really miserable). There wouldn't be a problem with astrology (it would be just another belief system that some people find useful for their own purposes), except that it gets on the nerves of some people who think it detracts from a 'properly' scientific understanding of the world. and maybe it does at that; I could see that point. the only serious difference of opinion I have with those people is that I don't think Wikipedia is the proper arena to play ideological Mortal Kombat. we're not here to disembowel the concept of astrology, are we? --Ludwigs2 04:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As for "generally considered", that's a phrase favoured by apologists for astrology. We don't say that evolution theory is "generally considered" to be scientific, or that the Roman Empire is "generally considered" to have existed, or that the world is "generally considered" to be round. The scientific consensus is that astrology is pseudoscience, and we should reflect that consensus. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

ah, me.

1. I don't believe 'considered to be pseudoscience' is a phrase any apologist would ever use. it's not particularly complimentary, you know.
2. I don't believe that we are discussing (or even care) what 'apologists' think. setting up straw men just to bash them down is nothing but wasted effort.
3. Scientists are happy to acknowledge that evolution is merely the theory that is currently considered to be best, that the world is (in fact) not perfectly round, and that the Roman Empire is more a matter of human history then empirical fact (if we did not have the extensive cultural accounts about the RE and had to deduce its existence from physical artifacts alone, we would have a distinctly different understanding of it). These things only become 'facts' for people who use language loosely and unscientifically.
4. 'Pseudoscience' is not a factual assertion, but rather a contested concept in the scientific world that lacks a systematic definition or methodology for application. it's just not a very scientific word, so asserting it as a factual state is inherently argumentative.

As I have stated several times already claiming a 'scientific consensus' is explicitly against wp:WEASEL, not unless you have some incredibly strong citation for that statement which I've managed to miss over the last years of editing these topics. I understand that you can't imagine a scientist who would believe in astrology; I can't imagine one myself, so I don't disagree with your perspective. But not being able to imagine a counter-example is not sufficient grounds to assert a universal truth - ask a platypus. We do not achieve neutrality in articles by making exaggerated, combative statements about the topic. or do you believe that we do? --Ludwigs2 08:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If our articles on things that are generally the scientific consensus all said in the lead that they're generally the scientific consensus then I would agree with you. But we don't say that the "general consensus" among geologists is that the world is round (as opposed to flat), or that the "general consensus" among historians is that the Roman Empire existed, though if we looked hard enough we could probably find exceptions to both.

I don't believe 'considered to be pseudoscience' is a phrase any apologist would ever use. —But our talk pages show that it is. We have had professional astrologers who accept that as a lead-in to something along the lines of by physicists and other mechanistic scientists who haven't a clue as to the true nature of astrology, and who are acting outside their field of expertise. That is, they have no problem accepting that some people consider it to be a pseudoscience, as long as they can present that as one POV among many, and "balance" it by giving equal time to other points of view (from the real experts), rather like a creationists accepting that some people consider Darwinian evolution to make some sort of bizarre sense, just as long as we accept that Intelligent Design is an equally valid theory. And then, of course, if they get that, they'll push for a little more, and a little more, all in the name of Truth fairness.

It's not a matter of using WP to disprove astrology. It's a matter of heading off attempts by apologists to make astrology look more reasonable than it actually is, when they're constantly trying to chip away at it so they can say, look at the WP article. Even though it's not written by experts (= astrologers), it admits that astrology is only considered a pseudoscience by some people, whereas many other reasonable people do not consider it a pseudoscience at all. That's the approach you get from any pseudoscientific or pseudohistorical faction, who if they can't get presented as fact, will settle, temporarily, for equal time or as close as they can get to equal time.

And it's not even an attempt to say astrology is inherently pseudoscientific. It could easily be a scientific theory, as some of the studies in the 70s demonstrated. It's pseudoscientific because such scientific approaches are not good enough unless you can cherry-pick the results. — kwami (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)