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 [[3]]: 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 [[4]]: 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 [[5]]: 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 [[6]]: 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 [[7]]. 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: [[8]]. 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)

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:

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.

Bibliography

• Cornelius, Geoffrey, 2003. The Moment of Astrology: Origins in Divination. Bournemouth: Wessex. (Originally published by Penguin Arkana, 1994). ISBN 902405110.

---

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)

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. [9] 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)

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)

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.

References

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)