Talk:Astrology/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

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)

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.

-- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)}}

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.

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)

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)

Good point. The sun and the moon are planets in the astrological definition. The relative positions of sun and earth have a causal effect upon all aspects of life on earth and the moon's gravity causes the tides. Match that, Venus! Itsmejudith (talk) 19:31, 12 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. [1] - "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 [[2]]
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? [3] 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? [4][5] [6] [7][8]. 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,[9] 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.[10] 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 [11] 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 [[12]] 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) - [13]. Could you describe the accommodations you made in that edit, which was your only revert of DV? Your other revert was of Skinwalker. ([14] reverts [15].) 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 [16] 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)

Kwami, none of what you said really adds up:

• "If our articles on things that are generally the scientific consensus all said in the lead that..." I'm not suggesting that we go to science pages and change anything - that's another straw man you've set up so you can knock it down. However, NPOV insists that where there is a conflict to be reported on, we should describe the conflict, not take sides in it, and that requires precision in language. The fact that evolution is just a theory or the earth is not really round is not a matter of much importance on the Evolution or Earth articles - we can gloss over those points without damaging the article in any way. we cannot gloss over it on this article without taking sides.
• Your second point baldly asserts that some of your fellow editors are 'apologists' intent on actively distorting article content, and that they must be vigorously opposed. I assume you recognize how many policies and guidelines that attitude violates (wp:NPOV, wp:CIV, wp:CONSENSUS, and wp:BATTLEGROUND for the easy ones). Further, you extend that attitude to people like myself who clearly are not 'apologists' for anything. Frankly, 'apologist'-type statements are easily handled through discussion. I seem to have no problem convincing Robert (whom you've surreptitiously labeled as an 'apologist'), of the necessity of reasonable, neutral wording; my troubles here all stem from people on the other side of the debate who insist on squelching any efforts at establishing a neutral tone.
• And with that in mind, the last point: , I am deeply uncomfortable with your assertion that "it's a matter of heading off attempts by apologists to make astrology look more reasonable than it actually is..." I do not know how to interpret that line except as a battle cry. How 'reasonable' astrology is is not something we decide on wikipedia, in either direction, and casting yourself in the role of 'fighting off the evil hordes' is a guaranteed recipe for page conflicts. That is a gross distortion of the interests of the project and the principles of consensus.

Your entire response above boils down to an assertion that you have identified 'evil apologists' who must be opposed at every turn, regardless of the consequences to the article. That does not strike me as an attitude consistent with the development of an encyclopedia. Is that where you mean to be going with this? --Ludwigs2 14:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I’m not in the right frame of mind to get heavily involved in this right now, but I can see the problem caused by editors who are changing the text without understanding of the complexity of the subject matter; let alone its origin, philosophical basis and transmission. For example, it is wrong to differentiate between Western, Indian, Chinese and Mayan astrology as if they are all of equal significance and equally distinct from each other. What is being referred to here as ‘western astrology’ originated and developed in the east. There are some distinguishing features in the techniques used by Indian and western astrologers but they are not disparate systems. The Yavanajataka is a Sanskrit translation of a Greek astrological text, whose title translates as The Horoscopy of the Greeks. This, along with a lost translation from a second Greek text, is the primary source for all later Indian astrology. Though there are a number of points where Indian techniques differ from those transmitted to the west, these are minor in comparison to the parallels that exist between them. A text such as AlBiruni’s, Elements of Astrology, which covers the subject and references where differences exist between Indian and Arab sources, is useful in showing this is one essential tradition that shares the same fundamental perspective. David Pingree also demonstrated this clearly in showing how the early Sanskrit astrological and astronomical vocabulary consists of simple transliterations of Greek terms, producing words that have no prior history or original meaning in Sanskrit itself.

So to publish comments like “Hindu astrology is founded on the notion of bandhu of the Vedas, (scriptures)” or to say that "Western astrology is largely horoscopic" (implying that the Indian system is not) is seriously misleading. It is also misleading to not make the clear distinction between the global cultural impact of this overwhelmingly important essential system of astrology, by comparison to the relatively minor influence of the Mayan system which developed in isolation and has had little global impact.

It hardly seems worthwhile trying to develop this article whilst the editing process is so polarised and the principle of discussing the content collaboratively has been blatantly ignored. BeCritical made a good comment yesterday when he noted that the language being used to describe the scientific position lacks creditability because it sounds emotive, not cool and considered. The crux of his point is that this article lacks the tone of objectivity. We won't achieve that whilever editors are more passionate about the article saying what they want to say than what the reader wants when they come here as a soruce of information. Ludwigs2 put it simply where he said:

• 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.

Between these there are large groups of people who are interested or curious for all sorts of reasons, without holding a position of belief or disbelief. They require us to simply tell it is it is, based on what the sources say, covering the subject from all angles.

The lede comment “While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science” is unreliable and begging for contradiction. Horary astrology, for example, does not bear any resemblance to science, superficial or otherwise. It is only the scientific community that fixes on this word, from a limited perspective that does not consider what astrology means to those who approach it from other perspectives (metaphysical, spiritual, divinatory, cultural, historical, artistic…) The article should give a clear statement of the scientific position without fluff or frill, or the assumption that the scientific perspective is the only thing of consequence. My proposed edit is:

Modern science dismisses astrology as 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.

This is objective, free of agenda, and in need of no further elaboration in the lede. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Good points about the historical relationships which we do not adequately cover. I also am fine with your proposed wording at the end: pseudoscience is of course only defined in relation to science, so IMO "science dismisses as PS" makes the point perfectly clear. — kwami (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Your post raises several issues. I've been the person pushing for a global view, and I do want to see the global view presented really well. There is a complex and really interesting story of interaction and divergence between the Indian tradition on the one hand and the Arabic-European tradition on the other. That needs to be apparent, but the detail has to be in History of astrology. The Chinese tradition developed mainly or entirely separately. I can see no grounds at all for giving it less prominence. Chinese cosmological thought is of interest to billions of people in the world, including many Wikipedia readers. The Mayan tradition should also be summarised in this article, with a link to a sub-article. I agree with Ludwigs that the article should not aim to persuade in any direction. I don't want to comment on what goes in the lede, because I think we should first agree on the content of a "scientific standing" section. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kwami, I'll go through the article now and make a few very light changes which shouldn't be controversial. I'll include this and ask for discussion to be made if anyone has a problem with it. I hope that's OK without getting further feedback because I'm unlikely to be able to contribute more for now.

(ec) Yes Judith this article has to act as a parent to the daughter articles that specialise in their themes, and I think you are aware of the history of astrology problem, which requires a lot of work and attention. This is why some sections in this article are not as developed as they ought to be: because the background work requires other pages to be developed first. I put a lot of my own time into trying to help on that, but lack incentive to commit more unless the antagonistic edit-warring stops, and respectful common-sense collaboration is used to develop a balanced article, rather than one which bounces between extremes of advocacy and hostility. I am certain that many more who could be helping are not helping for that reason. Those who continue to suspect the motives of the few editors who are knowledgeable in the subject and currently contributing shoud really be asking “how come so few astrologers are contributing now, compared to the activity and productivity this subject has experienced from editors with knowledge of the subject in the past?” -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My last comment was partly influenced from seeing this arbitration request against Ludwigs2. Since it concerns his input on this page, I think there ought to be a notice about that here. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Modern science dismisses astrology as a pseudoscience…" No, 'Modern Science' doesn't do anything of the sort. 'Modern Science' (to the extent that phrase is meaningful outside of weasel-wording) is simply a set of methodologies and practices, ones to which astrology does not generally conform. Assigning an emotional reaction (dismissing or being dismissive towards) to an inanimate set of procedures is pure anthropomorphism. You might as well say that the kitchen stove is lazy instead of broken.

What you are trying to say is that the vast majority of modern academic scientists do not regard astrology as a meaningful science. I wish you would just say that, rather than trying to weasel-word the language into some universal condemnation by some abstract entity. You're using the word 'Science' that way that way that religious people use the word 'God' (as an arbiter of moral values, rather then as a system of establishing empirical regularities), and that is just plain peculiar. --Ludwigs2 15:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Still prefer the unadorned "Astronomy is a pseudoscience because...". No emotive language there. Just cold, hard fact. As for attribution, there is no need. It's clearly the conclusion of the vast majority of the scientific community that has examined the subject. We don't attribute "Mars is a planet" or "the Earth is round", as Kwami noted.

If you prefer, we can phrase it "Astronomy has no basis in modern science because...". That seems to address your concerns about anthropomorphicism. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I like your edit. I do think "pseudoscience" is a valid name for it, but at the same time that term has to be used with delicacy. If you feel that sidestepping it is better than making it specific to scientific claims, that's fine with me. Your edit says the same thing as mine with less wording. B^e——C_ritical 16:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That actually is somewhat better. But you're wrong about the other point. 'Astrology is a pseudoscience' is not not remotely the same as 'mars is a planet' or 'the earth is round'. Observe:

• Mars is a planet: this is not a matter of 'fact' so much as it is a cultural/historical convention. Mars is a planet because 'planet' is the word we've adopted culturally for things like Mars. it is tautologically true.
• The Earth is round: this is a loose colloquial statement that refers to the approximate shape of the earth as established by empirical observations. In fact, the earth is a rough oblate spheroid; but that's a mouthful, and 'round' is a reasonable statement to make in most contexts. it is empirically verified.
• Astrology is a pseudoscience: this is neither empirically verified not tautologically true. As I keep pointing out, 'pseudoscience' is not an analytical or scientifically testable claim, nor is it an uncontested cultural truism. it's a value-word invented by skeptics in order to label things they happen to think are bad science.

don't think I'm contesting the idea that astrology is problematic from a scientific perspective; I am merely informing you that you cannot raise a value judgement to the level of an empirically-establish claim or conventional tautology just because you think it ought to be. all the wishing in the world in not going to bridge that gap. --Ludwigs2 16:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I put a lot of thought into this over the past few days.It is specific to scientific claims, as none of the quasi-religious aspect of astrology pretends to be based on modern science, anyway. I do prefer lapidarian language, especially in cases like this, where the more you say, the more people will find something wrong.

@Ludwig: I understand what you're trying to say, but I still disagree that it is a value judgement or tautological. Or derogatory, in spite of the fact that pseudoscientists don't like it. To me as a scientist myself, it's an accurate, applicable and factual academic descriptive term. But that's all moot now that consensus has been reached. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

But we can say pseudoscience per the sources, which establish that the mainstream of science, to the extent it has formulated a formal opinion of astrology, labels it unscientific or pseudoscience, with the unspoken assumption that only astrology's claims to be scientific or verified are pseudoscience, that is to the extent it claims to be different from a religion or cultural tradition. Thus the formulation "From the perspective of modern science, any astrological claims to scientific validity are pseudoscience" would be correct. Astrology has no presence in the scientific community, and thus we don't have any internal scientific perspective on astrology. To that extent people are right to exclude astrological sources (exclude them as valid scientific sources), even though we can use them as RS for astrological opinion. The current state looks like a good compromise/consensus to me (: B^e——C_ritical 16:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus: Your disagreement is irrelevant if it based in prejudice. I am telling you that 'pseudoscience' is not an empirical claim or tautological truth - this is not actually open to question. Any one who gives more than a cursory glance at the issues sees that the term 'pseudoscience' has no proper definition, no established methodology, no defined area of professional study, and no uniform support in the scientific or academic community. Yes, most scientists think astrology is groundless; no, most scientists do no bother to apply the term pseudoscience to it in any analytical way (mostly because there is no current method for applying it analytically).

This whole argument boils down this:

• I want to say astrology lacks scientific credibility
• You want to say astrology is stupid and corrupt

do you see why I cannot accept your position as valid? --Ludwigs2 16:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we stop the philosophical argumentation and focus on what can be done with the article? B^e——C_ritical 17:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. This isn't a forum. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Look, I've already said precisely what I'd like to see in the article. it's not difficult: I want a neutral, non-exaggerated, non-combative depiction of the topic (and in this particular case, of the way science relates to the topic). Unfortunately, changes I make to the article are always instantly reverted, several editors seem determined to retain combative, exaggerated language, and nothing I say or do seems to make any impact, no matter how reasonable it is. Philosophy is apparently all I have left.

I am simply not going to settle for a biased presentation of the topic, no matter how determined anyone is to maintain that bias. If that means I have to sit here for the next year explaining and reexplaining and re-reexplaining the intellectual mistakes that other editors are indulging in, so be it. If you want to get past the philosophy, engage it: stop being adamant about prickly misrepresentations of the topic, take a less combative attitude in general, and allow the page to become more collaborative and neutral. I have expressed myself clearly and rationally and will continue to do so; if you cannot match that, than you should retire from the page and allow me to edit it in peace, because this stiff-arm stuff is unpleasant. --Ludwigs2 18:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Luswigs2 is right, we can't say "Modern science defines astrology as..." 'Modern science' does not exists as a quotable identity. It is equally problematic to say "Astrology has no basis in modern science" - I'm not sure what that is trying to say but it seems to suggest that no element of astrology is verifyable by modern science, which is not true - we could have huge arguments about that, so let's stick to the realisation that we are not here to 'make things up', but to report on what the sources say. It is a fact that some modern scientists have defined astrology as a pseudoscience, so the sentence should simply report that, without drama. I'm not sure that any of this is necessary discussion for the lede, but the report need say no more than something like "Modern scientists have ..." and then qualify that by reference to reliable sources. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The most sensible thing is to qualify the placement of this comment in the lede, by showing how it counters a popular opinion. So I would suggest the paragraph opens with a comment on the popularity of astrology, which is a matter of great significance and detailed in the article. Something like:

"Although a recent poll revealed that 39% of Americans consider astrology to be scientific, modern scientists have ..." -- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as scientific validity is concerned, Wikipedia doesn't give a shit about what the general populace believes. Their opinion doesn't count in the slightest.

What does count is that no element of astrology has ever been shown to have a scientific basis based on a confirmed replicated study published in a reliable mainstream peer-reviewed journal. And before go any further, any other sources are absolutely worthless for scientific claims. There is NO debate about that in the scientific community, and the concensus in the rfc is very clear about that. Sorry if it seems like the bar is set too high, but that's how science works. EVERY scientific idea has to pass the same tests, so you can't argue that discrimination is a factor. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Dominus, you are not the Holy See for Science on wikipedia. You do not get to dictate what wikipedia thinks and does, your opinion is largely without basis in policy or common sense, and you are veering perilously close to page ownership. Please take a step back and reflect.

Standard logic will tell anyone who thinks about it that an absence of evidence is not evidence of anything at all. The fact that very little credible research has been done on astrology merely points to the dual observations that (1) astrologers don't do research well and (2) people who do do research well don't pay much attention to astrology. When someone comes along and does some valid research that lays astrology to rest we can report that; until that time, trying to assert that the conclusion is true (just because you're convinced that it must be true) is pure original research. How many wikipedia policies and guidelines are you going to bend in your endless efforts to assert that astrology is definitively wrong? I count at least three so far.

The thing that bothers me most is that I don't disagree with your POV very much at all. I'm forced to oppose you because you take that POV to unpleasant extremes. How do I get you to stop doing that so that we can deal with the real problems this kind of page has? We do not need (metaphorically speaking) to kick the concept of astrology in the balls so that it can't get up again; a nice neutral presentation of the topic will suffice. --Ludwigs2 18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's refocus this, moving right away from editor conduct towards article content, based on what sources say. I Google Scholared "astrology pseudoscience", and it shows up a lot. I asserted that that shows it is an archetypal trope, sorry for the social science jargon. It really is extremely common to associate astrology and pseudoscience. You know, we are entitled to say bluntly "it is pseudoscience" in Wikipedia's voice, see WP:FRINGE. But more importantly we can find some info that will enlighten the reader. I see Thagard cited in the lead, but this is an important paper and should be in the main body. I just read M Kallery - European journal of teacher education, 2001, a straightforward social science research-based paper that quite clearly defines "astrology" as pseudoscience, in fact as a quintessential pseudoscience. It makes no distinction between up-market Western astrology and newspaper astrology. I know our astrologists here won't like that, but that's how it is in one line of mainstream scholarship. There are a number of other articles that could be referred to, from a number of disciplines. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Does the current version, "Astronomy has no basis in modern science because...", not get the point across just as clearly? Is there anything you don't agree with? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm no good at finding wording for ledes. I find it easier to work on sections where there is space to refer to a range of scholarly literature. "Always write the introduction last" is the advice I was given and that I give; unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can support it, Dominus' version is the best compromise I know about. And I think we should cover astrology more as an historical and social phenomenon and less as a battleground. I think you'd know how to do that. B^e——C_ritical 21:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "If you can support it" is significant.

Dominus, three times you have suggested the phrase "Astronomy has no basis in modern science". Let's be clear we are talking about 'astrology'. Perhaps you haven't understood my point - I don't care what the general populace believes, or what you yourself believe Wikipedia does or does not give a shit about. It's policies are clear that the article should approach the subject from a neutral point of view. It is a reliably reported fact, of great relevancy to the article, that many people believe the subject is scientific - this is the reason that it has attracted the label 'pseudoscience'. It is pertinent to report this and then show how that widespread belief it is not upheld by scientific opinion. It is a sensible approach to take because without it the comment you are suggesting courts controversy by looking like an artificially introduced warning label - this goes against the grain of WP's policy that material is not censored.

The problem I have with your statement is that it is ambiguous. The subject as a whole has no basis in modern science but it would be ridiculous to suggest that no element of astrology has a basis that modern science approves of. I'm not interested in debating that either, because your view and mine are equally irrelevant. I am happy to accept comments, even if I think they are ridiculous, providing they are objectively reported without drama and based on what the reliable sources report. So if you can cite that remark to a reliable and notable source then it should be acceptable; if not I suggest that what is published is carefully worded so that it is verified by a non-controversial citation. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My statement isn't ambiguous at all. None means none. The "Objections to Astrology" statement is also extremely clear on this point. [[17]]. Pending publication and confirmation of results to the contrary in mainstream peer-revewed scientific sources, that's the way it is, and the way that WP will report it, per policy and consensus as demonstrated in the RfC above.

And no, in a paragraph on scientific validity, we don't present the completely irrelevant bullshit opinion of the "American public" before we get to the key point. The key point has to be front and center at the beginning of the paragraph. Any attempt to "bury" would be dishonest.

If you want to mention public opinion on astrology, do so in another section in the body of the article. It has nothing to do with science at all, and is far to irrelevant for the lead. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Not that there's any reason to change the text, but he's right in that some parts have support in modern science... like math, and the existence of stars and planets, and um... whatever. He's also right that we need to show how it purports to be science, else we (as the text now stands) would not be able to contrast that with mainstream opinion. And contrasting is good, contrary to those who want to ban astrological sources. It just has to be done properly. B^e——C_ritical 22:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Actually, the version I offered after you made that edit (which was immediately reverted by one of your peers) is far more accurate with respect to science, and far less reliant on weasel-wording to get its point across. here it is again:

"Astrology in not consistent with many modern scientific principles."

This statement is unarguably true, avoids reifying 'science' as an entity, makes no absolutist claims, and if anything is even clearer about what's off about astrology.

and Dominus: I know that you believe none means none, but I do not think you can support that assertion through the literature. I think that's just your OR showing through. --Ludwigs2 22:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@Becritical: Math is not a science (a common mistake that non-mathematicians and non-scientists make}. It's only a tool that both astrologers and scientists happen to use. And just because astrology uses scientific discoveries in a compeletely scientific way cannot be interpreted as astrology being based on science. Agree that a section is needed about how astrology poses as science. Still thinking about your comparison of astrology to religion. The closest analogy I can find is creation science and intelligent design, not because of the religious aspect, but because they reject science while pretending to be science at the same time.

I've reordered the science section to put the scientific opinions at the top, and G's research at the bottom. I intend to clean up the section, source it better, and remove all fringe sources and apologetics from these parts. I'm waiting for you to write your thing about how astrology poses as science. That should be in a seperate section at the bottom. I've moved the apologetics section there, so you can use the references.

@Ludwig: I just did provide a source: [[18]]. Actually, the burden of proof is on you that any aspect of astrology as practiced today has any basis in science. Your wording is extremely misleading. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No, Dominus, my wording does not make any claims except what is patently obvious. In fact, you necessarily must assert that my wording is correct in order to make the claim you make, since your wording is simply a more extreme and absolutist version of what I said.

With respect to the source you offer - three things to note about it:

1. it is not research refuting astrology, but merely a assertion by scientists that people should not believe in astrology
2. The statement does not claim to represent the 'truth' as presented by some abstract entity called science, but is clearly a personal appeal by a collection of individual scientists for the purposes of public education
3. nowhere in that short piece does it mention the word 'pseudoscience'

I think this is a great source, it is just not a source that supports your position. This source highlights a conflict in the public sphere between scientific opinion and an (at that time) apparently pervasive favorable perspective on astrology amongst the public. Like any such conflict, wikipedia must present both sides and must refrain from asserting that either side is correct. It is up to the reader to examine both sides and recognize that the scientific perspective is superior; it is not our job stuff that truth down their throats.

I understand that you are working from a perspective where you believe it is important to present the truth of the matter in an unambiguous fashion. I even respect that perspective (if not the methods used to promote it). What you need to understand is that that is not what wikipedia is for. We are not here to force people to see certain things as true, even if it would be in their best interests to see those things are true. Verifiability, not truth. Do you understand that? Because if you do not understand that - and do not understand the compromises that position forces us to take - then you are running a very grave risk of being a detriment to the encyclopedia. --Ludwigs2 00:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is really messed up now. "Astrology is not consistent with many modern scientific principles" is okay though. Some of the principles are different. Sadly, statistics show that many of the public have the misconception that astrology is scientific, but astrologers themselves do not have that misconception. They do not pose astrology as being scientific. They know it's not even if the public thinks it is. This is where the confusion lies. Skeptics are trying to "educate" the public by claiming that astrologers claim astrology is science or poses as science. It's untrue. This article used to have some content on the debate among astrologers about how astrologers know what they think they know, but it was wiped out some time ago. That was good because it gave you insight into what astrologers think. This article now is all about astrology bashing. If you know astrology and are familiar with the work of scientists who have researched astrology and were trying to be fair, this article is painfully, painfully inaccurate. Unlike the old encyclopedias there's no distinction made between content developers, who needed a high level of subject matter expertise, and editors, who edited. Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

(e.c)"......Unlike the old encyclopedias there's no distinction made between content developers, who needed a high level of subject matter expertise, and editors, who edited." That's fine if the people who know their subject can actually communicate. Here's a bit added to an existing article by a guy who knows his subject.

• "After the 2010 season, the catch can man, who caught excess fuel during pit stops and adjusts the track bar, is no longer needed, because of the addition of a self-venting fuel can. On January 11, 2011, NASCAR reported drivers can only be able to compete for the championship in one of NASCAR's three national racing series, which means the drivers who race in multiple series, most notably in the Cup and Nationwide Series, are able to compete in the races, but not for the championship. The rule does not affect the exemption rule, as exemptions are determined by the top 35 in NASCAR car owner points. Drivers ineligible for Sprint Cup driver points will earn Sprint Cup owner points for their team. An announcement came on January 26, 2011, when Brian France announced that the winner of the race, excluding bonus points will receive 43 points, and each position will lose one point from the position before, so that the first position will receive 43 points, while second will receive 42. For bonus points, if the driver leads a lap they receive one, if they lead the most laps they receive one more, and if they win the race they receive three more points. On the same day, France announced changes to the qualifying format, such as the qualifying order being set by practice speeds from slowest to highest. If qualifying is canceled, the grid will be determined by practice speeds, unless they are also cancelled, then they will lineup by Drivers' points. In the press conference, it was also noted that in the Chase for the Sprint Cup, the eleventh and twelfth positions will be awarded to whoever has the most victories who are ranked from 11th to 20th in regular-season driver's points. Those drivers will not be given bonus points for wins. In addition, the number of base points received by Chase drivers at the points reset will be set at 2,000 instead of the previous 5,000."

A good illustration of why we often need editors as well as experts in their field. . Moriori (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question, but if it is a "misconception that astrology is scientific", then what exactly were "scientists who have researched astrology" doing research into? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

.....

Not a stupid question if sincerely asked. I wrote a lengthier post earlier which explained this more fully. The formal definition established by Ptolemy describes astrology as an investigation into what sky-changes mean, based on a liberal use of science and conjecture together. So astrology, as a subject, cannot be described as scientific because it incorporates conjectural principles, myths, unproven cultural traditions and divinational principles. However, the subject’s major division is into ‘natural astrology’ and ‘judicial astrology’ – judicial astrology is more speculative, subjective and divinational (historically it was this type of astrology that was subject to scientific and theological criticism); ‘natural astrology’ never received the same kind of criticism because it is based on natural and objectively observable events. These observations - which include all sky-related phenomena including cloud formations and rainbows - have led to the development of specialised sciences. Those sciences may not acknowledge astrology, but astrology acknowledges them and incorporates their developments. Apart from this, there are lots of good reasons to apply scientific research into astrological claims that have been asserted for thousands of years. This has been happening for centuries - the result is that science gives acceptance to the proven theories under new names, in the process of sorting the ‘scientific wheat from the chaff’. Astrology, as a subject, retains the chaff, in the belief that even something that is purely mythologically has acquired its associations for some reason, and the elements that are divinational fall outside the remit of what can be measured objectively by clinical assessment.

Ken’s point is well made. No one here wants to make the subject sound entirely logical – it is simply not an entirely logical subject. But this page should give insight into what astrology is and what astrologers think, and not be subject to censorship of ideas and misrepresentation based on irrational fears that explaining astrology properly poses any kind of threat to modern science. That's why I'm happy for the scientific position to be given clearly, whatever it is. Then let's focus on giving the astrological position, which is what this page should be concerned with. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 07:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit break

Unless there is some censorship act which prevents us giving relevant information, even from scientific sources, the lede should definitely include reference to the influence/popularity of the subject in modern terms. We can do this by presenting information given by the National Science Foundation, which then provides a natural lead-in to the published scientific criticisms. As BeCritical has explained many times, the criticisms have been generated to counter popular opinion, so this is notable information in itself, but also the explanation why the pseudoscience label exists. I am proposing this, because it includes Ludwig’s suggestion but goes further in making a clear reference to the pseudoscience definition:

Recent polls indicate at least a quarter of the U.S. population believe in astrology, whilst about one-third consider it "sort of scientific". Belief is higher in a Europe where 53% of Europeans surveyed described astrology as "rather scientific".(ref) However, astrology is not consistent with many modern scientific principles. Contemporary scientists define it as a pseudoscience because it makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is subject to selective bias in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations.[4][5]

• The ref goes to - http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm#c7s2l3:

No way. As I've already explained to you, any attempt to distract from or bury the key message of the paragraph are unacceptable. If you want to mention something about the popularity of astrology, do so in a section compltely unrelated to science. Again, the opinion of the American public on the scientific validity is irrelevant and trivial. At best, it might warrrant a very brief mention way deep down at the bottom of the science section. Putting it front and center in the lead is a apologetic attempt to castrate far more important material. It grossly violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem unable to distinguish relevant fact from what you perceive to be apologetics. I think my history of suggestions speaks for itself; I've no interest in burying anything - from what you've written above, that seems to be the way that your mind works. Please don't project such ediorial inclinations on me - my concern is to give an interesting, objective and balanced representation of the subject. The poluarity of the subject is just as much a key point as the issue of scientific validity, and is embedded within it. Rational argument does not start off with "No way" - let's hear from the other editors so we can get group consensus for intelligent content based on reason, not extreme and emotive reaction. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why there is disagreement here. Reporting on the public perception of Astrology should be done. However, stating "people believe astrology is not pseudoscience, but scientists disagree," is not an appropriate formulation for this. I remain confused as to why this argument (and editing) are happening around the lede - especially given the intense lack of proposals for what edits should be done. Please make concrete proposals for changes to the article. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Others? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

@Hypocrite: I think that might be misrepresenting Zac's statement a tad, though I do agree with your sentiment. see below for an alternate suggestion.

@Zac: Dominus is coming from the perspective (for some reason I cannot fathom) that this is a science article: that's why he talks about 'distracting from the key message'. His conception of the 'key message' is drastically skewed, but you do have to pay attention to the reasonable portion of his belief, which is that we cannot present this as though science were a matter of public opinion. It's not. If you want to do something along these lines, you need to separate out the domains of knowledge clearly. something like what follows, maybe:

Polls indicate that large segments of the public believe that astrology has some scientific basis (a quarter to a third of the US population, and as much as half of the population in Europe). Despite certain superficial similarities, however, there is no credible empirical evidence demonstrating the efficacy of astrological forecasting. Many scientists are concerned about this persistent belief in astrology as a matter of public education and scientific literacy.

That sticks closely to what the 'indicators' text says without overblowing or undervaluing the impact of the scientific perspective. --Ludwigs2 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You're forgetting WP:FRINGE. "2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." It is easy as anything just to say "Astrology is regarded as pseudoscience" (umpteen refs). And true. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your proposed formulation is "people believe astrology is not pseudoscience, but scientists disagree and think people are stupid." There is no acceptable reason to conflate the sections on Cultural influence and Scientific appraisal in the lede. Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I would think that "category" means an actual category [[category:Pseudoscience] B^e——C_ritical 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 - I'm fine with your proposed amendment.

IMJ - yes, we may properly contain that information and we doing. Don't need umpteen refs, just the one (no one is likely to dispute this).

Hippocrite - you are projecting meaning into the text that does not exist unless you twist it into a sinister shape. We should just report what the reliable sources state and the lede should capture the most relevant information. Both these points are highly significant and they fit together editorially. Readers need explanation and good prose too. Yes, we could just state "Astrology is a pseudoscience" and give 36 references to it, but how will that read? Do you think it might smack of making that comment specifically to act as a warning in the interests of irrational skepticism? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am merely condensing the verbiage down to it's essential points. I don't feel it's twisting the proposed text to summarize it as "people believe astrology is scientific - scientists disagree." That's not a concept presented in the article. I did not propose writing "Astrology is a pseudoscience" and give 36 references to it" - please don't stick words into my mouth. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The nutshell meaning I read from the text is this: "Astrology has a significant influence and large numbers of people believe it is scientific. However, it is not".

No suggestion that scientists are accusing the populace of being stupid; just a statment of fact. It's a clarification, not apologetics. I'm aware DB suggested this was apologetic, not you; and that IMJ suggested the one simple statement, not you. Sorry if I appear to have placed their words in your mouth, but I am making general points which relate to why I think this comment is the best way to express these two significant points, and does not undermine the scientific opinion, at all. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 19:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

@Judith - I'm really not concerned about the 'pseudoscience' label (we can add it in if you like); my main concern is the consistent efforts to overstate the scientific position as some kind of universal, inviolable truth.

@Hypocrite: in fact, my wording sticks very closely to the meaning and intent of the Science and Technology Indicators piece that gets bandied about so much. The concern in chapter 7 of STI is over scientific literacy - that is explicitly laid out in the headers and introductory paragraphs - and pseudoscience is only mentioned as an example of poor scientific literacy. if you personally want to read that as "scientists disagree and think people are stupid" all I can say is that you are effectively asserting that STI says scientists think people are stupid. I don't have to agree or disagree with your interpretation; all I have to do is point out that that is what STI explicitly says, and both wp:V and wp:NPOV are satisfied. that is not true of any of the suggestions that you or Dominus have offered (all of which rely on original research to create the specific meanings that you are reaching for).--Ludwigs2 19:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article, not lay out exciting new sourced information. This "STI" is not currently in the body. If you want to make a connection between the Cultural influence and Scientific appraisal sections, do so in the body not in the lede. However, if you want to note that belief in Astrology is considered a hallmark of poor scientific literacy, I'm all for it. Hipocrite (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not exciting new information; it is capturing what is already explained in the body of the article, and uses sources that are given there. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 20:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My $0.02, I'm ok with either of the proposed changes. As I've said before, I'm not 100% attached to the term pseudoscience as long as it's made clear that Astrology has no scientific backing. I like Ludwig's proposition, but may I suggest that it goes farther than just "forecasting" and also mentions the lack of evidence regarding personality traits being correlated to celestial position at time of birth? Something like "Despite certain superficial similarities, there is no credible empirical evidence demonstrating the efficacy of astrological forecasting nor of planetary position having an affect on personality traits."

That can probably be phrased a little better. Also, I dropped "however" out of the sentence, I'm not sure it's necessary. N^oformation ^Talk 19:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I am happy with that.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 20:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Noformation: That would be a perfectly fine revision for me as well.

@Hypocrite: actually, the STI (an NSF publication) is already included in the lead. someone snuck it into footnote 5. The funny thing about that is that I tried to remove it a couple of times and was quickly reverted. So I'll leave it up to you: do we remove the NSF reference from the lead as I originally wanted, or do we incorporate the NSF into the lead in the manner that I've suggested here? --Ludwigs2 20:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

See here:

However, at the end of the 17th century, the scientific community had completely turned away from astrology. For some the subject of derision, others preferred to ignore it completely – so, hardly a single word on astrology, either pro or contra, is to be found in the works of scientists as Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695)[2] or Isaac Newton (1642-1727).

It seems to me that the most relevant factor for today is that while science has made a lot of progress since the time astrology was still taken serious 4 or 5 centuries ago, the general public has largely stayed science illiterate. Science and math education is not regarded to be important, we only teach the basics. Then, while astrology is totally inconsistent with science, people are unaware of this. At most, what people know is that scientists say it is incompatible with science, but they lack the knowledge to understand why this is so. Then some scientifically invalid counterargument that purports to show that astrology may work, is just as good as far as the public is concerned, so they then tend to think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Count Iblis (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. I'd be much happier if we adopted a 'scientific literacy' perspective rather than the current efforts reduce astrology to a 'factual' fallacy. There are umpteen references we can use which suggest that scientists want people to think more clearly about fringe issues but it takes a fairly hefty amount of OR to parlay that into an actual refutation of fringe topics. If we can somehow refocus the criticism in a more positive light (helping people think through the scientific problems and staying away from pure condemnation) that would make a much more balanced and effective article. --Ludwigs2 20:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we need to discuss and teach, there is certainly good reason to show the condemnation, but the censorship + condemnation dynamic is only detrimental to scientific literacy, and it is also detrimental to having people actually believe, say, that astrology is pseudoscience. As an aside, this is necessary possibly because the claims of science and the claims of astrology are equally unbelievable from the layman's perspective. Well, actually scientific claims are much harder to believe, such as the big bang and evolving from germs. So for most people there's nothing fishy about astrology, certainly you can't refute it by an appeal to common sense. And anyone who's read anything about science has heard about "spooky action at a distance." We need to approach the science part of this with the attitude that people are being fairly reasonable in believing in astrology. Because really, without quite a bit of explaining they are just as reasonable to believe in astrology as scientific claims/facts. And to tell the truth here, if we condemn it too strongly they will only think science is threatened, and everyone knows threat only happens when there's something to be threatened about. We need to have a cool tone or we won't be believed. B^e——C_ritical 20:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)::A couple things

1. I think we should take care not to insinuate any sort of validity for astrology while still
2. Not making the definitive statement that astrology is bullshit.

Rather, I think we should present this article in a similar voice as we do religion articles. History, descriptions of the different astrological schools of thought, the appropriate scientific studies. The science should be laid out without criticism (due to the previously discussed reasoning regarding fringe publications criticising mainstream publications) but it should be phrased as undefinitive, meaning we should say "there is no evidence" rather than saying "science found out it's false." We can describe the studies by Carlson et al without making definitive statements. If we can look at astrology as a belief system like religion, I think we can write a decently NPOV article. I say this because at some point we have to face that fact that we are dealing with what is essentially a religion without a god; it's a belief regarding metaphysics that is contradictory to our current understanding of the universe. If we attempt to treat it like a scientific proposition, we can spend 30 thousand kb doing so, or we can just decribe the belief and make mention that it doesn't have evidence backing it in a neutral voice. N^oformation ^Talk 21:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, couldn't agree more.B^e——C_ritical 21:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither could I. Much better to take the approach that we should be careful not to validate or indicate approval, but should avoid being disrespectful to the subject too. Although astrology is not a religion it is concerned with metaphysical principles and areas of belief. We should also be careful not to assume that people either favour astrology or science. Just like a scientist can have a religion, and a religious person can have an interest in science; the one interest does not necessarily cancel out the other, (which is not to deny that some of their areas of interest are fundamentally opposed).

I'm aware that I have put forward a lot of opinion over the last couple of days so I am going to step back from this point now. I've been happy with most of the recent proposals on this. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Count Iblis. The statement about Newton is questionable. See the James Frazier article on that page. The problem you identify is a problem of the world, not really something to be covered in this article. In case it helps, here is some content I originated a while back with intention to develop the history of why astrology dropped from grace. It was initially intended to be an end note attached to the article's currently very brief refrence to the decline of astrology at the end of the 17th century, but never got used because the point about the Aritotelian view and sublunar realms really needs its own explanation in the article.

The view of astrology as a science collapsed with the breakdown of the Aristotelian distinction between the celestial and sublunar realms, which had historically acted as the foundation of astrological theory. Keith Thomas reports[1] that although heliocentrism is consistent with astrology theory and poses no concern in itself, 16th and 17th century astronomical advances which proved the regularity of comets, and Tycho Bhahe’s ‘new star’ demonstration that the higher heavens were subject to change and decay, meant that “the world could no longer be envisaged as a compact inter-locking organism; it was now a mechanism of infinite dimensions, from which the hierarchical subordination of earth to heaven had irrefutably disappeared”. Initially, “scarcely anyone attempted a serious refutation in the light of the new principles” and astronomers “were reluctant to give up the emotional satisfaction provided by a coherent and interrelated universe”. In response, the mid-17th century astronomers made a determined effort to bring the subject of astrology up to date. However, the problem of astrology no longer having a tenable theoretical basis meant that by the 18th century the intellectual investment which had previously maintained astrology’s standing as a science was ultimately abandoned.

1) Thomas, Keith, 1978. Religion and the decline of magic; pp.p.414-415.. London: Peregrine Books. ISBN 9780140551501.

Perhaps the idea of anm end-note to elaborate on this point is a good idea, regardless of whether the text I wrote is used, or something similar is originated by someone else. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 20:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's great, we should definitely use it if it can be nicely fitted in. B^e——C_ritical 22:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone doesn't want to do this over the next few days, I'll be happy to look over it again and propose a way to fit it in. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

These references on the collapse of astrology as science would be part of the History section, correct? This era and its philosophical views, especially regarding science, is usually referred to as "modernity" and the natural philosophy or experimental science from it is referred to as "early modern science." This makes the current Modern Era section somewhat misleading because it only covers the 20th century. Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In traditional encyclopedias the content developers (basically the article authors), although they were very knowledgeable of the subject, were writers. They were NOT the subject matter experts (SMEs), who were often very unclear writers (like the example above). The SMEs were the sources external to the encyclopedia, whom the content developers read, interviewed, and cited. Editors had a different role. They ensured quality by checking references and asking for clarifications. They also brought the writing into conformance in terms of style and grammar. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)