Talk:Astrology/Archive 7

Objective validity...

[Validity of astrology] seems to be gone, where did the content move? I can't even get a history of that page. And I agree that it should be made more clear in this article that there is no real evidence for the validity of astrology --Lost Goblin

To reply to Lost Goblin and in case anyone else wasn't following the discussion. Per this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objective validity of astrology the validity of page has been deleted. Marskell 12:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of that article was a horrendous move, a colossal blunder; talk about 'skeptics' hijacking certain pages (just as they claim 'the believers' do) and influencing the vote. In reality, these 'skeptics' probably have nothing more than a high-school diploma and get all of their 'NPOV information' from the Internet, as if real people with their filthy POV's didn't put it there. Books and the like are unknown to them, these pseudo-skeptics with their amateurish, Google-obsessed minds (they have NO CLUE how much information has yet to be put on the Internet). OH WELL -- months and months of work and research, dozens of sources and valid links and intricate paragraphs...it's all down the toilet now, it was all for naught and this means that everyone involved (including the 'skeptics') wasted countless hours. This article has gone into the great Internet void (though the article does live on and can be found on many of the Wiki-clone sites all over the Web). This only proves that Wikipedia has just become another angry and raging message board where whomever has the most friends (to influence the vote) and can type in the fanciest manner (so that they sound educated; they don't actually have to be) has their preferred information left in. So thanks Wikipedia; your site is a great beacon of bright-white truth among the disgusting darkness of soiled, POV sources! All hail the Wiki-God and it's unbiased hive-mind. --64.12.116.202 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Marskell 06:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The debunkers (pretending that they're objective sceptics) besides proving their lack of knowledge and lack of integrity on the various Astrology pages have also been personally attacking me on my own talk page. When I dare try to defend myself, they block me out of Wikipedia. So much for honest dialogue. They can't win an argument fairly, so they resort to dirty tricks. Andrew Homer 08:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I do not fully understand how you deferentiate between debunkers and skeptics. To me, it seems debunkers are those trying to disprove something and skeptics are those who remain, well, skeptic, about stuff they do not feel has been sufficiently proven. Do you disagree on this?

Also, I will ask you (again) not to claim that "we" have lack of integrity - such a charge is vague and, at least so far, unsubstantiated. If you want to criticize me or anyone else, please do so civily and explicitly. And make sure you stop attacking people first.

And it was not me nor other "debunkers" who blocked you - it was an administrator who saw you making personal attacks. He was not trying to argue either way and may be, for all you know, 100% behind your every argument and a fellow astrologer who believes I am just as much an idiot as you do. He is upholding guidelines which are there so secure a good "working environment" and which make wikipedia more than a discussion forum. Please stop making personal attacks... Lundse 16:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the Objective validity of astrology article

I have just posted the following at User talk:Deathphoenix (the admin responsible for deleting the article):

I was surprised to see such a brief justification for your decision to delete the Objective validity of astrology article ("What it boils down to is that the arguments for deletion (most of which are valid policy-type of arguments) definitely outweigh the arguments for keep"). I would like to see a bit of elaboration on why 14 months of effort by dozens of editors had to be wasted by a single keystroke. Please post your reply on the Talk:Astrology page. Aquirata 10:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

With a bit of luck, we'll see some justification magically appear here in short order. Aquirata 10:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The history of deletion

It started with the following post on Talk:Objective validity of astrology:

• Incidentally, I'd say this article is pretty much superfluous; it looks like a POV fork of Astrology. The lead section of Astrology presents the reader with a neutrally stated and verifiable summary of the validity of the subjectand Astrology#The_objective_validity_of_astrology is sufficient, in my view, as a coverage of this issue. Just zis Guy you know? 15:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Which was followed by:

• Per JzG's concerns over the necessity of this, I have started an AfD. There is, of course, a very good chance of keep, but this is one of the best ways to find out what community thinks of the info we're presenting. Marskell 16:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The actual AfD read as follows:

• Fundamental concern is that this is a POV-fork used as a platform to present questionable, obscure astrological research that would not pass WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV on a more frequented page. The one entry here that has received sufficient attention to warrant Wiki-coverage is the Mars effect, which has its own page. The main astrology article has a section which can be expanded somewhat to include any other critical points. We have an astrology and astronomy to boot, which we can use if we really need comparative analysis. The page is also a gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over. Delete. Marskell 16:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Together with the originator, 30 people argued for deletion (65%), 16 for keeping or not deleting (35%). According to the originator, the AfD should have normally resulted in an automatic keep because the delete votes didn't go over 67% (Marskell: "Three-quarters and above (assuming no sockpuppets etc.) and an admin will generally delete. Two-thirds and below and it will be a "no consensus keep". Between the two is borderline and an admin will use their discretion.").

This is how the matter was closed:

• The result of the debate was Delete. This was a hard one to close and required a LOT of reading. What it boils down to is that the arguments for deletion (most of which are valid policy-type of arguments) definitely outweigh the arguments for keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Responses

The reasons were covered very clearly by the many people who voted to delete the article. I can't help but feel that if I had been listened to when I complained about the gross abuses of WP:RS, WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and Undue Weight instead of being disregarded, the article may have been saved. Jefffire 11:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In responce to the new additions, Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is not the number of votes that is weighted, but the quality of them. A number of keep votes were entirely irration, accussing editors of "scientism" and some were from extremely new or inexperienced editors. These were likely weighted lower, or discounted altogether. Jefffire 12:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

J, I don't dispute your opinion. However, I am waiting for the views of the admin who made the decision to delete. Aquirata 13:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, perhaps there is something there for you to learn about Reliable Sources, since it was your repeated insertion of unreliable sources which brought the article down. You might start at WP:RS. Mabey WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience would be helpful as well. Jefffire 13:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a CC of my response to Aquirata's talk page:

I took a long to time read the AfD (and believe me, there were so many comments that it took me quite a while). No other AfD closer wanted to put the time and effort into weighing those comments. I was a neutral party who has no vested interested either way in this article. My closing comments may have been, in your mind, somewhat brief, but they were a lot longer than a lot of other AfD closing comments. In any case, I won't change my mind about this because whatever arguments need to be presented were already presented in the AfD, unless you have new information that wasn't already presented in the AfD. If you have any new information to present that will likely result in the overturning of the result of this AfD, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Undeletion policy and the instructions in Wikipedia:Deletion review before arguing your case in Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you do so, please let me know so I can look at whatever new information you present so I can also suggest an action (which may be to overturn the results of my AfD closure, depending on the new evidence that you present). Thank you, Deathphoenix ʕ 13:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add this on top of the arguments above: the fact that this was one of the last AfDs to be closed that day shows how difficult it was to close this AfD. Whatever you may think about my closure of this AfD, please note that I usually close the last AfDs that others don't touch: the ones that are often contentious and have many arguments either way. My closure of this AfD was done in good faith and in doing so, I very carefully looked at the merits of each and every comment. I can assure you that I did not make any hasty decisions when closing this AfD, nor did I do so recklessly. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

DP, I'm not questioning your decision - I simply want to hear about your reasoning that lead to the decision. All I've read so far is that: "the arguments for deletion (most of which are valid policy-type of arguments) definitely outweigh the arguments for keep". Could you expand on that please? Aquirata 13:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my reasoning is that most people arguing for deletion are saying that it's a POV fork. POV forks are not allowed in Wikipedia, and this is against Wikipedia policy. I weigh comments based on Wikipedia policies very seriously. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So basically you took people's comments on the article being a POV fork at face value. Or did you actually look at the article and came to the same conclusion? In the latter case, could you please explain to me what you based your judgment on? Aquirata 15:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I took the comments on the article being a POV fork a face value. What I believe about the article itself has no bearing on how I close it. My own feelings and beliefs are irrelevant when I close an AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm sure that you acted according to WP practice and policies. However, it would seem that this approach could be wide open to abuse. Those wanting to force a decision their way need only cite policy violations without having to provide a basis for their opinion. Those arguing rationally but without citing policy violations will naturally lose out. Which is fine because, after all, WP can only reflect the way the community is.

It is also apparent to me now why certain editors are heavy on quoting policies and chopping articles but thin on rationale and substance. Aquirata 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I suppose the same could be true for any type of approach: they'd be open to abuse. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Aquirata appears to believe that Wikipedia policies should be ignored when they conflict with their belief in astrology. I've attempted to explain WP:RS, WP:NPOV#pseudoscience and undue weight on a number of occassion but to no avail, and been treated to personal attacks in response. Jefffire 14:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again I will ignore your baseless accusations. Aquirata 15:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Aquirata's actions, nor have I looked at the actions of anyone else involved with astrology articles (nor do I have to, since I'm just looking at the AfD and nothing else), so I won't comment on their actions. It doesn't matter to me what anyone believes, including myself. Articles should not go against Wikipedia policies, including articles that I've worked on. I have personally worked on some crufty articles, and some of those articles have also been deleted via AfD because the community consensus can sometimes run counter to my own beliefs. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Articles should never go against Wikipedia policies. Inluding, but not limited to WP:RS, WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and undue weight. Jefffire 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Most people argued that the article was a "POV fork," but did not clarify what POV they meant -was it an astrology POV fork or a skeptic POV fork? Most voters did not say, so the claim that it was a "POV fork" is ambiguous. When I first saw the article it was clearly a skeptic POV fork, as well as against WP:NOT and WP:V. It could have been deleted at that point, but I believe there is a need for this article, because the skeptic nonsense has been responded to by critical astrologers and neutral scientists. As the article shifted toward neutrality, the skeptics begain to complain. To delete the article as a "POV fork" is meaningless since both sides were involved in digging up the facts, and the article was improving through sourcing and research. I'd especially like to hear from an administrator comment on WP:V with regard to the article in question. Piper Almanac 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning behind calling it a fork was explained in the initial nom and in numerous responses to Aquirata. Thirty people happened to agree. Deathphoenix knows what he's doing—the closure was clearly within his discretion. Marskell 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly respect Deathphoenix's decision. I'd just like some clarification on the unexplained items I've mentioned, just so we don't need to go through this whole exercise again. History may repeat itself. Piper Almanac 18:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Without really knowing too much about the discussions going on with regards to this subject matter, the most common way of dealing with POV forks is to remove the fork and leave the content in the main article, as long as such content is consistent with Wikipedia policies, such as citing sources, verifiability, and Neutral point of view (note that NPOV doesn't necessarily mean that everything has to be neutral, just that both sides of the arguments be presented). Anyways, you can take what I say with a grain of salt, since, as the AfD closer, I only got into this discussion late in the stage. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the article was a mistake by the community. Majorities dont have to be right. Differing opinions exist and will have to be represented in Wikipedia somewhere. The deleted article was the place to hold both sides it wasnt balanced but had swung in both directions and an equilibrium would have been found given time. Now I predict the astrology and science section of the main Astrology article will grow to take on this role until we find a way for all sides to say their piece. Lumos3 21:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I voted to keep, but I'm not sorry to see it go, it was pretty much a nightmare from either viewpoint. I don't think it was a great loss to Wikipedia or anyone else to delete, now let's move on. Doovinator 02:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted material

The deletion has removed all material in the article which and this is no longer available for reuse. It contained many citations and references that had been built up over 14 months and are a useful resource in trying to write a balanced view on Astrology and science. This is petty and not in the best interest of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. They need to be made available somehow, perhaps in someone’s User area. Lumos3 09:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Marskell's warning, I do have the material, and could post it on my user space. Isn't it against policy though to post this anywhere on WP? Aquirata 14:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there may be rules against reposting deleted material designed to stop reinsertion of libel. You could post to http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Main_Page and cite Wikipedia as the source then post a link back here. Wikinfo has a policy of encouraging forks and sympathetic points of view. Lumos3 08:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have posted it at http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Objective_validity_of_astrology. Aquirata 12:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Clear consensus

OK, the leading part of the second sentence under 'Astrology and science' ("there is a clear consensus within the contemporary scientific community that there is no verified scientific basis for astrological claims") still needs sourcing in my opinion. I haven't seen anything in the references supporting the statement. For example, on beliefnet.com:

"When it was discovered that the Earth was not the center of the universe, astrology became impossible," said Hawking, delivering a lecture through voice synthesizer to a standing-room-only crowd of thousands.

What kind of bullsh*t is this? I have been a big fan of Hawking, by the way, ever since his Brief History of Time, but he goes ballistic here. It appears he knows nothing about astrology at all.

"The reason most scientists don't believe in astrology is because it is not consistent with our theories that have been tested by experiment," Hawking said to a rapt and quiet crowd..."

Here he makes an unsourced statement, and it's about the supposed belief of scientists, not a statement of fact or evidence.

The rest of the references are similarly unsupportive of the claim in the article. Could someone please point me to the relevant parts of these references in case I missed something? Aquirata 18:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

For the passage that you described, would "...there is a belief within the contemporary scientific community..." be acceptable? --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the word belief is probably much closer to the truth and would be easier to source. Since it is impossible to disprove astrology per se in practical terms, and the vast majority of the scientists couldn't be bothered with looking into astrology anyway because they have an a priori opinion about it being a 'pseudoscience', the most appropriate term is belief. Aquirata 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So we should agree to change this to a neutral statement like, "there is a clear consensus of belief within the contemporary scientific community that there is no verified scientific basis for astrological claims". Clarifying that this is a belief would leave it open for "both sides of the arguments to be presented", as administrator Death mentions regarding the removal of the "fork". Piper Almanac 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer this wording: "While contemporary scientists commonly believe that there is no scientific basis for astrological claims,..." How do you like that? Aquirata 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The sentence goes on to state that "astrologers and a significant portion of the population continues to believe in astrology". Well, you can leave off "astrologers" because of course they believe, but then this makes the article seem to be between scientists and the public, which is not accurate. This is about scientific belief versus putative findings that go contrary to that belief. How about, "Although contemporary scientists commonly believe that there is no scientific basis for astrological claims, astrologers believe that there is evidence to the contrary." Piper Almanac 20:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that should be "astrologers believe that there is evidence that supports astrology." Piper Almanac 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Piper. How is this:

• "Although contemporary scientists commonly believe that there exists no scientific basis for astrological claims, it is the general belief of the astrological community that certain aspects of astrology are supported by scientific evidence."

Aquirata 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Floats my boat. Doovinator 02:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's good. Any further clarifications or suggestions from anyone? Piper Almanac 03:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is NOT meant to presnt "some sort of intermediate view among the different views (as) the correct one" which is what this sentence is attempting to do with a "yes, but" structure. We should state what the scientific consensus clearly and not caveat the comment immediately. I think one way to help this is to divide scientific bodies from individual scientists. I can also live with dividing physical sciences from behavioural disciplines as suggested earlier. Marskell 09:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your POINT accusation below, please point me to one sentence in one reference that supports the 'clear consensus' statement. I have requested this many times before. For now I have reinstated the 'fact' tag, but later (failing to provide a suitable source) the sentence will be changed to read 'belief' as suggested by several editors now.

The sympathetic view must be given preference as you know, so I have moved the paragraph accordingly. The section looks fairly balanced with the exception of the lack of citing tests where no correlation was found. A few sentences to that effect should be added. Aquirata 10:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

To take the rewording effort further, I can live with "commonly held belief" but not with "clear consensus belief". Two other editors seem to agree with this. So unless someone can prove (source) that 90% of scientists believe astrology lacks a scientific basis, the 'clear consensus' expression will have to go. Aquirata 14:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is to change this sentence:

• "There is a clear consensus belief within the contemporary scientific community that astrology lacks a scientific basis and the discipline is generally labelled a pseudoscience."

to these two:

• "Contemporary scientists commonly believe that there exists no scientific basis for astrological claims. Astrology, therefore, is generally labelled a 'pseudoscience' by the scientific community."

Opinions, please. Aquirata 19:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree to the change. There is a clear consensus within the scientific community, and it wouldn't be correct if you don't mention it. siddharth 05:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not acceptable. This changes an accurate statement into one which connotes that the scientists are wrong, and that astrology is unfairly "labelled". It also misrepresents the consensus as only being a "common belief". --Philosophus ^T 12:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The main WP problem with the 'clear consensus' statement is that it cannot be sourced. Aquirata 12:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The National Science Foundation is a good source for 'clear consensus' siddharth 13:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Moved article to Category:Protoscience from Category:Pseudoscience. Justification:

• Protoscience article: "Protoscience is a word with two meanings. It may mean an unscientific field of study which later becomes a science (e.g. astrology becoming astronomy and alchemy becoming chemistry). Or, it may mean a field of study which appears to conform to the scientific method but is either not falsifiable, or if it is, its predictions and principles have not yet been accepted as science or verified by a consensus of scientists." This is a clear fit.
• Pseudoscience article: "Pseudoscience is a term applied to a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is portrayed as scientific but diverges substantially from the required standards for scientific work or is unsupported by sufficient scientific research." This is a clear unfit: Astrology is not typically portrayed as scientific; however, where scientific claims are made, they are supported by scientific research utilizing the scientific method (e.g., Mars effect).

Thoughts? Aquirata 04:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Very much agreed. Pseudoscience implies a large measure of con job; though some practicioners may be on the level, they're basically indistinguishable from those who aren't. Astrology has always attracted its fair share of loonies (let's be real!), but is nevertheless a valid field of study with its own rigorous procedures and methods. Someone who is pushing a con can be discovered in a matter of seconds by an experienced astrologer (as I've sometimes had to do, unfortunately); the same can't be said for a tea leaf reader, etc. who may be legitimate, but follows no set method, and thus can't be challenged for lack of proficiency. Doovinator 04:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Insofar as astrology in part "became" astronomy it was a protoscience. But it certainly isn't one now because it does "appear to conform to the scientific method". And please cease the silly POINT on asking for a cite on scientific consensus. We have everything from the Australian Broadcasting Corp to Stephen Hawking. Marskell 07:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrology didn't cease to be a protoscience just because one field of science was born of it. It may continue to give birth to other fields in the future as it evolves. It may become a field of science in its own right. Or do you have proof or foresight to the contrary? Aquirata 11:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody removed the article from 'Protoscience' and put it in 'Superstitions', which is clearly incorrect ("This category is about articles that depict a superstition, an irrational belief or a set of behaviors that are related to magical thinking, whereby the practitioner believes that the future, or the outcome of certain events can be influenced by certain specified behaviors"). I have removed the article form the 'Superstitions' cat.

Any strong feelings whether astrology is 'protoscience'? Aquirata 19:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Protoscience. I think Mike Harding has stated it well. Nature does not follow scientific laws; science describes nature. Theory does not support observation, but observation supports theory. Astrology is not based on theory ( or scientific "causality") but on observation without theory. It is a protoscience. Piper Almanac 02:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you claim that there isn't any attempt to portray the subject as scientific, but then give dozens of scientific "proofs" of astrology? You are also ignoring the first defintiion to come out of define:pseudoscience- Scientifically testable ideas that are taken on faith, even if tested and shown to be false.. Jefffire 11:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrology is listed as an example of protoscience. Astrology is not being portrayed as scientific, and tests of it adhere to the scientific method; some of its claims are also supported by scientific research. Which means it cannot be considered pseudoscience. That some people label it as such is a fact, but that has no bearing on classification in WP. On the other hand, astrology is "a field of study which appears to conform to the scientific method but is either not falsifiable, or if it is, its predictions and principles have not yet been accepted as science or verified by a consensus of scientists." This is a very apt description of the current state of astrology, so I'd say astrology perfectly fits the protoscience category. Aquirata 11:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware you are using two mutually exclusive arguements, both of which are wrong? Perhaps you have overlooked the half dozen of so references that there are no scientifically accepted evidences of astrology. Jefffire 12:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis here amounts to an OR interpretation of what it should be called. If we have a number of sources calling it a pseudoscience than the category is accurate. Marskell 15:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CG states:

• "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."
• "If the nature of something is in dispute (like whether or not it's fictional or scientific or whatever), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed."

And because:

• The term 'pseudoscience' is not NPOV,
• It is neither self-evident nor uncontroversial that astrology is pseudoscience, and
• Some people dispute the scientific nature of astrology,

the category 'pseudoscience' is entirely inapprorpiate (it violates WP:CG). Therefore, the article has been removed from that category and put in category 'protoscience' as per the above discussion. If you have a problem with that, please cite relevant policies or guidelines. It is immaterial what you, skeptics, pseudoskeptics or debunkers think of astrology, what matters is how WP works. Aquirata 07:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CG is a guideline not a policy. Your interpretation of why it's protoscience is your interpretation—that is, a bit of OR. I have removed the extra cat completely for the time being. Marskell 08:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This article clearly fit into category pseudoscience under the current definitions. To remove it makes it harder for people interested in pseudoscience to negotiate Wikipedia. If you believe the category is POV then bring it up on WP:NPOV. Jefffire 11:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And your interpretation is OR according to Marskell. According to WP:CG, when categorization is controversial, it shouldn't be done. I have removed your addition violating this guideline. Aquirata 12:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OR? It's supported by references from some of the most prominant scientists and organisations. Just because you personally disagree doesn't make it controversial. You just don't match up to Proffessor Hawkings, don't be arrogant. Jefffire 12:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Humanist article

I think this piece referencing the 1975 Humanist article (which has been removed by Doov) does have a place in the article, but perhaps not in the 'Astrology and science' section. The letter presents and references no scientific evidence but is an important piece of modern history. A paragraph under 'History' could be written about the relationship between astrology and the establishment through the centuries, which could be finished off by the Humanist article as a modern example. Aquirata 07:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the response to the article by one of the leading skeptics of the time, Carl Sagan, which gives a better perspective to the theme of the article. Piper Almanac 02:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sagan's comments weren't about the validity of the field, just that he thought it was "authoritarian". It doesn't relate to the article, so I've removed it as irrelevent. Jefffire 11:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sagan's letter was in direct response to the article, which was highly controversial. (He did not want to give his silent consent to the "consensus," which in this case could easily have implicated him). He criticized the article for authoritatively characterizing astrology as superstition and for authoritatively assuming that a mechanism ("scientific basis") is necessary for validity (although he himself did not "feel" that astrology is valid). By describing the origins of chemistry, medicine, and astronomy and Wegener's proposal, he seems to suggest that astrology is a protoscience. Piper Almanac 17:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

National Science Foundation

Is it's description of astrology as a pseudoscience a good enough source for you? Marskell 10:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is good enough for stating that the NSF labels astrology as pseudoscience, yes. Aquirata 11:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that the "scientific community" is not an organization as such, presenting summative commentary concerning it must rely on umbrella organizations (just as you've been doing for astrologers such as with the Year Zero cite). When able to cite God I'll let you know; in the meantime the NSF is more than sufficient as a source for the claim. Marskell 12:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Year Zero is a book containing numerous interviews with practicing astrologers. It is a cross-section of the astrological community therefore representing the community's views. If there is no such thing for scientists then you cannot make a sweeping claim about them. Aquirata 12:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you followed the link: "The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent United States government agency that supports fundamental research and education in all the non-medical fields of science and engineering. With an annual budget of about $5.6 billion (fiscal year 2006), NSF funds approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America's colleges and universities." It's at least as summative for a general scientific claim as Year Zero is for astrology. It also has the advantage of not being a dubious source. Marskell 12:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. How is such an organization representative of the views or beliefs of the scientific community? Because they support scientists? Aquirata 12:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't play stupid Aquirata. It's a government org, it's staffed by scientists, it supports research across the sciences, it supports science education from kindergarten children through post-docs. Marskell 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Playing stupid would be beyond my skills. You don't seem to understand that sourcing a representative opinion is different from sourcing the same statement from a number of parties. Representative opinion may take the form of organizations representing people's views or beliefs, opinion polls or cross-section interviews. Just because your government makes a political statement, it doesn't follow that this statement is representative of the opinions of the people. An opinion poll would represent a true picture. Same goes for the scientists. How do you know what their beliefs are? Did you talk to every one of them? Did you read an opinion poll somewhere? Did somebody interview a representative cross-section of them? You don't seem to realize how grave an error you are making by assuming scientists' views and beliefs. The Humanist article is certainly not representative of scientists. It was a political attack filled with authoritarian and pseudoscientific arguments. Does the NSF claim to represent the views and beliefs of scientists? If not, end of story. If so, how are they doing that? Aquirata 13:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good God Aquirata. By your logic we couldn't use the American Medical Association to cite a medical claim. We have to accept Year Zero because (in your opinion) it represents a cross-section of astrologers' viewpoints—this despite the fact that on the vast majority of Wiki articles it would be considered dubious and not allowed—but the largest cross-discipline scientific organization in the U.S. is out. This is ridiculous. Can you present to me a scientific body that does consider astrology a science? Marskell 14:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not ridiculous, it is WP:V. You must not present truth but verifiable statements. Aquirata 14:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable statements indeed. I have verified it with reference to: a university-linked dictionary, the largest U.S. government science umbrella organization, the largest general astronomy organization in the world, two very prominent scientists, and a host of lesser names. No I haven't talked to every scientist in the world any more than you've talked to every supposed astrologer—no where in policy does it say we have to.

And it's not as if we're dealing with a contested claim. As I said once before, if the Astronomical Society of the Pacific said "pseudoscience" and the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic said "legitimate science" we would have a different issue and need to attribute things line-by-line. But that isn't the case: every non-dubious scientific link says the discipline is non-scientific with some wording or other. Of course, that doesn't mean that every scientific organization in general will see fit to publish a statement on astrology—I can still live with "the scientific community, where it has commented..." Marskell 15:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see 'Clear consensus' above. Aquirata 15:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

See what? The fact the Stephen Hawking got your shorts in a knot? Marskell 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Three editors seem to think that the 'clear consensus' expression cannot be supported and should be rephrased to 'commonly'. It would be better to continue discussing actual wording than arguing about theoretical aspects of WP policies. Aquirata 15:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And I think it can and has been supported. So square one. Marskell 16:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Marsekell is clearly right on this. Force of editor numbers does not overrule Wikipedia policies. Jefffire 11:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sympathetic tone

And I don't have a clue where you've come up with "sympathetic commentary first". The relevant sections of NPOV are undue weight, pseudoscience, and giving "equal validity." All underscore that due weight belongs with the scientific majority. Marskell 12:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fairness and sympathy does not support your argument about sequencing. And you seem to be ignoring the caveat: "We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views." Marskell 12:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I quote:

• Wp:npov#Fairness_and_sympathetic_tone: "We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail."
• meta:Positive_tone:

• "refuting everything as one goes makes things look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section"
• "We should instead start with the attitude that such and such is a good idea, except that the supporters of said view overlooked such and such a detail."
• "An article describing slavery as a sick degradation of human life and listing some of the worst instances would be deserved but not particularly informative anyways. Instead one could begin by saying slavery was predominant throughout the ancient world and picked up again in early modern times, that the conditions under which slaves lived and worked varied but were generally dismal, and that for such reasons slavery is now considered a violation of human rights and has widely and thankfully been abolished."

Hope you can see now where the idea comes from. Aquirata 12:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Astrology is a minority view amongst the population at large and (more importantly) an extreme minority view amongst experts that we might cite on Wikipedia (perhaps you can find a Nobel winner to match the 18 that signed the Humanist piece). In letter and spirit NPOV makes clear that we do not have to give support for things like astrology equal weight alongside science. Sympathy is subject to the caveat I have bolded above. Marskell 12:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That is perhaps the single dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone who purports to be a scientist ever say. Majority opinion is what gave us the flat earth theory. Does it need equal weight? Doovinator 00:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Minority vs majority only applies to undue weight. I am talking about something else. You cannot criticise something first and then write about it later. The slavery example is directly applicable, how can you not see that? Aquirata 13:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

First, to be clear about one thing: a discussion on Meta is just that--a discussion on Meta.

Also undue weight absolutely applies here--it applies to everything we discuss basically ("including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements"). Insofar as we are debating prominence of placement we are debating undue weight. And we are not "criticis(ing) something first and then writ(ing) about it later." There are five sections describing astrology in detail above the section! The section is called "Astrology and science". And we should begin by "represent(ing) the majority (scientific) view as the majority view." Marskell 14:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This particular meta discussion is referenced within WP:NPOV. The wording within the policy is similar to that of the meta discussion, so the discussion was probably the source of that section of the policy.

Undue weight applies everywhere, of course. I am not debating undue weight. The order of paragraphs has no bearing on weight. If anything, the last word carries more weight than the first in an argument. Nowhere does NPOV say that we should begin with the majority view. However, you cannot start a section with criticism. This is not only common sense, but also follows from the text quoted above.

Undue weight should be dealt with separately by adding more arguments on the science side. I have already suggested that above. Aquirata 14:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The last word has greater effect? Well, astrology gets the last and the first at the moment so go figure. Marskell 15:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with part of what Marskell has been saying. Let me explain. There are outspoken critics who proclaim astrology to be pseudoscience. These critics have strong beliefs and publish their opionins in the most authoritative places they can reach. Politicians and lobbists do much the same thing. I think Aquirata is correct that the vast majority of scientists have remained silent on the issue. But here is where Marskell is correct. If silence is consent, then due to the silence, there is a de facto "consensus" that astrology is pseudoscience. I would not by any means characterize this belief as being "clear" as it is now worded. That qualification would require what Aquirata has asked for, a poll or cross-section to prod those who are silent for an opionion.

I believe that Michael Harding speaks for many postmodern astrologers when he states that empirical observations do not need to support any theory at all. Astrologers say they observe. Observation is the basis for science theory, and observation either confirms/supports or falsifies/denies science theory, not the other way around. Claims of knowledge based on observation and lack of science theory makes astrology a protoscience within the Wikipedia definition. Aquirata is right. This is the correct (astrological) way to represent astrology as contrasted to the pseudoscience (skeptic) view. Both of these POVs should be represented. Piper Almanac 03:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that keeping silent equals consensus. Consensus is common opinion reached through negotiation. There is none of that within the scientific community. 'No scientific basis' and 'pseudoscience' may be commonly held beliefs by scientists, but nothing more than that.

Ahem,

In the world of science, silence is consent. Piper Almanac 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange... Jefffire 11:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the pseudoscientific (skeptic) view can be represented as long as it can be sourced properly. Aquirata 10:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh... Must be a global conspiracy then, supported by the Wikipedia:Rouge admin. Looks like it's The Truth(TM), vs. Wikipedia guidelines. Jefffire 11:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think rather than "silence" a better term would be "absence of disputation". As said thrice now, obviously not every scientist/scientific body is going to issue a statement on astrology, but when those that have all say essentially the same thing the summation is accurate. Marskell 15:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So then your "where commented" phrase should be inserted. The advantage of this is that such wording could be supported by a couple of references, whereas the current sweeping statement cannot. Aquirata 12:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've included more of Carl Sagan's letter to the Humanist in the article. It pointedly demonstrates that Sagan did not want to be implicated in the highly controversial article. It was a shock for most people that highly regarded scientists would endorse a manifesto in a highly opinionated non-scientific journal. Sagan did this to make it clear he did not give silent consent to the apparent "consensus" of opinion. Because of his level-headed response, his letter became almost as famous as the article in question. Although Sagan was a skeptic and "felt" that astrology is not valid, he added comments in his letter that were clearly sympathetic to the idea of astrology as a protoscience, and this is a good source for acceptance among scientists for this idea. Piper Almanac 19:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your paraphrase does not appear match what Sagan said in the referenced quote. Sagan said that he disagreed with the authoritarian tone of the article, not with it's conclusion. I direct your attention to 'The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Darkness' for Sagan's opinion on astrology. I don't believe that having scare quotes around 'felt' are an accurate description of Sagan's beliefs. MilesVorkosigan 21:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As the statement, in Sagan's view, is authoritarian, it is an opinion. This makes its conclusion an opinion grounded in authoritarianism. Sagan did not endorse the article, and its concluding opinion. Piper Almanac 03:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your posting the entire letter throws off due weight; it's not sensible to post a full response when you're not even posting the statement in question. It should be reduced to a single sentence. Marskell 08:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the Humanist reference, while it may be of historical interest because of its extreme sentiments, is not representative. There are additional references that could be included from BBC interviews of some of the scientists who signed Bok's article, who confessed they knew practically nothing about astrology. The Humanist reference should either be removed or put into historical perspective. A lot has happened since 1975. Piper Almanac 12:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not unless astrology has suddenly become scientifically valid without the vast majority of the scientific community noticing it hasn't. Astrology remains devoid of accepted scientific evidence and is still considered a pseudoscience by the vast majority of the scientific community. Jefffire 12:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Humanist article was written in 1975, an interesting period historically in science. At this time there were many scientists who strongly believed that the absolute definitions of natural phenomena and the linear progression of science was being threatened. The scientists who attacked astrology in this article, by their own later admissions, confessed they knew practically nothing about astrology. The attack was based largely on ignorance. In the early and mid-1970s, some philosophers and other thinkers had begun to think of science as "interpretive" and "constructed," and challenged the old views.

Thomas Kuhn's views, published at this tme, were highly influential. He saw science as a series of "paradigms" where newer scientific ideas replaced older ones. Kuhn also introduced the idea of "protoscience" during this period. The postmodern era, mainly during the 1990s (Uranus conj. Neptune), threw great doubt on the strict discrimination of many things, including many ideas in science. For example, boundaries between science and religion began to disolve, particularly in the mystical sense. Many things previously considered to be certainties were questioned and reconsidered.

As part of these changes, serious researchers began to reconsider astrology. They read Gauquelin. They took the time to actually learn astrology and design astrologically sound tests. There are positive results of astrolgical tests, but because of resistence on the part of some scientists clinging to the old highly-regimented beliefs, these results have not yet entered the scientific establishment. The 1975 Humanist article is an important landmark, but it should be contrasted with the dissolution of barriers and new, more inclusive definitions that have developed since then. It does not represent the "vast majority" today in any sense. Piper Almanac 15:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I'm afraid this revolution hasn't happened yet, nor does it look likely to. If you can find a reference of a large group of respected astronomers saying what you are, then we have something to work with. But on other similar pages I have worked on, such as creationists or cold fusion researchers, there was almost identical claims that we were on the brink of a revolution and that the ideas were being held back by an old gaurd of bigoted scientists who just happened to the editorial team for every major science journal. If this revolution is coming, can I suggest that we wait for it rather than trying to pre-empt it in Wikipedia. Jefffire 16:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, meta:Positive tone is a suggested extension to NPOV that is not. There does not appear to be any discussion about it, it is not a guideline or even an essay on en itself, and there are people who strongly disagree with it. The people who proposed it thought about only a limited set of cases, like politics and abortion, where opinions are everything and facts don't matter much. Following that proposal, how would you make Time Cube not be a complete embarrassment to Wikipedia? As for your comments on the state of science, I can't understand how you can support your claims. Every single astronomer and physicist at my university would disagree with you. For one thing, Science is more threatened now than it was in the 70s, with an upsurge in pseudoscience, helped by the Internet, and unscientific thinking in government. --Philosophus ^T 11:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of 3rr

The report can be found at [1]. User has been notified on his Talk page. Aquirata 12:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I kindly ask that you address my points rather than resorting to ad hominem. Despite my opinion that this is a false charge, I have reverted my last edit. I ask that you address the concerns on the talk page rationally, rather that making personal attecks like this. Jefffire 13:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What's an atteck? Did you mean attic? Doovinator 00:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You suppose it's funny to make fun of people because of a disability? Jefffire 11:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your disability is your inability to answer a direct question. Once again, yes or no? Doovinator 13:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's dyslexia. Let's go and make fun of people in wheelchairs for not being able to walk while we're at this. Jefffire 15:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What in God's name are you doing without spell check then? That's not your disability, that's your laziness. Doovinator 13:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You have no knowledge of astrology and have difficulty writing, editing and using the keyboard. You are also a Wikipedia editor heavily involved in editing the Astrology article. Is this correct? Aquirata 15:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have difficulty spelling, not anything else. I am also an expert on pseudoscience. Rather than making fun of my disabilities (which is considered exceptionally rude) and trying to attack my knowledge base (which is better suited than yours to evaluate scientific matter, which is what I have stuck to) you would be better suited to discussing the state of the article. Jefffire 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make fun of your disabilities and didn't attack your knowledge base. I am simply stating facts in a neutral manner, and corresponding with the source to make sure that I have my facts straight. Let me rephrase then: You are an expert on pseudoscience, have no knowledge of astrology, and have difficulty spelling. You are also a Wikipedia editor, heavily involved in editing the Astrology article. Is this correct? Aquirata

I am an expert on pseudoscience and science, and it is that section which I have stuck to in this article. I also know a considerable amount about astrology although not at expert level so I don't make edits to the history section, or to the sections on beliefs. I only make edits relating to science, about which I am highly qualified to write about. I also have occasional difficulties in spelling. Does this answer your questions? Jefffire 16:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, for now. I may want to know more about your astrological knowledge later, but that can wait. Aquirata 16:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For those of you following this, the result was -no block-, and my self revert was unneccasery. I shall leave it in place as a peace making move, and hope that Aquirata sees reason. I would also note that article talk pages are not the place to discuss this kind of thing. Jefffire 13:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the 18-year old editor (promoted to admin the day before the 3RR charge) simply made a mistake. Aquirata 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I took a look at the diffs, and the admin made the right call. Jefffire did not revert to the same version four times in one day. The first diff was removing some text. The next three diffs were to place (or replace) Category:Pseudoscience in the article. So it looks like Jefffire made three reverts in a day, but did not make the potentially-blockable fourth revert. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

See my comment on Aquirata's talk page. I would also note that both editors are violating the spirit of the rule, which is to leave the article alone while in a heated discussion and instead concentrate on a compromise. Sam Vimes 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And in addition, blocking for violating 3RR is not done to punish the violator, but to prevent the violator from making more reverts. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, they are meant to be preventative. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that the article talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss this, but whilst it is going on I would like to make note that user:Aquirata accussed me of vandalism in the report. I have never vandalised any page, anywhere, ever. Jefffire 17:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand DP's interpretation. The first edit by Jefffire was a reversion of an edit made by User:Piper Almanac, not just "removing some text". The next three were admittedly reverts. That makes four in a day.

And if blocking is not meant as a punishment, then why a self-reversion after having been reported for 3RR violation makes a difference? Isn't a break still called for especially if the violator is continuing to revert, albeit less than 4 times a day? Aquirata 18:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding WP:VAND, isn't editing other people's notes on Talk pages considered vandalism? If so, then please take a look at the history of this section. Aquirata 18:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you refering to my condensation of Doovinater's message on this page which broke apart Lunse's? No-one would catagorise as vandalism, and no-one complainged (although Doovinater felt that my language was slightly harsh). In any case, I have never vandalised, so I ask that these baseless accussations cease and this bickering stop (see below). Jefffire 18:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I said "this section". Aquirata 18:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I renamed the title to something less provacative and utterly inappropriate than "Jefffire violates the 3rr (again)" or whatever it was. No admin would regard that as vandalism, and no-one has contested it. Jefffire 18:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Changing people's comments" is one type of vandalism. My heading was a statement of fact: you have violated 3RR before by your own admission. This case is also a clear violation as interpreted by one admin so far. Aquirata 18:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the change in title didn't change the meaning, and it doesn't fall under the category of "comments". Section headers need to be neutral and unprovacative so as to be effect, so I changed it as a good faith edit. If you regarded the change as vandalism, why the devil did you say nothing about it until now? I did once before unintentionally violate the 3rr due to an honest mistake on it's wording, however, you violated it in full knowlegde of the wording. Further more, I think this whole conversation come under the title of "bickering", so unless a different editor asks for a response, I will cease my input into this section. Jefffire 19:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my interpretation, yes, the first was a reversion, but the next three were different reversions. That's how I saw it. Anyways, his reversions are pretty far in the past, and a preventative 3RR block is not necessary at this time. I don't understand your question with regards to the block not being punishment, but it doesn't matter. A point of principle on Wikipedia is that blocks are not meant to be as punishment. Period. Any questions you have about inconsistencies in optics about blocks as punishment vs. prevention are because Wikipedia is large, and admins have different ideas about blocking policy. My interpretation might not even be correct. But in any case, I think any more comments I provide in this area will largely be useless, so I'll just take Astrology off my watchlist now and wish you all the best. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your input. Aquirata 19:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck, and keep up the good work, all of you. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)