Talk:History of astrology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

the recent reversions of Zac's new material

Zac added a lot of material to this article, which has been (temporarily?) reverted by Dominus Vobisdu and Jess. The reason given for the reversion was that it was just too much material all at once. I tend to agree -- this new material is well worth considering, but it's too much all at once. I'd like to suggest that Zac propose his additions piece-by-piece, per the BDR formula, so these additions can be discussed methodically. (And perhaps such a discussion, if successful, can be a model for improving the editing process on the main astrology article.) At this point, I am going to share one specific concern with the proposed additions to the Babylonian astrology section: there might be a question of balance here, since there is already a daughter article on Babylonian astrology.--Other Choices (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that this is simply a result of his previous attempts to introduce bias into articles and not due to the actual edits themselves. He's not treated astrology as anything but fiction from the edits I've seen. I'd be surprised if they weren't all restored in short order. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the reversion is that Dominus Vobisdu canvassed Jess, Itsmejudith and another editor to come to this page and get involved, after I left a talk page notice asking him to justify and discuss and not just delete. I have made a talk-page response to Jess and will address the two identified points above. The changes I made were appropriate. They attended to a page full of errors, dead links, dubious-discuss, and citation-needed tags, poor-quality content written in Edwardian style English, full of inconsistencies in style, content without references, and material that doesn't belong on the page. There was no edit-warring going on this page. There was no one else showing any kind of significant interest. Since I have already done so much work and offered so much clear explanation and justification, I would like to suggest that piece-by-piece discussions of changes that are not felt beneficial (if such exist) are offered by others.

With regard to your point about Babylonian astrology, most of these sections have lead-off articles where each subject is explored more fully - and that is where I was able to access much of the better quality material to replace the unsuitable material on this page. If you notice, my edit in that section didn't expand it, it reduced it from 1400 words of the worst quality, rambling text, to 643 words of relatively intelligent substantiated content. So the only effect on balance (as well as content) was to significnatly improve.

@TippyGommba, can you be specific and point to an edit I made on this page which treated the subject as fiction? Or did you just make that up? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

@TippyGoomba, in this case, Zac's effort seems well-intentioned and well-done, and it seems to be a reasonable basis from which to proceed, especially since nobody else has been editing this article for quite a while. However, given Zac's hot-headed behavior over at the astrology article, I can understand how other editors are inclined to be trigger-happy. I'd really like to see Zac's proposed changes discussed on their merits.

@Zac, your point that you brought material FROM the Babylonian astrology article is well-taken.

--Other Choices (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

To be more specific, from what I've seen, your recent edits did not pretend that the claims of astrology were actually true. They were more like the Fan death article and less like the second temple article, which is good. TippyGoomba (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for misinterpreting your post. I thought your implication was that I was fabricating points concerning the history of astrology. No need to get into the issue of whether astrology has legitimacy or veracity here (or on any other page); only the consequence of its influence in history is relevant, as reported in reliable sources -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition of reference to Richard Trewythian for the 'Medieval and Renaissance Europe' section

Now that other editors are contributing I will happily oblige with the request to not make bold edits too quickly. The next addition I would like to suggest is a reference to Richard Trewythian, which would logically fit between the paragraph which talks about astrology being part of a European university education in the 13th century, and the reference to the Renaissance which follows it (I have indicated the ends of existing content in italics):

...music to the Sun, arithmetic to Mars, geometry to Jupiter and astrology/astronomy to the slowest moving body, Saturn.[46]

In the 15th century the practice of astrology in England involved citizens, artisans, merchants and members of religious orders._(ref) Details are known through the preservation of the notebook of Richard Trewythian (b. 1393), the first English astrologer for whom evidence of practice survives._{(ref: p.193 The notebooks are in the British Library (MS Sloane 428))} In the margins of his notebook Trewythian mentions the works he studied, which include Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, the De Iudiciis Astrorum of Haly Abenragel; and works by Albumasar and Mashaallah._(p.199) His notebook suggests that astrology “was not just a scientific and theoretical interest of university men, or a tool of high politics, which might be the impression gained from study of its better-known practitioners”._(ref)

During the Renaissance, a form of "scientific astrology" evolved in which court astrologers ...

Any objections or concerns? The source is: Sophie Page, 'Richard Trewythian and the Uses of Astrology in Late Medieval England', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes Vol. 64, (2001), pp. 193-228. Published by The Warburg Institute. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/751562. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight concerns. This is the article about the "history of astrology", not "History of astrology in 15th century England". In a rather generic article like this one we are supposed to summarize, not add a paragraph for every quote or person that can be reliably sourced. The section for medieval and renaissance Europe is rather bloated already. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's an excellent source but not used correctly in your suggested text. The first sentence is ambiguous - what is "involved"? Page lists the kinds of people who were Trewynthian's clients. They were not casting horoscopes themselves. You could cite to p216 a statement that the clients of astrology were people of middle social standing. To p217 you could cite that there was interest in astrology among a wide of occupations. I don't think we should include the list of works he studied because this is not a crucial part of Sophie Page's argument, and it ought not to be cherry-picked to imply transhistorical authority for astrological works. Page refers to Keith Thomas, a source I think we ought to be using. I'm not too worried about length here. The European middle ages could eventually be spun off as a non-POV fork. In that case we could always come back and pick up some more detail from this source. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a cherry picked list of his sources, it's the ones that Page identifies. Yes, Keith Thomas is good and I have his work but didn't bother too much with details on extra sources lest the notion of the content was rejected. I would say there is no undue weight in mentioning someone who is notable for being the first practitioner in England to have left details of his practice behind. Historically, that's a point of great significance. Thanks for responding both of you. How about simplifying to this:

The first English astrologer for whom evidence of practice survives is Richard Trewythian (b. 1393)._{(ref: p.193 The notebooks are in the British Library (MS Sloane 428))} His notebook suggests that astrology “was not just a scientific and theoretical interest of university men, or a tool of high politics, which might be the impression gained from study of its better-known practitioners”._(ref)-- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean that you had picked out only some of his sources, but that it was not necessary to list his sources. Your suggestion above better. Don't use the quote but take from Page's conclusion as I said above. For example "His notebook demonstrates that he had a wide range of clients, across the middle social groups, and indicates that interest in astrology was not confined to learned circles." I don't really like the "for whom evidence of practice survives" even if it is directly from Page, because of Chaucer. Chaucer didn't practise in the same way as Trewythian, I suppose, but it still sounds a bit odd. So what I really suggest is that we deal with Chaucer first, then "In the 15th century, Richard Trewythian was a practising astrologer in England. His notebook, which is in the British Library, demonstrates... ". Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Which then misses the notable point of historical interest. Trewythian stands as a benchmark for how for back we can go to get details of the use of astrology in practice in England. Chaucer demonstrates it was part of culture, and should be referenced first, but we should not fail to include the reason why Trewythian's is a notable name in astrological history. Judith, I am very short of time and need to take a wiki-break (see my next post), so I'll consider the responses and make my best attempt to please whilst applying my own logic too. Then others can edit as they feel necesssary and we can close this point. You can adjust with your Chaucer additions as you need to. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Section on Cultural influence

This section in its current form is advocacy of the "importance" of astrology. I propose to break it up, to move Chaucer to the Middle Ages and the other parts to the other sections. I think without having Chaucer in the medieval section, Sophie Page's references to "better known practitioners" and the "university tradition" make little sense. Underlying this may be the literature on "high" and "low" traditions in Catholicism. (One set of teachings for the scholars, who could supposedly handle the reconciliation of astrology with free will, another set of teachings for the laity - or no such division depending on who you read). Complex stuff; perhaps Keith Thomas will help us through it, but we could do with some advice on sources from medievalists. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I would approve of that break up. I didn't want to be bold enough to remove that section but it doesn't seem necessary - surely the whole article must touch upon the cultural influence as something that is embedded within the subject's history. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The best singular source for the latter point you make is probably Thorndike. But there's a lot of thinking to be done there. The story of the theological ups and downs needs a clear account of the divide into natural and judicial astrology, (which would probably need to be developed on another page and summarised here). It ought to be told starting from points being introduced in the Hellenistic period (to demonstrate the influential arguments at that time) and then carried on through other sections to show when, how and why the situation changes. It is a very important aspect of the history of astrology but my feeling is that it's too critical to embark upon whilst the article still has other problems to address regarding the rearrangment of content. Do you think the current flow of the article works? I'm not sure that it does. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it doesn't. It's simply not feasible to give a chronological account of the development of every tradition together. Some readers might want to try and align them, to see what the interplay may have been between Arabic, Indian and Chinese traditions, but we can't do everything. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be a lot of reorganisation, but (idealistically) I think it could be done, and really ought to be done to get this article right. There is no other way to explain how cultural interchanges impacted on this subject. For example, India's ancient and early history is important in its own cultural right, but it becomes especially influential to world astrology in the mid-2nd to 7th century, when Persian translation projects merged their techniques with Greek techniques to form the basis of texts which were translated into Arabic, and then Latin. The same with China - it has its own ancient history, and we don’t seem to be covering much more than that, so that text could be put under a subheading in the ‘ancient’ section. But we should also be able to earmark times in later history when China made significant development of technique, and when it interacted with the astrology of other cultures. A chronological account allows us to explain developments across the globe and put them into the context of other historical developments. But I'll just offer the thought for now. Maybe something to consider later when other improvements have been made?

A real-life situation has come up which will keep me quiet for a while. Hopefully development of this article will continue in my absence. (Even when not editing I often use WP, so I'll see messages on my talk page if it’s felt I can help with anything specific). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand the place of this separate section in a history page attempting a global perspective. 2 lira, —MistyMorn (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither do I. Given that its useful content has been added into the article, that what remains has little significance for this topic, and that a spin-off page exists, can I suggest we remove the section now and replace it with a 'see also' link at the end of the article? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do that and incorporate the comment to Shakespeare to where it has a context. If anyone disaproves please explain and then revert my edit. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit / refs supplied for the Greek and Roman section

I made a collection of minor edits to the article, the culminative effect of which can be seen by this diff.

I also left a commented note in the file to say that it needs a little referenced information regarding the bans applied to astrologers through the Roman period, due to the influence of its use in Roman politics. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

20th Century section

Indef-blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This section is rather problematic with the last two paragraphs being completely unsourced. It is also too focused on the United States, and in this general article about the history of astrology we need a global perspective. I would propose to delete the last two paragraphs, and try to add something about 20th century astrology in Europe and Asia. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Hello MakeSense, I am going to be your Enfant Terrible. You should reference this back to Zak: 20th century astrology starts with Alan Leo in London. Who was not an author at all, but ran a publishing outfit which employed astrologers who actually wrote the books Leo published under his own name. After his death in 1917 there was a split. Charles Carter got the Theosophical section, while Leo's widow, Bessie, got everything else. She took up with the young Vivian Robson, who became Leo's successor as editor of Modern Astrology. This continued up until the moment Jiddu Krishnamurti renounced the Order of the Star in the summer of 1929. As a result, Robson found himself out of a job. He died January 1, 1942, at the age of 52, if memory serves. Carter continued at the Theosophical Society. He died in 1968. After Leo and Sepharial, Carter and Robson are major figures in 20th century English astrology. Carter was succeeded by John Addey, who invented Harmonics. Which, if it doesn't have a Wiki page, it should. Here in the States, Evangeline Adams - as Wiki notes - was a central figure, up until her death in 1932. After that, we have the rising Dane Rudhyar writing in Paul Clancy's American Astrology, along with Carl Payne Tobey, Grant Lewi and others. While this was going on, an assistant to Cheiro, R.H. Naylor, single-handedly invented the daily horoscope, in the mid-1930's. Or, according to Kim Farnell (Flirting with the Zodiac, Wessex Astrologer, about ten years ago) revived an earlier form. The existing Astro History article mentions this vaguely, you will get a lot more from the (comparatively excellent) R.H. Naylor Wiki page. From the '50's through the '80's it seems there was much interest in astrology from major New York publishers, as a result there were a lot of books of little value that went in and out of print rapidly, or so it seems to me (I've been in the astro-book trade since 1986). Among the authors, William Tucker, Edward Lyndoe, Sydney Omarr, and Linda Goodman. By the late 1960's a new generation of astrologers were coming to the fore, among them Alan Oken and the Parkers. So far as astrology books are concerned, the best books are currently self-published, along with some of the worst. Self-publishing is a mixed bag. The reason is that major publishers no longer publish serious astrology books. There are significant specialty publishers in this area, but I doubt a survey would find them of interest. Rudhyar, who had fallen out of favor in the late 1940's, made a comeback in the late 1970's, at the very end of his life. He had a book published by Random House, on Sabians (Wiki should have a page on the Sabian Symbols), and was a favorite of Henry Weingarten and Barbara Somerfield, who published many of his last books. Rudhyar, who was influenced by Alice Bailey, virtually invented "humanistic astrology" and had a huge influence on mid to late 20th century astrology. Rudhyar is for mysterious reasons associated with Marc Edmund Jones, a one-time preacher/early Hollywood screenwriter who, by the early 1920's had turned astrologer. He had a "nuts and bolts" astrology (as it was once described to me). He notably invented the Sabian Symbols, in San Diego in 1925. Aside from numerous astrology books, he also founded the quasi-religious Sabian Society, which he said was based on ancient Egyptian doctrine. The Society still exists, but is fading. Another Egyptian-inspired astrologer was Elbert Benjamine, who wrote under the name of CC Zain (it is not "C.C."), and who founded the Church of Light. Which for many years was in Los Angeles, but which moved to Albuquerque a few years ago. Benjamine died in 1951. The late Doris Chase Doane was his outstanding pupil, who later became the president of the AFA (see below). Efforts at organizing astrology proceeded through the century. Carter had his own group in London. He and Margaret Hone founded the Faculty for Astrological Studies, which is, today, the leading astrology school in the UK. Here in America, the efforts of George McCormack, and Ernest and Catherine Grant resulted in the founding of the American Federation of Astrologers in 1938, in Washington, DC. It was moved to its present home in Tempe, AZ, in the early 1970's by its long-time director, the late Robert Cooper. He was a retired union organizer from Florida and was a bit heavy-handed. As a result, in the early 1980's a number of smaller groups split from the AFA. Among them are the National Council for Geocosmic Research (NCGR), The International Society for Astrological Research (ISAR), and The Association for Astrological Networking (AFAN). NCGR, ISAR and AFAN sponsor the leading astrolgoical conference, UAC, or United Astrology Conference. The most recent one was held in New Orleans in May, 2012. The next one will be in 2016. As an aside, back in the late 1980's AFAN developed considerable legal muscle in eliminating anti-astrology ordinances in the US. I caution that terming astrology a "pseudoscience" may attract their attention, which Wiki will not want. The AFA began publishing books in the late 1940's. Robert Cooper greatly expanded the AFA's publishing. The AFA currently has several hundred books in print. (Judging strictly by their ISBN numbers, they have published well over 600 titles.) So far as titles are concerned, the AFA is by far the largest astrology publisher in the world. The 1980's saw the emergence of astro-psychology, led by Liz Greene and Howard Sasportas. Greene, an American, eventually founded the Center for Psychological Astrology (CPA) in London, which publishes many books of lecture transcripts. She is associated with Alois Treindl at Astro.com, in Switzerland. As you can see, I am coming to the present day, but there is still more. Charles Carter, for mysterious reasons, found horary astrology to be incomprehensible. Which, given his great intelligence and enthusiasm for the subject, has never been understandable. It might have had something to do with the Vagrancy Act (which goes back to 1597), which prohibited fortunetelling in the UK and which was the basis for the prosecutions of Alan Leo, the second one of which led to his death less than two months later. It was in the early 1970's that Derek Appleby, a self-trained astrologer with a battered old copy of William Lilly's Christian Astrology, braved the Act and successfully revived the study of horary in the UK. This led to Olivia Barclay, Clive Kavan and others publishing a facsimile edition of Christian Astrology in 1985 (Regulus Publishing), which was itself a landmark event. (Sir Kavan is better known for his work as an acoustic engineer.) Barclay then went on to found a very influential school of horary astrology, from which many notable astrologers have graduated, among them, Carol Wiggers, whose edition of Lilly's Christian Astrology is available on-line. Barclay is now deceased. A man in Japan is now in charge of her school, which I believe has faded. Interest in old astrology inspired Robert Zoller. He combined his interest in medieval astrology in general and Bonatus in particular to found Hindsight, in 1992, with Robert Schmidt and Robert Hand. Their original goal was the wholesale translation and publication of all major astrological works, from the Greeks, through the Arabs, into the middle ages. Regrettably, after only a couple of years, Hand and Zoller left. Schmidt suppressed the Arabic and Latin tracks and turned Project Hindsight (a page which Wiki has recently deleted) in to an Hellenistic enclave. As you can see from my notes, Wiki's policy of pseudoscience, in-universe and general insularity (sorry I can't give Wiki more credit), has consequences. Schmidt's translations I personally think are poor, but his reception was enormous. It is thanks to Hindsight - and Hindsight alone - that there is currently a huge upsurge in ancient texts throughout the astrological world. James Herschel Holden at the AFA has published numerous translations, among them virtually the entire Astrolgica Gallicia of Jean-Baptiste Morin (who should have his own Wiki page, if he does not already) as well as many early Greek and Roman texts, most recently a new translation of Firmicus Maternus. Professor Benjamin Dykes has published a complete translation of Bonatus (which Robert Hand had hoped to do), as well as translations of many early Arabic texts. I myself, in my guise as the editor of Astrology Classics, have published numerous medieval and ancient texts. I am not dropping names as plugs. I am doing this that Wiki understands just how enormous the current astrological revival is. It has displaced astro-psychology and literally shaken astrology to its roots. Inspired by Hindsight, a group of Seattle astrologers, led by the Nalbandians (who ran a bookstore called Astrology Et Al (also on-line)), founded Kepler College at some point around 2000 (they don't say on their website, and I forget). They were initially a fully accredited academic institution. They originally intended to promote astropsychology, in part as they knew little else. They rapidly broadened their approach, but local opposition resulted in their losing their accreditation at some point in the late 2000's. Many of the top astrologers have taught there. It was named after Johannes Kepler as he was, in fact, an astrologer and contributed much to the study, giving astrology a whole series of aspects that still bear his name. There is also much to report concerning astrological software. Astro-software starts with Neil Michelsen at IBM on Long Island in the mid-1970's. He was the first to program a computer to produce ephemeris routines, which resulted in a published ephemeris that ran from 1400 to 2000, if memory serves. He then relocated Pelham, NY, where he established Astro Computing (ACS), before eventually relocating to San Diego. He died in 1990. He is notable for his development of astrological calculation programs on main-frame computers. Though the 1980's and 1990's, ACS was renown for its chart calculation services, producing tens of thousands of charts, for thousands of practicing astrologers. I mention this as this business fell off sharply in the mid 1990's, due to the widespread use of astro-software on PC's. While he was doing that, Michael Erlewine, of Matrix Software, Big Rapids, MI, was developing software for the early PC. His breakthrough program was Blue*Star, in 1986, the first significant home-based program. Whereupon he abandoned his earlier Apple-based programs, just before the Mac arrived. David Cochrane worked for him briefly before setting up Cosmic Patterns, in Gainesville, FL. These three men were the pioneers in astrology software, there have been many, many, many since. Science and research. The quest to discover a scientific basis for astrology was a goal of many 20th century astrologers. One form this took was the suppression of houses and signs, in favor of aspects and midpoints. Reinhold Ebertin developed this into a powerful method of astrology known as Cosmobiology. The Australian, Geoffrey Dean, picked up on this to write his diatribe, Recent Advances in Natal Astrology, c.1980. There were at least three formal presentations. The first were by George McCormack, from 1947 into the mid 1960's, with astrometeorology. McCormack's work was rejected. The second was by John Nelson at some point in the 1950's. Nelson was an RCA employee whose job was to anticipate radio static. He discovered that planetary aspects determined radio static, enabling him to make nearly perfect predictions of when transmissions would be bad. When he presented his findings before his peers, he was told he was an astrologer and was thrown out. It's worth noting the aspects he discovered and used bore no relationship to the traditional aspects which astrologers used. The third man was Michel Gauquelin. He started out as a skeptic who decided he would make the ultimate refutation. As is so often the case, the more he studied, the more he convinced himself otherwise. He eventually discovered the "Gauquelin effect," of which the "Mars effect" was one. (There were also notable results for Mercury and Jupiter, as memory serves.) His efforts to present his findings generated a huge amount of opposition, which surprised him as well as some of the scientists who examined it. (See sTarbaby, by Dennis Rawlings.) One of the first uses of PC-based astro software was in research, and while there are many astro-research programs as well as databases of tens of thousands of charts (from Lois Rodden, a major data collector) and many years of work expended, there has yet to be any significant results. In this regard, I might contrast mindless computerized number-crunching that produced nothing of note, with Charles Carter's 1954 final edition of An Encyclopaedia of Psychological Astrology (Astrology Classics, 2003), where he gives definitive results. Astrology requires intelligence, which computers, I think, suppress. At the present time, 2012, astrology is undergoing the most intense revival in its entire history. Astrology is transforming itself from the inside out. The books now available outstrip virtually everything of a quarter-century ago. (I am in the trade, I have them on the shelf.) Unlike the 1930's with newspaper astrology, and unlike Alan Leo, this is not at this time a popular movement, but the energy behind it will eventually make itself known. A lot of this history is word-of-mouth. If you're waiting for another Jim Tester (you don't know of him and his book, A History of Western Astrology?), you will wait in vain. Here are some sources. Note they are "in universe" so you will have to get your hands dirty. A History of Horoscopic Astrology, by James H. Holden, AFA. Two editions, the most recent. c. 2009, I regret I don't have a copy this week. An essential reference. Astrological Pioneers of America, by James H. Holden and Robert A. Hughes, AFA, 1988. An excellent source of short bios. Includes significant UK astrologers in the back. You can get sources for most of what I've written from the two Holden books. Which are exhaustively referenced. Also: Flirting With the Zodiac, by Kim Farnell, Wessex Astrologer, 2007. Foreseeing the Future, and, What Evangeline Adams Knew, by Karen Christino, both published by One Reed Publications. 2002 and 2004, respectively. The Astral Tramp, A Biography of Sepharial, by Kim Farnell, Ascella Publications, 1998. For a longer historical sweep, The Fated Sky, Astrology in History, by Benson Bobrick, Simon & Schuster, 2005. Nicholas Campion has written various astro-history books, all of which, in my view, unjustifiably add a religious element to the subject and are flawed as such. Astrology is not now, nor has it ever been, a religion. I suspect Campion is still afraid of the Vagrancy Act. There are numerous secondary books in print at the moment, among them a biography of Al H. Morrison, a minor figure, as well as a history of Belgian astrology in WWII, a translation by the tireless Holden. Such is astrology at the start of the 21st century. It is alive and well. I have only hit highlights. There is a parallel history for 20th century Indian astrology, but I am not the person to write it. Aside from Vedic astrology, there are very few sources for 20th century Asian astrology. Chinese astrology, aside from the animal of the year, has traditionally been the emperor's secret, as is so much of Chinese knowledge. It is only slowly being externalized. So far as European astrology, aside from the English, the Germans (Ebertin and Krafft, both of whom are well-known), and Morin (who was revived), what little is known is inside James H. Holden's head. He frankly surprised me with his book on Belgian astrology. He's in his late 80's. If he hasn't written it, it will die with him. Holden is worth a special mention. He was an early student of Morin, as revived in the 1970's by the mysterious Gerhard Houwing, who went under a variety of names. For decades Holden sat, neglected, making translations of many ancient texts, but without a publisher to print them. It was only the success of Hindsight that gave the AFA the confidence to publish Holden's many translations. While it's Hindsight that gets the credit for the current revival, it's the work of Holden and others like him that is driving it. Dave of Maryland (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry, Dave, but the sources listed for all this are all unreliable in-universe sources. Unfortunately, independent real-world scholars mostly ignore modern astology and rarely write anything about it, so it's really hard to find reliable sources for the recent history of the topic. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC) On the other hand, there's a hell of a lot of knowledge there. Dave,you should write it up for a source other than Wikipedia, don't know what, maybe a popular history magazine. But any outlet that is broader than astrology will want you to address some of the wider implications. Does any of this matter? Have these developments in astrology affected popular cultures? By the way, whatever problems there are in Campion's writing, the notion that you can write about the pre-20th century history of astrology without relating it to religion is barmy. The history of ideas in the West is the history of religion, simple as that, up to mid 19th century at least. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Astrowiki [[1]] is a good candidate. Agree about Campion. He's written some good peer-reviewed work on the history of astrology. Such a shame that he decided to self-publish his magnum opus instead of subjecting it to peer-review, though. However, he hasn't produced any reliable work on the history of modern astrology. Whether you like him or not, he is one of the major figures in modern astrology. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Hello you sad people: The only detail in my entire history which is not widely accepted is the linkage of Robson and Krishnamurti, which is my own observation. You should be able to judge independently of academic sources. This "in universe" stuff is your own invention, that you cling to it sounds very much like hysteria. If you have not, yourself, examined the "in universe" sources I cited, you are not qualified to pass judgement on them. Holden's book, for example, has been a standard reference since it was first published 15 years ago. You could turn it inside out and hold it upside down, you would not get it as boiled down as I've made it. So far as the sources I gave, Jim Tester was an accepted academic. His hostility to astrology drips from almost every page, you will love him. And so far as academics go, they haven't yet bothered with the 20th century astrology as a whole. By the time they get to it, the major figures will all be dead (half of them are dead already), their papers and libraries will be scattered and lost, and therefore, as with the 19th century, there will be no history at all. Which is what you want, that astrology "disappears." Presently we are trying to find a home for what's left of Evangeline Adams' papers. PS: AstroWiki is a ghetto. I want no part of it. Dave of Maryland (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. You're not even in the right forest. If you wish to contribute to the project, I suggest you thoroughly read and understand our core policies and guidelines: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Further discussion is pointless unless it respects and is framed to conform to those policies and guidelines. Also read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Hello Dominus. I understand the core policy only too well: Astrologers are not qualified to speak for themselves, as astrology is a pseudoscience. Astrology is only acceptable if published by known academics. Which, as academics condemned astrology centuries ago, this means that astrology is excluded. I caution, with all great sincerity, that Wiki's pseudoscience attitude, when it was employed by others in the past, has led to loss of livelihood, loss of income, and even loss of life. It's Wiki's pseudoscience policy that needs revision, and I do not flatter myself that it will be changed. You've got to offer something better than "go home and learn your lesson." In making astrology and astrologers outcasts, the rules for deviancy come into play. You do not want that, you do not want to encourage that. Dave of Maryland (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Dave of Maryland (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC) You should read up about peer review. We're more than happy to let astrologers speak for themselves, to demonstrate the crazy nonsense they believe in. We just don't treat it like fact. I remember when wiki's skeptical attitude was "was employed by others in the past" and we got a germ theory of disease. All those innocent germs destroyed, all those charlatans losing their income/livelihood. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC) I would be saying the same if it was history of teapot collecting. Have a look at WP:HISTRS. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

History of science sidebar

I added the History of Science sidebar since the History of astrology comes under the remit of History of science in three ways.

1. Astrology used to be a science in the days of natural philosophy when it was studied as a science and although it is not a science now, the history of astrology is part of the history of science.
2. Part of the history of science involves pseudoscience and 'its' history, astrology also falls under that.
3. At the top of this very talk page are notices indicating the interest of this article to Wikipedia groups interested in science and history of science.

I therefore suggest that the history of science sidebar 'is' appropriate. Opinions? Neuropsychiatry (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It's part of the history of science in so far as it's something that was decimated with the birth of science. It was never a natural science or anything like that. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, here's a quote from Whitman's Astrology: A History, p. 59:

"Ptolemy provides a clear philosophical statement of an astrology firmly anchored in the science of his time. That this science is no longer convincing in modern terms should not blind us to Ptolemy's achievement, which became all the more significant in the age of Islam and Christianity, for had the influence of the stars and planets still been attributed to the pagan deities, it is hard to see how astrology could have survived at all in the post-classical world. Only by shifting the ground of astrology so that it was a matter of natural science, could it merit serious consideration by Christian or Islamic thinkers."

And here's a quote from page 114: "Astrology was part of the system of medieval sciences, and as such it interacted with other fields of learning."

And one more from pp. 180-81: "The boundaries between occult science and natural science in the years 1550-1770 are by no means easy to understand, for it is well known that, while the foundations of modern science were being laid, many of the leading thinkers retained a strong interest and belief in the occult, including astrology."

--Other Choices (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013 Edit

Other choices is attempting to insert text which deigns to give astrology the appearance of respectability. The source being used is not an academic publication, nor by an academic. The text also includes plagiarism. The publisher, Simon & Schuster, publish amongst other things new age material, self help books and spiritual material, stuff published under them is not automatically reliable for these claims and it also makes claims that are demonstrably false (e.g Kepler College was never accredited), nor do any of these mainstream universities teach astrology (History of astrology != teaching Astrology). The text also makes an implication that the most reliable sources disagree with, as such its inclusion is WP:UNDUE, and violates WP:FRINGE, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism- Text copied and pasted highlighted
In recent years, astrology has been making a resurgence in western countries. For the first time since the Renaissance, astrology is beginning to be taught at the university level in western countries, including England, France, Russia, Germany, and the United States. It is estimated that there are around 15,000 full-time and over 200,000 part-time astrologers in the United States.

IRWolfie just broke WP:3RR. Perhaps there are extraordinary circumstances that justify such an action. Is this one of them?

The text I introduced closely follows a reliable source. IRWolfie's statement that the publisher, Simon & Schuster, "is not automatically reliable for these claims" doesn't bother to mention what claims he's talking about. That's pretty sloppy for somebody who just broke WP:3RR. The author, Benson Bobrick, is a mainstream author on historical subjects. A google search reveals that he got a Ph.D from Columbia University. Whether or not the universities that Bobrick listed "teach" astrology is perhaps a question of semantics. What are the names of the courses in question? If a university offers a course in the history of astrological thought (for example), then perhaps "teach astrology" should be modified to read "teach astrology-related subjects." For pseudoscience, is it acceptable for wikipedia editors to minutely examine the content of a mainstream reliable source?

And regarding the really obnoxious accusation of plagiarism, it's not plagiarism if the source is cited, and I cited Bobrick twice!--Other Choices (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:PLAGFORM: "Forms of plagiarism ... Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text.". Secondly having a PhD does not mean what one writes outside of academia is inherently reliable, and this narrative book is written outside of academia, was not published by an academic publisher, and Bodrick is not an academic or established expert on the history of astrology. Teaching astrology and teaching the history of astrology are vastly different, and it is not a matter of semantics, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

For universities teaching astrology in the U.S., the source (p7) only names Kepler College, an unaccredited institution. This cannot possibly amount to a "resurgence" of astrology, at least in the U.S. Vzaak (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that "resurgence" seems a little too enthusiastic. There are a handful of astrology classes at some institutions, but that's not really news. bobrayner (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@ IRWolfie, from the same section at WP:PLAGFORM: "Make sure the material being copied or closely paraphrased is not too long if the work is copyrighted. A few sentences would rarely be problematic." My close paraphrase of Bobrick amounted to exactly three sentences, clearly cited.

@Bobrayner, it would be easy to change "resurgence" to something like "renewed interest." I agree that it's not really news that there are a handful of astrology classes at some institutions. I found a mainstream reliable source that supports this fact, and another editor seeks to block inclusion of this from the article.--Other Choices (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As IRWolfie- pointed out, see WP:UNDUE, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". It is a tiny minority indeed that thinks a single unaccredited institution in the U.S. offering an astrology course amounts to "renewed interest" in astrology. Hard to get tinier than that. Your campaign here is forlorn, don't waste time with it. Vzaak (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

To quote from page 7 of Bobrick: "In England, courses in the subject are now offered at Brasenose College, Oxford; Bath Spa University College; the University of Southampton; and the University of Kent. It can also be studied at Cardiff University in Wales, the Bibliotheca Astrologica in France, the University of Zaragoza in Spain, Dogus University in Turkey, Benares Hindu University in northern India, and at Kepler College in the United States, among other schools."--Other Choices (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am able to click on the link that I supplied. You are still no closer to convincing others to that an exception should be made to WP:UNDUE. If your problem is with WP:UNDUE itself, this talk page is not the place to address it. Vzaak (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak, your condescending tone borders on rudeness. Please lighten up. I think that your citation of WP:UNDUE is irrelevant to the issue at hand here. If you could please quote the part of WP:UNDUE that you think is relevant, that would help. In this case, it's not about the views of a tiny minority. Bobrick is a mainstream reliable source for the EXISTENCE of astrology study at a handful of universities -- for the first time since the Renaissance, which is a significant development in the history of astrology. If other reliable sources deny the existence of astrology courses at the above-listed schools, then questions of the relative weight of sources come into consideration.--Other Choices (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

So you are no longer arguing for "resurgence" or "renewed interest"? Now it's just "existence"? Vzaak (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The word "resurgence" was used by the mainstream reliable source, so the use of that word in the article seems appropriate on that ground alone. Another editor questioned the use of the word, so I indicated that it wouldn't be difficult to find other terminology, such as "renewed interest." I was showing flexibility and willingness to cooperate with other editors; I was suggesting, not arguing. I used the word "existence" in a different, but related context -- the existence of the study of astrology at institutions of higher learning (after an absence of 300 years or so) is documented in a mainstream reliable source (Bobrick), and I tried to add that to the article. Do you have a problem with that?

--Other Choices (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the number of accredited, respected universities that are offering astrology "for real", as in teaching it as a viable method of divination -- not history of astrology, not sociology of astrology, not psychology of astrology, etc --, is approximately zero. I don't believe there is anything resembling a "resurgence" in astrology. I also don't believe, as the book states, that astrology is "knocking again at the doors of academe", a claim that I frankly find absurd. This looks like a fringe view held by an extreme minority, possibly one person. It should be omitted per WP:UNDUE. Vzaak (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your "I don't believe" statements make me think of WP:TRUTH. Perhaps worth a re-read. My understanding is that as wikipedia editors we should strive to follow the reliable sources, no matter what our personal beliefs. That is what I attempted to do with my edit. If you know of any mainstream reliable sources that contradict Bobrick, the please by all means bring them to the discussion and to the article. But your judgment about whether Bobrick represents an extreme minority fringe view appears, so far at least, to be both WP:OR and WP:POV.

Here is the entire paragraph from Bobrick, page 7: "Astrology in modern times has undergone a remarkable resurgence, and is now (as Carl Jung predicted it would) knocking again at the doors of academe. Astrologers are attempting to verify traditional doctrine by scientific methods and in general to meet the demand of Johannes Kepler (one of its true believers) that they 'separate the gems from the slag.' In a number of countries, including England, France, Russia, Germany, and the United States, astrology is once again being taught at the university level, for the first time since the Renaissance. In England, courses in the subject are now offered at Brasenose College, Oxford; Bath Spa University College; the University of Southampton; and the University of Kent. It can also be studied at Cardiff University in Wales, the Bibliotheca Astrologica in France, the University of Zaragoza in Spain, Dogus University in Turkey, Benares Hindu University in northern India, and at Kepler College in the United States, among other schools. Scholarly journals such as Culture and Cosmos (A Journal of the History of Astrology and Cultural Astronomy), the Dublin Astrologer (The Journal of the Dublin Astrological Centre), and Apollon (The Journal of Psychological Astrology), have begun to establish themselves, while the prestigious Warburg Institute in London recently created a "Sophia Fellowship" for astrological research."

--Other Choices (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous; astrology isn't "knocking again at the doors of academe". The view of the scientific community contradicts Dobrick. WP is not netural when it comes to science; it sides with mainstream science. WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE serve to exclude such pseudoscientific views. Consider my "I don't believe" as being short for "I don't believe there is a chance in hell that WP policies would allow the statement". Vzaak (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your statement about "the view of the scientific community" appears to be nothing but bluster. This isn't about science vs. astrology -- you might want to go over to the Astrology article for that one. This article is an article about history. You haven't cited a single reliable source to back up your vague statement that "the view of the scientific community contradicts Dobrick." In what regard? Please clarify, and I'd appreciate a citation please (from mainstream reliable sources, of course), and not just a sweeping dismissive generalization.--Other Choices (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Other Choices, Vzaak was quite specific and has indicated why the material is undue and unreliable at a basic level, I suggest you re-read what has been written, and then re-read WP:FRINGE. Secondly, copying three sentences is plagiarism. As I said at FTN, I doubt the history of astrology ever disappeared from being researched, and that list does not distinguish astrology groups from universities. I just checked one of the fellowships in the mainstream universities, and as I thought [2], the Sophia fellowship is for looking at the history of astrology. It's this conflation in the source with studying the history of astrology == resurgence of astrology that is utterly undue and clearly unreliable from a basic fact checking point of view, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, I did not "copy three sentences." Please stop harassing me.

Regarding the rest of your comment, your criticism of Bobrick's "conflation" is actually reasonable cause to stay away from this source on this topic, in my opinion.--Other Choices (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

-Other Choices (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is about history of belief in astrology. The book indeed brings in science vs. astrology by suggesting that astrology is gaining acceptance in acedeme "for real" (not history of astrology, not psychology of astrology, etc.). The scientific community is unequivocal in stating that astrology is in no way a respectable scientific discipline. The apparently serious claim of "knocking again at the doors of academe" is excluded via WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Again, this is not a ruling on WP:TRUTH but a consequence of WP not being unbiased when it comes to science.

Add to this IRWolfie-'s point about the author's confusion between history of astrology and astrology "for real". From your last comment it looks like you already agree: this source is ruled out, right? Vzaak (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving on

I think it may be worth explaining how astrology continues to capture the imagination of the uneducated, the superstitious, the willfully ignorant, and certain religions. However, it is certainly not capturing the imagination of serious academics in anything but a meta way. Academics do study how astrology continues to be promulgated as a cultural idea, but nobody takes its particular claims seriously any more than one would take the claims of any other pseudoscience seriously. In fact, academia has become somewhat more hostile even to using astrology as a starting point for investigation as critiques of Freud and Jung have become more the norm in psychology departments, for example. There are plenty of sources to be had that can expand on this point. jps (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Bad ISBN

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #72: "ISBN-10 with wrong checksum", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

Houlding, Deborah, 2010. Essays on the history of western astrology. Nottingham: STA. ISBN 1-899503-55-9.

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)