Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moreschi (talk | contribs) at 19:01, 29 March 2011 (→Astrology practice and theory discussed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Astrology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 7 days

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

Template:WP1.0

	Astrology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 11, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 13, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Astrology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Occult This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

This article is undergoing revision. A proposed draft is located at Talk:Astrology/Workpage.

Archives

Dec 2001 - Aug 2005 Sept 2005 - Dec 2005 Jan 2006 - mid-Feb 2006 mid-Feb 2006 - End of April 2006 May 2006 Early June 2006 Mid June 2006 Early July 2006 End of July 2006 July 2006 - End of 2006 End of 2006 - May 2007 June 2007 – March 2009 February 2009 – April 2010 Oct 2010 – /Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Where is Dean's Time Twin Study?

No policy, guideline or source-based reason to continue this discussion. Closed by WLU Reopened Robertcurrey (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In the Research section, it states "...For example, when testing for cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, one study of 2000 astrological "time twins" born within minutes of each other did not show a celestial influence on human characteristics. ..." and refers to Dean and Kelly's paper

So, at the time of publication of Dean and Kelly's paper in 2003, Dean's Time Twin study had not been published. p.188 "A more powerful test was made possible by data from a study unconnected with astrology (Dean, forthcoming) involving 2,101 persons, born in London during 3-9 March 1958." In Kelly and Dean's 22 page paper, there is only a page and half of information devoted to the test. It contains a very general outline, some conclusions and a small table. There is no other data, analysis or explanation. This is clearly a 'trailer' prior to publication of the full study.

Could anyone direct me to Dean's published Time-Twin test as I would like to review it for a paper for a Journal or update me on the status?

1. Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi?

RobertCurrey (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting but flawed study; the reason being that it is entirely based on the presumptions linked to a simplistic application of western sun-sign astrology. A key assumption of the statistical part of the study is that births reported on the same day, from 5 or more minutes apart, can be assumed to be meaningfully comparable. Contrast this with hindu astrologers, which practice horoscopic astrology that relies critically on the rising sign in interpreting and predicting the karmic expression over the life time as seen in the birth chart (kundali). In this effort, the exact rising degree is critical. For them, the key assumption of the study would be seen as a ridiculous one. This is because they know that the ascendant, which begins the description of a persons attributes, moves on average 1 degree every 4 minutes. Even if the time is close, the location also has an influence on the ascending degree. Hence, both an identical time and place are needed for the horoscope to be identical and valid for such a comparison. In some of the cases compared, the subjects compared would have different rising signs and dramatically different karmic expression. Even with a difference of a few degrees in the ascendant for the same rising sign, the divisional charts, planetary periods and aspects involving house degrees could be sufficiently different to expect a very different outcome for each subject. Horoscopic astrology is a study of human beings, which in real life tend to be amazingly unique, such that no two persons are really identical. Even twins who have close apperance reveal a range of subtle differences. Why should we expect identity when the difference in rising sign exceeds even one degree? To assume astrology yields identical results in such cases is stretching what astrology is or can be. Until scientific studies take such critical factors into consideration, they fail to give meaningful insight into the validity of astrology. Despite such failures, the authors proudly conclude "A large-scale test of time twins involving more than one hundred cognitive, behavioural, physical and other variables found no hint of support for the claims of astrology." Erekint (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Erekint. Have you seen the study or are you assessing it from the synopsis in Dean & Kelly (2003)? I don't yet have enough information to form a judgement. If you have seen the full paper or if anyone knows of its existence, please could you provide a link or details of the publication. Robertcurrey (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The subjects were born 5 or less minutes apart (not 5 or more...) and many of them were born at virtually the exact same instant and thus had identical charts in every way. And astrology wouldn't need to show "identical" results to prove its efficacy--just similar enough to be statistically significant. IOW people with identical charts should at least be more similar to each other than to a random sample of the population. Without that being true it debunks the entire field of astrology. I.e. if the charts don't mean anything then they don't mean anything. Mystylplx (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Dean's paper has not yet been published but I anticipate that it will happen imminently.

I emailed Dr. Dean requesting detailed information on his Time Twin study. On 14th June 2010 he responded: "The data you refer to has now been updated, with a more-than-doubling of its number of subjects and number of variables. But putting this huge database into a form that can be analysed (not every variable is available for every subject) is taking huge amounts of time. Until this stage is completed, and the analyses finished, there is essentially no results that can be reported."

The highly cited preliminary results of Dean's time twins study, which were touched upon in little more than two paragraphs in his lengthy psi article, leave a lot of questions unanswered with regard to scientific premise, method, and analysis. I don't think Dean ever intended such a minor, indirect reference to become the icon of scientific refutation that many astrology critics have tried to make of it.

Dean's correspondence suggests that he is attempting to develop the complex parameters required to capture the results of astrologically associated outcomes. For a fair test, this would be the necessary method over the crude approach involving only a few very specific outcomes that were suggested in his psi article.Apagogeron (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Apagogeron, two points regarding your statement "I don't think Dean ever intended such a minor, indirect reference to become the icon of scientific refutation that many astrology critics have tried to make of it." First, the authors offer a rather firm conclusion in the 2003 article, as cited in my comment above. It is therefore hard to suggest they meant nothing by it. It would be good if they considered in their present work to make their methodology sensitive to the traditional horoscopic astrology of the hindus, which has remained unchanged for thousands of years. Importantly, as described in my comment above, Hindu astrology is very sensitive to the exactness of time. Second, you are right about the grasping for straws of astrology critics to denounce astrology, including this flawed study. It is evident in this dictionary article, for instance, that many editors here gladly accept the statement of the 186 scientists as one more nail in the coffin of astrology's credibility while at the same time ignoring Feyerabend's thoughtful criticism of it. The key point being that ignorance suffused by arrogance is not a helpful approach for the acquisition of knowledge.

To study astrology, it is helpful to know what it really is. In a few words, astrology can be seen to be a study of human karma and consciousness. As such, causality in astrology is seen to be sensitive to human conduct, including acts or thoughts aimed at appealing to the the grace of the divine through e.g. penance, sacrifice, chanting, meditation and prayer. In other words, it is believed that the expression of negative karma can be modified by our own conduct. This is why hindu or vedic astrology (jyotisha) is considered the sixth limb of the Vedic scriptures, also known as the science of human enlightenment. How can that interaction be scientifically captured by simplistic correlation studies? Due to the complexity of astrology, it does not lend itself well to a study of simplistic mecahnical causality, like it were supposed to be a part of the physics of crude matter as some preceptors of materialism preach. Astrology is a study first and last of human consciosuness. In some sense, while mass and energy form an identity in modern materalist physics, we can say that energy is one qualitative octave above matter. Consciousness, the domain of idealism, while in some sense a part of an identity triad including matter and energy, is, in turn, one qualitative octave above energy. While the three are fully integrated and cannot be separated, in some sense, the qualitative distance between matter and conciousness is signficant. Citing one great vedic master (and expanding) "as matter and energy cannot judge mind, but mind can judge matter and energy, it is the mind that is most important." The conclusion: "idealism is superior to materialism" as an epistemological framework for understanding the universe. In short, a more nuanced approach is needed to either gain confidence in or the rejection of such a rarified field of study as astrology is. This is brought out by the fact that in life, an unkind word can have greater negative and long lasting impact on a person than a physical blow. One can sense some crude beginning of a comprehension of this fact in the Dean et al study, but even it is full of shortcomings as noted above, suggesting a rather typical limit in the understanding of the subject matter. Finally, astrology, as a field of study and practice, is full of contradictions and confusions, giving ample scope for misuse and error by lesser practitioners. In this a determined effort to enhance the rules of interpretation and prediction through scientific study would certainly be very helpful. Precluding effective cooperation seems be the important episemological gap, which is based on the fact that competent astrologers of the east are beholden to idealism while scientists of the west have a materialistic outlook on life. An amuzing afterthought, who should really subject the other to the test of the natural laws of human consciousness? Erekint (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Dean himself was an astrologer and 'true believer' who wrote a book about astrology where, among other things, he advocated the scientific study of astrology because he believed it would be proven accurate in this way. After 40 years of various studies into astrology Dean is no longer a believer. Mystylplx (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be unwise to assume Dr Dean’s position on astrology, Mystylplx. He is now a CSI (formerly CSICOP) fellow – an organisation where the party line has a history of being uncompromising with subjects like astrology even in the face of evidence (see Ertel & Irving The Tenacious Mars Effect, 1996 or sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins (co-founder of CSICOP)). However, many astrologers have found Dean to be very helpful and none of his own studies including his very promising study Unaspected Planets, have been completed. A case in point is the phantom Time Twin Study (forthcoming) – which is still much trumpeted and widely cited by sceptics – but it now turns out that seven years after it was originally promised in a paper on Astrology and Psi, it was never published and will not be published, but that he will submit entirely new results with new additional data. Robertcurrey (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless anyone can present a valid objection, I propose that all references to the Dean’s Time Twin Study (unpublished) here and anywhere else on Misplaced Pages are deleted and that Dean’s new test is considered for inclusion after it has been peer reviewed and the data published in an appropriate journal. Robertcurrey (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to Robertcurrey's proposal. Dean's "time twins" is minimally reported (essentially only two paragraphs) and it lacks the proper qualifications of full disclosure of where the source data came from, possible issues with the astrological premise, alternative hypotheses, visible analysis, and so on. It's an unfair claim.

My concern is that Dean's claim is already so well known and loved by astrology critics that, despite its obvious flaws and lack of credibility, there will always be many people who will see it's not included and put it back. There aren't any fair studies to replace it with and no one wants to wait for the promised article.

The "time twins" is an interesting, and perhaps unique, case where the study is so lacking in substance that it has managed to slip though the cracks of normal scientific discourse, which gives the false impression of acceptance. The whole astrological time twins belief, as well as the famous Dean time twins anti-claim, may have no relevance at all to astrology other than their dubious quality of good urban legends. As I've mentioned to Dean, I'm sure there are skeptics on both sides of this issue concerning anything as highly deterministic as time twins, especially as Dean conceives of them. Any mention of Dean's time twins should at least mention the anticipated complete study on which it is based, which is still forthcoming. Apagogeron (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that the main criticism I'd offer to Dean's time twins test is that the design does not take into account astrological "eminence." The matches were made on the basis of things such as illnesses, marriage, etc., which from a planetary perspective would be nearly random because numerous factors could contribute to them. You'd need a ginormous amount of data to even come near finding an astrological effect. To overcome this problem, the study should test for a convergence of eminence, as other successful astrological research has done. At this point in astrological research eminence criteria should be a requirement. A good design would be to have each subject take a standard personality test, such as the CPI, and see if there is a convergence of scores that co-varies with convergence to twin state. This would show an eminence effect, if there is one. However, we don't know if the participants ever took a personality test because Dean doesn't say and he does not reveal his source. He must cite his source to avoid this criticism and the possibility that he's just making it all up! He should find a way to test for eminence, or else the test has very little value because the known methods that produce results need to be part of the design. Apagogeron (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As discussed above, I intend to amend the Research Section by removing the sentence "For example, when testing for cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, one study of 2000 astrological "time twins" born within minutes of each other did not show a celestial influence on human characteristics." and the words "other" from the following sentence. If anyone has an objection, please state your case. Robertcurrey (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology bannings

Please see . Moreschi (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

PS - do people want this unprotected now? Moreschi (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you think would be best, considering we should probably restore some of the deleted content (see next)? — kwami (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Give it a try, but semi-protection should remain in place. If more meet up and behave the same way, just revert and move on. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things on the bans - first, it is childish, but I am not surprised that it has once again happened on this topic.

One of the problems with those who say they are anti-astrology is that these are the people most unqualified to write on the topic.

It is odd that those with knowledge of the topic, mainly astrologers who have studied the subject, or those who are historians of astrology, would be 'banned,' citing POV. Is not Misplaced Pages an encyclopedia?

Those citing 'pseudoscience' have not proven their case against Astrology at all. Opinion is one thing, but facts are another. Astrology has plenty of history to include, so those who complain loudly are those who are pushing personal views onto an encyclopedia - which has no place.

Moreover, the subject can be argued on the Talk Page, but the constant POV and personal bias on astrology has disrupted the Astrolog Page. Moreover, if Astrology was a pseudo-science, we've seen no evidence, nor proof on this matter, but conjecture and opinion.

That is because astrology is not seriously studied by scientists, because the assumption is that it is not worth researching. No one researches the virgin birth either. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Another thing is that arguments 'for' or 'against' astrology, including those who have obvious POV on this topic belongs elsewhere and not on the Astrology Page. The point of any Misplaced Pages page is to provide as much knowledge as possible on any subject, again, in encyclopedia form.

These 'bans' clearly show that the person who instigated and enforced the bans should be removed since they obviously are not well-informed on the subject, nor on Misplaced Pages's guidelines on POV. Eagle Eye 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the fact that you haven't edited the encyclopedia for 2 years I'm assuming one of your buddies was banned and now you've come here to express your opinion on the matter. Please do not pick up where they left off. On the other hand, now that you're back here please do put yourself to work on any of our millions of articles that all need attention. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually Griswaldo, you assumed wrong. You see, this is the problem here. You make a presumption, then run with it as if it were true when it is not. I do not know any of the people you assume are my 'buddies.' This is a clear example of POV that does not follow Wikipeda's guidelines of being neutral. This is an encyclopedia Griswaldo, it is not a place for you to rooster sit on a topic you obviously have problems with yourself. The Astrology page is also one of those 'millions' of articles on Misplaced Pages that need attention. What is your point? Cheers.Eagle Eye 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we save some of the pro-astrology contributions?

Given that many of the editors above have been banned, and that the article is protected for a month, can the rest of us agree that some of their suggestions are nonetheless worthwhile? I trust that I won't be seen as having a COI if I add an astrologer's perspective to the article! Basically, I was thinking of treating this as, say, the MOS, which is protected but which people edit after proposing new wording on the talk page. How about I propose some changes here; if they're not acceptable, just reword them or delete them entirely. (That's one way of preventing this discussion from ballooning out of control: We agree from the beginning that any of these suggestions that does not improve the article is simply deleted, with the justification in the edit summary rather than on the page.) Or support or object to them in whole or in part. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede

I think these are all from Costmary:

• changed: fate – given the link, it maybe should be destiny
• changed: the placement of the seven planets – we need to link this (seven planets or classical planets), and maybe explain it on the page. (It's also only historically accurate, and perhaps should be reworded.)
• changed: relative to each other and to the signs of the zodiac – link signs and add houses?
• changed (partial): a combination of basic astronomy, mysticism, and divination – add some or all of the following (don't want it too wordy, though): numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism, and remove divination
• add: some mention of horoscope in the lede, though the proposed wordings have been heavy on jargon and not very informative.
• added: Historically astrology was regarded as a technical and learned tradition, sustained in royal courts, cultural centers, and medieval universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.
• deleted: Some astrologers see astrology as a broadly symbolic language, one in which only general themes of life, love, and death are implicated; others see more direct and specific influences on human and mundane affairs. – I have never understood what this was supposed to mean, and the astrologers don't seem enamored with it either.
• added: Astrology has always been a controversial subject. Even within the field, the extent of its determinism and of its application have been debated. – Add a note on the opposition of various religious traditions (free will, etc.).
• added: Astrology lost its standing in the 17th–18th centuries when it was disowned by Enlightenment thinkers / the Age of Reason.
• added: In the latter half of the 20th century astrology experienced a resurgence of popular interest as a founding component of the New Age movement.

This is a great idea. Both fair and good for the article. Thanks for extracting it. I support adding them, and any other non-pseudoscience-related information, either through draft/admin addition or non-protected editing once the PP is lifted. Ocaasi 22:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems good to me, apart from the last - we need a source that (a) shows evidence for the 'resurgence' and (b) states the significance of astrology to New Age thinking - though that might be difficult, given the difficulty of establishing what 'New Age' really means. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I know sources were supplied somewhere; I remember reading that astrology was fringe even in the popular conception as late as the 1950s. — kwami (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking to source in that regard? The the New Age movement is intimately tied to astrology as the term "New Age" refers to the astrological Age of Aquarius. Griswaldo (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. (Silly me.) — kwami (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, there are proposals to completely rewrite the lede, but only agreement to these changes themselves, so I added most of them in. I didn't add the Kassell ref, since there are comments below about too many refs in the lede. — kwami (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Lede

Thanks kwami. Before addressing costmary’s and your proposals for an enhanced version of the lede – in which I was not involved, I would like to propose an alternative. In my view though the proposed joint changes were mostly great improvements, the original lede is confusing, too wordy, inaccurate, contentious (even among astrologers), cumbersome and confusing and appears to be the result of years of argument and compromise. And here I am not even considering any issues of bias.

I would like to put forward what I consider a clearer description that embraces astrology initially in a very general way. The second paragraph would describe the role of the planets, houses, aspects and the zodiac within the horoscope. This is followed by the history to modern times. It is in this section that Sun Sign astrology and the pseudoscience issue should be addressed.

Astrology is the study of the correlation between celestial phenomena and life, entities and geophysical processes. The field is a combination of astronomy, meteorology, philosophy, numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism, mysticism and divination. For most astrologers, the practice of astrology is more of an art and a craft than a science. Such astrologers work with a model of what they consider a coherent and meaningful pattern within the Cosmos. By translating this symbolic language, practitioners analyze the potential within any birth or launch moment and forecast on the basis of the solar, lunar and planetary cycles.

1) Pingree, David (1973). "Astrology". In Philip P. Wiener. The Dictionary of the History of Ideas. 1. New York: Scribner.

I don't believe that the original opening line was a verbatim quote from Pingree, but I believe that my comments are in line with his. I would like costmary's advice and ask that she contact me directly on my talk page on this and other matters.

Other than the Pingree quote, most standard references seem to follow an outdated model which states that the planets ‘influence’ which enables ‘predictions’. However, this does not fit with current practice which tends to favour the Hermetic maxim – as above, so below or the Jungian/Pauli model of synchronicity.

At this stage kwami, given the controversial and specialist nature of this field, I can only see advantage in your proposal of having editors post onto the talk page before editing. This does not solve the problem that the experts who might be able to contribute to any prior discussion have been banned and if I am not banned, acting as a 'guardian' of this and other astrology pages is not part of my life plan. I hope that others with expertise in astrology can get involved in the future. Robertcurrey (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence presupposes that there is a correlation, and I think it's a little too general - there are significant celestial phenomena which affect "life" but are very much the domain of real astrophysics rather than astrology. bobrayner (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

bobrayner I take your point that correlation is debatable. However, such correlations exist: Besides objective evidence for the Sun/Moon/tidal connection and other areas of natural astrology (that you classify exclusively as astrophysics, though has long been part of astrology) and the Gauquelin studies show a correlation between planetary positions at birth and eminence in specific areas that have been replicated.

How about: "Astrology is the study of and search for correlations between celestial phenomena and life, events and physical processes on Earth?" Robertcurrey (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Reality check

Since Robert Currey has proposed an alternate lede, and since you all seem geared up to discuss the lead let me post some intro paragraphs from other tertiary sources here as a point of comparison.

• Encyclopedia Britannica - "Astrology - type of divination that involves forecasting of earthy and human events through the observation and interpretation of the fixed stars, the Sun, the Moon, an the planets. Devotees believe that an understanding of the influence of the planets and stars on earthly affairs allows them to both predict and affect the destinies of individuals, groups, and nations. Though often regarded as a science throughout its history, astrology is widely considered today to be diametrically opposed to the findings and theories of modern Western science."
• Oxford's A Dictionary of Astronomy - "The supposed influence of the relative positions of the planets on people's personalities and events in their lives. In its modern form astrology is a pseudoscience, but in ancient times astrology and astronomy were intertwined. Often, the motive for keeping observational records was astrological. Ancient Chinese records of celestial events, from which the fortunes of entire dynasties were divined, are now of great value in the study of historical eclipses, novae, and comets."
• The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science - "Astrology is best defined as the set of theories and practices interpreting the positions of the heavenly bodies in terms of human and terrestrial implications. (The positions have variously been considered signs and, more controversially, causes.) The subject—and therefore its study—is fascinating, difficult, and often paradoxical. Although inextricably entangled with what are now demarcated as science, magic, religion, politics, psychology, and so on, astrology cannot be reduced to any of these. The historical longevity and cultural diversity of astrology are far too great for it to have been precisely the same thing in all times and places, yet it has always managed to reconstitute itself as much the same thing in the minds of its practitioners, public, and opponents alike. These points have particular relevance in relation to historians of science, who until recent decades predominantly analyzed astrology anachronistically as a “pseudo-science,” the human meanings of which could largely be derived from its lack of epistemological credentials."
• The Oxford Companion to Philosophy - "Up to the seventeenth century astrology overlapped with astronomy and cosmology . All studied the movements of heavenly bodies, assuming a Ptolemaic model of a finite universe composed of concentric circles with a motionless earth (neither rotating nor revolving) at the centre. Astrology is associated mainly with theories of celestial influences, understood as causal forces literally flowing down on to the static earth and bringing about all aspects of meteorological and biological change—winds, tides, and seasons, and generation, growth, corruption, and death. Astrology found a place in the deterministic view of nature woven into ancient philosophical systems—Aristotelian, Platonic, and Stoic—and their medieval and Renaissance derivatives. From antiquity, astrological practice supported fatalism , especially with the entry into medieval western Europe of Arabic sources. Casting horoscopes and ‘fortune-telling’, with its claims to relate a detailed pattern of the heavenly bodies at birth to all future events of one's life, was accused of denying free will, but condemnations did little to lessen astrology's popularity. Once the earth was shown to be a rotating and revolving planet, once an infinite universe replaced a finite one, and once genetics placed the causes for biological diversity and specificity within the organism rather than in the stars, there could be no scientific foundation for astrology whatsoever."

While none of these tertiary sources are identical in their treatment of astrology, I think there are some common threads that are worth noting. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I see several elements of those descriptions I think would be beneficial here. The EB calls it a "type of divination". That's an excellent opening. The DoA notes in its modern form it is a pseudoscience, and the OCHMS says similarly that scientists analyzed astrology anachronistically as a pseudoscience, a point we should perhaps make more clearly. I left out the free-will criticism above, but still think we should mention it. The OCHMS speaks of human implications, and clarifies that "The positions have variously been considered signs and, more controversially, causes." This is a point the astrologers here keep making, and which I added a token mention of when restoring CostMary's additions, but we should probably make the point more prominently.

I added those four points here, in case you'd like to review them. — kwami (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• It is also worth bearing in mind that we are not really the place for innovative research, so to speak. Misplaced Pages aims to be a somewhat bland recounting of what reliable sources tell us - we are not the venue for the latest exciting theories coming out of astrological conferences (or whatever). Some style points for the lede - the current version is arguably too wordy and has too many paragraphs - three longer paras should do it just fine. Also, inline citations need to be kept out of the lede, which simply should be a summary of the main article content. Just in case anyone was tempted. Moreschi (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • <brain fart> In fact, we have 12 inline cites in the lede right now. They all need to go, this is stylistically horrid. Moreschi (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I realise it's not considered stylistically optimal, but that's simply a consequence of the ideal that a lede should summarise the rest of the article so it shouldn't need a cite for something which is discussed and sourced in more detail at a later point. Nonetheless, cites can be very useful where content is controversial/disputed; and this article's content has been subject to dispute for the last decade. If we could get Astrology to a position where the main problem is "Too many cites", then we would have achieved a herculean feat, and I'd be a very happy man.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talk • contribs)

Many thanks are due Griswaldo for supplying such excellent sources for comparison. In particular, the definition in The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science seems to be a superb model of relative completeness that manages to remain succinct and coherent. As Moreschi pointed out, the lede shouldn't exceed 3 paragraphs (without references), so it would seem prudent to adopt a similar strategy for this article. Perhaps a structure something like this:

• 1st Paragraph: Definition of astrology with a brief but clear mention of its status as a pseudoscience.
• 2nd Paragraph: General overview of history.
• 3rd Paragraph: Discussion of astrology's multiregional/multicultural nature and development.

The current lede contains some information that is specifically related to astrologers rather than astrology; this could probably be moved down into the body of the article as it seems less directly relevant. Similarly, the (current) last paragraph of the lede is really an Etymology and should have a small separate section in the main body. Finally, since astrology predates Christianity and isn't generally a Christian practice, wouldn't it make sense for this article to use the more academic BCE/CE dating system, rather than the Euro-centric/Christian BC/AD convention?

I'm hoping that some of these suggestions might be helpful, but either way the lede should almost certainly be rewritten for brevity as well as overall flow and coherence. Doc Tropics 16:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It was easy enough to separate out the etymology to its own section and rearrange the rest into 3 paragraphs when I restored some of CostMary's additions (discussion above). We could probably add a more universal coverage, as you suggest, and also remove the stuff specific to astrologers. Do you have specific suggestions? And I agree w converting to CE notation. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Any definition of astrology that is based on a causal model in which the planets exert an influence or that astrology is about prediction, fatalism or determinism is at least 50 years out of date. (Natural astrology operates on this basis but this is only one part of the entire field.) From the Modern Text Book of Astrology (1956) by Margaret Hone “Certain traits of character and certain types of events appear to correlate with certain planetary relationships. He (the student) will be wise to drop the word influence which implies direct action.” She defines astrology as “a unique system of interpretation of the correlation of planetary action in human experience.” However, this does not cover mundane and natural astrology. (Hone's book remained the standard textbook used by astrology students in the UK into the '80s even though it was considered out of date at the time). Here are a few more definitions to consider, though I find them a little unsatisfactory in different ways:

"Modern astrology might be defined as the study of the movements of the Sun, Moon, and planets in relation to events on Earth, especially human personality and behavior; or, conversely, as the study of human affairs in relation to their cosmic environment. The central assumption of astrology is that the positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets at the birth of an individual or the beginning of an enterprise are related in a significant and observable manner to the intrinsic character and later development of that individual or enterprise." Helen Weaver (translation) from Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology. Reference:- Brau, Jean-Louis, Helen Weaver, Allan Edmands, Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology. New York, New American Library, 1982.

"Astrology is both the study of the ways in which significance for life on earth is located in celestial objects and the resulting practices. “ Dr Nicholas Campion, A History of Western Astrology, 2008, Hambledon Continuum.

"In this book 'astrology' means the study of correlations between living organisms (especially man) and extraterrestrial phenomena. It does not mean Lucky Stars or similar absurdities masquerading under the same name. Astrology has been a respectable subject for millennia; hence today's popular misconceptions hardly justify terminological repeal." Dr Geoffrey Dean, Recent Advances in Natal Astrology, (1977), Analogic. However, Dean's book also includes studies of natural astrology: earthquakes, sun spots, radio waves, climate.

Robertcurrey (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that has been mentioned several times. The lede currently says s.t. to that effect. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I just reworded the first line, per Griswaldo's sources, to reflect the POV that these may be signs rather than causes, so that is now displayed much more prominently. — kwami (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We're exactly nowhere, so back to basics

Reading the most recent discussions about astrology I am struck by the evidence of a fervent desire by some of the editors here to plead for an understanding and accommodation of their personal beliefs. Knowing I'll be burnt in effigy for saying so, I'm nevertheless bound to say that this is not what encylcopaedia are about. It is telling that a recent post suggested that the 'pro-astrology' ideas of banned editors be resurrected! So that the same arguments will be mounted again and again? If that is to be the case, the entry for astrology should read only: 'it is such an arcane branch of knowledge, beliefs and practice that it cannot be adequately defined in clear, plain English'. Is that really what anyone here wants?

So let's go back to basics. It seems already agreed that astrology concerns a set of practices and beliefs. Beliefs begin with epistemological assumptions and taxonomy, which lead to ontological propositions, including those about praxis. Each step in the journey through these steps in determining the nature of astrology closes off avenues not chosen, and therefore not available as defining features as well as those that were chosen. White can't be white as as well as black because that would make it gray, and thus neither white nor black. Taxonomy alone tells us that astrology is other than scientific. This doesn't make astrology 'wrong' or 'right'. It just makes it a methodology to derive meaning about people and events that cannot label itself a science while also remaining aloof from scientific methodology. To argue ad nauseam that astrology should not be discounted as a science, or that it deserves the same status as science, is an ideological, futile claim analogous to arguing that Soviet communism was a branch of Western capitalism. If that claim were to be made nonetheless, it must be subject to a credible cited reference in an appropriate section about opinions or controversies or contradictions.

On that basis I propose that we stop being 'sensitive' to those who want to have their cake and eat it too, and we shorten the introduction considerably to remove from it the currently implied notion that there is still somehow some doubt about the scientific status of astrology, or some 'special' status that deserves endless semiotic hair-splitting.

I propose the following --

Astrology is a metaphysical belief system relying on a set of traditions and practices to derive from observed positions of planets and stars information or meaning about human personality and activities, and about natural events. Characterized as a pseudoscience because its methodology is counter-scientific, it is nevertheless a craft practised by astrologers from antiquity to the modern era.

The word "astrology" comes from the Latin term astrologia ("astronomy"), which in turn derives from the Greek noun αστρολογία: ἄστρον, astron ("constellation" or "celestial body") and -λογία, -logia ("the study of"). Originally astronomy and astrology were closely linked by many scholars in theory and practice until the emergence of the discrete scientific discipline of astronomy during the European Renaissance.

The intro shouldn't be much longer than this. Other controversies, facets, intricacies and variants on themes belong in the body of the article, and can be labelled as such there.

As a complete aside, I got to the Misplaced Pages astrology page by way of a search for Mayan belief systems completely unrelated to my activities as a Misplaced Pages editor, and I was disappointed to see Mayan civilization mentioned by name without any detail or sources to tell me why the Mayans had been invoked here at all. In other words, we are still debating the semantics of the introduction but we appear to have some other problems elsewhere in the article we haven't even considered yet.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 16:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Since a huge amount of astrological verbiage is dedicated to denying that it's a pseudoscience, we do need to be clear in the lede that it is a pseudoscience. — kwami (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Astrology Page is not for that. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, it is not a place to conclude what is deemed a 'science' or what is deemed a 'pseudoscience.' Those arguments are more than specious and wholly ideological POV. It comes from those who need to clearly understand what an encyclopedia is - a vessel for as much knowledge as possible on any subject.

The so-called 'astrological verbiage' belongs on the subject of Astrology. Moreover, after a thorough review of the edits on the Astrology Page, I have found that not one editor on this topic has conclusively proven that Astrology is indeed a 'pseudoscience.' Not one.

Those demanding the 'pseudoscience' tag are clearly ideological and pushing POV that has no place on Misplaced Pages.

Moreover, the editors who were banned should be immediately unbanned as to allow the discussion to continue, showing Misplaced Pages Good Faith. One does not deny knowledge on any encyclopedia, but includes it.

Anyone who supports the 'ban' is therefore ideological and against the very concept of an encyclopedia and Misplaced Pages's guidelines of good faith. Eagle Eye 21:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs)

We don't need to prove that Astrology is a pseudoscience. We just need to show that this is the general viewpoint. This has been shown by the fact that 3 our of 4 encyclopedias refer to astrology as a pseudoscience. (the 4th uses a euphemism to the same effect). This is a POV that is true, but it is the dominant pov, and therefore according to WP:NPOV this is the viewpoint that should dominate the article. NPOV doesn't mean no criticism. It means weighing viewpoints according to their degree of general acceptance. It is generally accepted that Astrology is a pseudoscience. Therefore we write this.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, what are you getting at? Is my draft wording too unclear? Do you have alternative wording in mind? Maunus, you are persuasive, but I think it won't matter what you say to committed astrological contrarians. EagleEye, your argument didn't fly in December 2008, January 2009, and won't do as a recycled time-waster now. Complaints about user bans should be taken up in the appropriate administrator forum, but then you know that, don't you. BTW, your idiom has changed remarkably since December 2008. Been taking classes? It shows: much more elegant now than in 2008, but still not quite as crisp as it was in 2006. Regards - Peter S Strempel | Talk 00:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter, what my 'argument was in December 2008 has nothing to do with what we are talking about today. Moreover, you are in no position to tell me what my 'idiom' is? If you are to focus on the quality of the Page, then I suggest you focus on raising the quality of the page itself, rather than in member bashing - that fosters negativity, is rude, presumptuous and goes against Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Try maintaining good relations, assuming good faith, rather than using such specious comments which have nothing to do with improving the quality of the page. Cheers. Eagle Eye 05:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"Characterized as a pseudoscience" suggests that there's legitimate debate on the issue. The debate is framed in such a way that "consider" and "characterize" do not mean scientific consensus, but rather merely one POV out of many: Some scientists characterize it as a pseudoscience, but there has also been empirical support, and it's too early to know who will be proven right. There are innumerable variations on that argument, as when denying the validity of any consensus. What I've seen lately is that all of the empirical studies that have falsified astrology were based on misconceptions as to what it claims, that there have since been better-designed studies which support it, and that the scientific consensus is shifting toward support. So generally scientists consider it to be a PS, but their arguments are dated, and we are beginning to see the Truth. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, this debate has been put, resolved, disputed, and ruled on (see template at the top of this page). Unless and until your POV gains credibility through specific and credible references, the 2006 ruling stands. If you want to argue that ruling, do it on an administrator page, not here. Move on. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

...And if and when the scientific community recognises this 'Truth', we can revise the article. Until then, since astrology is making claims that are testable by scientific methods, but have not as yet been supported by such tests, it must be referred to as pseudoscience. You can't have it both ways. Saying it is 'True', and 'will later be shown to be by science' is a statement of belief, not of scientific reasoning, and basing claims of scientific 'truth' on faith is pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? — kwami (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You, kwami. Don't you recognise your own argument? Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I was showing why we shouldn't allow a foot in the door for that argument, not supporting the argument itself. But you see how easy it is to take "generally" or "characterize" to mean that there is legitimate debate. (Which, in case I'm still not being clear, there is not: Astrology is pseudoscience. Period.) — kwami (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The burden of proof lies on those who make claim that astrology works, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Noting that this article completely lacks any serious supporting evidence, that, in itself, supports the claim that it is pseudoscience. And since it is pseudoscience by any definition, I'm not sure what else there is.OrangeMarlin 03:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The way I read it neither AndyTheGrump nor I were confused at all about what we said. Until you, kwami, are published in a credible source, we are, alas, stuck with citing sources that fit that description. Nothing in an encyclopaedia just is; there must always be sources to cite who said so. We have the citation for who said astrology is a pseudoscience and no one appears overly confused about that, or are you, kwami? The word 'characterized' can be replaced easily enough. Nominate your alternative. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Synthesizing comments above, what about altering my proposed first sentence to read -

Astrology is a pseudoscientific, metaphysical belief system relying on a set of traditions and practices to derive from observed positions of celestial bodies meaning about human personality and activities, and about natural events.

This phrasing asserts pseudoscientific status (which I think was what kwami required), and refers to celestial bodies instead of specifying stars, planets and detritus (which I think addresses the quibble kwami had about mentioning stars).

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We once worded it similarly, but removed "pseudoscientific" as the first adjective after arguments that being pseudoscientific is not essential to astrology the way being divinational or about the planets is essential. That is, it is in essence astromancy, and it is the astro- (planets) and -mancy (divination) parts which are what it "is". Being pseudoscientific is a secondary matter. That was our one concession to the astrologers, as we thought they had a valid point in this case. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter, while I agree with you on being clear and concise, the above phrasing asserts something that has not be proved. It is conjecture that Astrology is a psedudoscientific..." I'm sure that a sentence, even a well-written paragraph could easily deal with the arguments about using this term, however, from the looks of it, what I understand is that those who want the term 'pseudoscience' placed high up are simply pushing POV - a clear sign of it. However, I do appreciate your work in trying to get common sense back into quality depictions that are concise and non-POV.Eagle Eye 05:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs) Eagle Eye 05:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

EagleEye: the matter of pesudoscience and POV has been adjudicated and arbitrated. We cannot address that decision here. If you feel it needs to be re-examined, go to the relevant administrator pages and raise your concerns there. Until the 2006 arbitration is overturned, 'pseudoscientific' stays as the correct phrasing. The scientific or other basis for that arbitration is not a valid subject for discussion here at all. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 05:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

17 edits, five users, less than 24 hours

This is insane, people. It's supposed to be an article, not quicksilver. So many edits so quickly, and yet the quality of the edits has done nothing to clarify the introduction. For example, what's this nonsense about astrology not really being about the position of the stars rather than planets, said in the same breath as emphasising the position of the planets in relation to the signs of the zodiac, which are incontrovertibly comprised entirely of stars? Pure internal contradiction, stemming from unclear thinking.

Why do we need to place the entire debate about astrology in the opening paragraphs? Every ill-considered wording tweak destroys the integrity of any sentence as a whole. Why rush into these edits? It's already clear that someone will undo/edit/revert soon enough if some kind of agreement isn't reached in talk first. Have you five recent editors read what the page now says? It's pretty close to meaningless gibberish, and will be different again by the time I finish this comment.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The signs of the zodiac have nothing to do with the stars, apart from being named after constellations. The ref under naming, from a well-respected astrologer, even goes so far as to say that "astrology" is a misnomer and that it should be "planetology". (A sign of the zodiac is 30° of space orientated relative to the vernal equinox. The names for the signs come from the constellations that happened to occupy them 3000 years ago. In Hindu astrology the signs are fixed relative to the stars, but they are not equivalent to the constellations, which are not 30° across.) The fact that so many people don't realize that is precisely the reason for presenting the issue up front.

Anything else you see that is gibberish, and wasn't before? — kwami (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So the zodiac has nothing to do with stars, except for being named after them, and being based on 30 degrees of arc relative to one of them (Sol), and being based on the movement of the planets relative to Sol and therefore all the stars in our galaxy? Is that right? And all stars in every constellation associated with the Zodiac are 3000 light years away? Is that right? Otherwise it would be impossible to claim that the constellations we speak of are composed of 3000-year-old stellar positions relative to ours! Give me a credible reference for 'well-respected astrologer' and I'll accept that characterisation. Gibberish and sophistry. It goes to what I said last night: you cannot insist on non-scientific methodology as well as scientific status. Your POV has been put, tested, found wanting and ruled on. Move on. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you've misread what I wrote. If you think there's a connection to the stars, other than the trivial one of naming, and apart from Sol (that is, to the fixed stars, which is what non-astronomers generally mean when they say "stars"), please say what you think it is. — kwami (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct that: even astronomers are probably not thinking of Sol when they use the phrase "the stars" colloquially. In any case, that's how I intended the phrase above. — kwami (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I read what you wrote, not your mind. The more you write about this topic, the less clear your meaning becomes, and the less relevant the discussion becomes to this page. Move on. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Peter. He's right. There is no need to place the entire debate about astrology in the opening paragraphs? Correct. He's spot on. Finally, a person who gets what an encyclopedia actually is supposed to be.

Also, there's plenty of room on the Astrology Page to include arguments for and against, since this topic is historical as well as relevant. People can think what they want to, but the point of Misplaced Pages is not pushing POV ideology onto the reader. Let the reader make his/her mind as what to think about the topic.

This subject requires clear, concise writing that is neutral as possible, wholly inclusive, which also includes the history of astrology, its relevance to scientific, religious and theological streams, etc. Those who are exclusionary and biased should question their own reasons for banning those knowledgeable about this topic and stop with the games. It is against what Misplaced Pages is about and does not foster good intentions, or community.

Whether or not it Astrology is considered to be a 'pseudo-science,' by some is not the point of the Astrology Page, nor has it been proven that Astrology is one. This is not the point.

I agree with Peter in getting things clear and concise without the POV. He's right. Let's stop with the silliness and get back to the work of getting the best page possible. It would also help that the personality bashing and banning of Wikipedians with knowledge of this subject cease immediately. That is not practicing 'good faith' and is hypocritical to say the least.Eagle Eye 05:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs)

References needed

The 'citations needed' template I have just applied to the article in various places indicates that much of the description of what astrology was in the past and is today, what its practices were in the past and are today, is badly referenced. A corollary is that the needlessly wordy introduction to the article summarizes content that could be justly regarded as contrived or unfounded.

It appears that the sections on Indian astrology and scientific debate about astrology are indeed well sourced. That suggests to me that the debate about pseudoscience, scientific status and 'truth' has been settled some time ago by the principles of notability and credibility as recognized in Misplaced Pages.

If citations cannot be provided for assertions, these should be removed. This is particularly the case with a topic as hotly disputed as this one has been. I think it reasonable to allow a week before I start removing unreferenced assertions. I am going to do so openly, stating my reasons on this page before editing anything. In the meantime, I intend to bring any vexatious or tediously repetitive debate about the need for citations to an arbitration rather than to allow it to drag out the process of creating a creditable article here forever: three-and-a-bit-years is long enough. It is time to assert that this article is not subject to whim, fancy or subversion by edit warring.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 05:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, but first, the issues regarding the bans should be settled. It does not follow the practice of 'good faith.' The edit warring comes from those who aggressively edit before allowing what was edited to be digested. Moreover, how many 'citations' do you require before this page becomes cluttered to read more like a dissertation or legal document than an encyclopedia page? Let's not go 'citation crazy' here. References at the end of the page are wholly sufficient.--Eagle Eye 06:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs)

I could not disagree with you more. I have already addressed the issue of the bans. References are absolutely needed for every assertion in what is unarguably a controversial and hotly disputed topic. The page is not some fire-side chat, but an attempt to provide authoritative information that will bear all rational scrutiny. So, when someone tells me, for example, that 'there are many astrological traditions that are historically important, but which have largely fallen out of use', I want to know who, specifically, says so, and preferably also some examples. Making the bare assertion without a citation is the same as free invention, even if references exist but are not cited. If citations aren't given, assertions should be removed. This is fairly basic Misplaced Pages policy. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability: 'The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.' Let's get it all out in the open and cut out everything that can't be justified. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, this is obviously not the intent on the Astrology Page. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and citations, references are included to enhance the information given on the page. It is not included mainly for verifiability. As a professional writer I know the difference. Readers can link to citations and references so they can enhance the information, not merely to assess it something is said to be 'true' or not. That assumes that anyone who writes anything on a page can determine what the 'truth' is or is not. That is personal and has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Readers can think for themselves. It is not the job of anyone to tell the reader what to think.--Eagle Eye 01:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs)

Yes, controversial topics should read like a dissertation, if people are willing to put in the work. Read the Israel & Palestine articles. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:PROVEIT, any unsourced information could be removed now. If information is controversial, it needs a source. If information is uncontroversial, it should be easy to provide a source. Either way - source. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed 29 March edits from Peter S Strempel - now moved to workpage for editing and discussion

• See Talk:Astrology/Workpage. Moreschi (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just so no one can announce surprise at my proposed edits on 29 March, here's what I have in mind if no citations are added for the material I intend to redact.

Before responding, consider the following -- Arguments that references are provided in linked sections are not persuasive: what if those linked artyicles change? Besides, Misplaced Pages should not cite Misplaced Pages. If the references/citations are valid, repeat them on this page.

Any text referenced by a citation that throws an error for lack of necessary detail (see 47 in this example) will also be deleted.

Infoboxes and diagrams/illustrations are not being considered by me for any redaction at this time.

Proposed edit starts — - see Talk:Astrology/Workpage - Moreschi (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is some good info there, but it should all be verifiable. We need to ref things if they're "likely to be challenged", and nearly everything about astrology is likely to be challenged. — kwami (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology as belief

We have lots of information on Misplaced Pages about Christianity, another elaborate set of beliefs and practices. We do not, I think, have edit wars over whether the resurrection or the virgin birth are scientific fact, nor do we label Christianity as "pseudoscience". Likewise, debates over the scientific basis for astrology should be rather short and to the point, it is dismissed by the scientific community and not researched. (Although there are some psychological possibilities with respect to personality of those who believe in astrology or are influenced by it.). Thus the bulk of the article should be material about the beliefs of astrologers and drawn from books expounding those beliefs. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine: "astrology is a religion followed by astrologers and their followers. Astrologers believe that...": now tell us where we can find reliable sources on what these beliefs are, on what competing strands of the astrology faith there are, etc. Find sources that tell us what, if any, sacred texts astrology has. Most importantly, find external sources that also discuss astrology as a faith: from theology, sociology, anthropology etc. Actually, I think that it makes a lot more sense to analyse astrology as 'religion' than as 'science', but unfortunately, the 'faithful' have persisted in making claims about it that clearly assert its 'scientific' credentials, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Fundamentalist Christianity is religion, but creationism driven by fundamentalist Christianity is a pseudoscience - because it asserts that 'science' is wrong. I think that by analogy, one should look at our article on creationism, and not on Christianity if one wishes how best to tackle the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect to sources, you can start by searching for "astrology" on Amazon, "Showing 1 - 16 of 22,289 Results". As to creationism, I don't doubt there are similar problems there, but we are here now. Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view policy, not a rational point of view policy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Fred, there's a fundamental difference between astrology and Christianity. Christianity does not make predictions about the future based on an empirical method (if that is the right phrase). Astrology was a science. Christianity never has been. Your comparison is superficial. You also seem to have missed out on what happened here, which was a sustained campaign aimed at removing or de-emphasizing "pseudoscience" from the lede. See . And yes, arguably the "astrology and science" section is too long, but it's not grossly so IMHO. Moreschi (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The nature of Christianity is not at issue here, but we do not hesitate to use the books of Christianity, a specialized press, if you will, to elaborate at length on the Christian world-view. As to missing out on the blow-by-blow, maybe, but I'm not new to the policy considerations involved, I drafted Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed decision. I will look into the editing history of the article and the talk page though. My notice of this dispute was here. Judging from the tone of this discussion, there seem to be issues with NPOV and reliable sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The nature of Christianity is at issue when you introduce Christianity as a point of comparison.Griswaldo (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, sorry I overlooked your comment. Here's how I answer that: the entirely honourable intentions of many of our ancestors (or us) to represent their opinions has never been challenged. What did occur was that for 30 years the Europeans (take note, Yanks, that incluees most of you) layed waste to their own homes and people. It was such a destructive war that it is estimated 2/3 of all people living in the area known today as Germany were killed (raped, tortured, slain). We will not repeat that horseshit here if I am still breathing.

The singular incidence of the 30 Years War entitles all who know about it to call the ensuing tendentious, sanctimonious bullshit exactly that.

I don't want to know what your faith or convictions are, and you insult me every time you assume I will change my mind if only you berated me some more. What I want to know is that I can trust you as a neighbour, friend, colleague. What I want to know is that I can leave children with you because you won't harm them. What I want to know is that I can trust you to look out for the best interests (not necessarily yours) of friends who come to my door and find me absent.

But Misplaced Pages doesn't care about that, so I don't waste sentimentality on it here. In my Misplaced Pages mode what I want to know is whether I could be confident defending your edit in front of any government in the world, and the highest courts in any land in Western civilization. If I can't be confident about that, the rest is indeed bullshit. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 00:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm 100% perplexed by this response. I was responding to Fred, who I took to be claiming that the nature of Christianity was not apropos to the discussion despite the fact that he compared Astrology to Christianity. I have no idea what you mean by your response or why you responded to me at all. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly; where we do not use the Bible - or try to avoid it, anyway - is in establishing actual historical facts. It is obviously fine to apply the works of modern astrologers to our section on, well, contemporary astrology for an "in-universe" perspective on what they do. It is not entirely clear to me, however, why such people and their works get much recognition, if any, when trying to write about the history of astrology - as some here have tried to make out. Moreschi (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. Mr Bauder, we will not repeat the faith-and-religion shit-fight here. We have an extensive discussion history and an extraordinary editing history; read it and digest before anyone starts this bullshit again. References. Sources. Citations. Rationality. Definitely. If I was a good guy, I'd even cite you the Misplaced Pages policies, but I expect you to find and read at least the hisory of this chat page on your own before spending any more time on well-known mountebank diversions.

If we do it the way you suggest, anyone could publish some words like: 'Peter Strempel is an unbearable pedant but why do all the gorgeous girls go for him.'. I'm sure that's not really what you want to be saying to the world. References. Sources. Citations. Rationality. That's how we do stuff here.

Let me see some proposed prose, plus citations.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Christianity is a religion with a moral system that tells you what you should do. Astrology is an ostensible divination/prediction system that tells you what will (supposedly) happen. Different. A moral system doesn't make testable predictions, it doesn't even try. A divination system sets up testable predictions and purports to influence reality and thus an empirical system. Not to mention the astrologers who have attempted to test the predictive value of astrology through scientific research. I have no problem depicting astrology as a religion as long as we remove every and all mentions of astrology predicting or making claims about how the sun, moon, planets and stars can influence human personality and actions, and essentially any ability to exert a meaningful effect on events on earth in any way. Makes for a short article. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fred, appreciate your opinion, but the specific context here matters. The debate was not about including details of what Astrologers think and do. I, and others, asked for more of that. The issue was how we should describe astrology's scientific status. They are completely separate, and being strict (or rational) about one, since that's what RS overwhelmingly support, means nothing against richly describing what Astrologer's believe, think, do, and even 'wish or falsely hold as true, against or without evidence'. Ocaasi 14:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Science as a matter of law

This is truly remarkable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Astrology is a science, court rules" User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy for you that this makes your day. The quotation is 'it is "science" in India', which really means that it ain't anywhere else.

I hope you read far enough to note: 'Advocate for Maharashtra government, Bharat Mehta too supported the stand taken by the Union government. Mehta submitted an affidavit filed by the food and drugs administration (FDA) department which said that necessary action is being taken against the guilty under the Drugs and Megical Remedies Act.' In other words, separate action is being taken to prevent people from selling snake oil remedies.

Cite the article, but don't join the legal action in these pages.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, Misplaced Pages isn't bound by the laws of India. And neither is reality. Courts have tried before to make rulings on issues of scientific fact - and ended up looking stupid in consequence. We don't need to follow their lead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well.........in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the court ruled that Intelligent design wasn't science. I happen to agree with that ruling.  :) OrangeMarlin 01:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but they ruled that what was 'science' was determined by scientific consensus, not by the wishes of a POV-pushing minority. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Where in the case did that ruling occur? My own amateur reading of the case notes suggests that the citatiuon was a viepoint being represented to the court, not as matter of fact, but as opinion. Did I get that bit wrong?

Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We're getting off topic. Yes Andy, you're right. And I was also trying to be amusing.  :) Peter....again, way off topic, but Dover lost the case on the facts and on the law. In Federal Court, opinions=law, until overturned, and it was not overturned. The US has a long history of case law that prevents the teaching of creationism in public schools. OrangeMarlin 01:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Orange, I was talking re the Indian case, not Dover. I shoulda outdented my comment. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Education section

Checking out the places listed at http://www.education.nic.in/circulars/astrologycurriculum.htm#List%20of%20Foreign User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And how about providing evidence that these 'places' have any recognition, rather than adding spam links to random astrologers? Seediff for an example of how not to do it. If Noel Jan Tyl's 'Master's classes' are recognised, or at least acknowledged by the outside world, they might be relevant, but you need to demonstrate this. Even the (stub) article on Tyl makes no mention of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The link is to the Department of Education, Government of India which lists them as sources of astrological education outside India. You can find his master class on his website. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Indian DoE list is just that - a "List of Foreign Institutions where Astrology is Beong Taught". It tells us precisely nothing about whether Tyl's course is recognised by anyone but himself. Without evidence of external recognition for the 'qualification' he offers, there can be no justification for including his course in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect to this edit we have an article about him and his master class is listed by the Government of India, Department of Education http://www.education.nic.in/circulars/astrologycurriculum.htm#List%20of%20Foreign User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have a stub article about Noel Tyl, with no real references indicating any notability, and no mention of this 'course'. I'll probably AfD the Tyl article soon, unless meaningful evidence about this course is provided. The Indian DoE list is just that - a "List of Foreign Institutions where Astrology is Beong Taught". It tells us precisely nothing about whether Tyl's course is recognised by anyone but himself. Basically, it looks like second-hand spamlinking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It does, and is, but it is published by a reliable source, The Government of India. As to Tyl, he is clearly notable if you research a bit, as an opera singer, if nothing else. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no point in discussing this in two places at once - please keep discussions to the astrology talk page, where others can see what we are debating. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

21 published books on astrology listed on Amazon. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Google him and master class and you'll find many hits from people who list his certificate. Also take a look at http://www.iiihs.org/confarchives/conf07/speakers2007.htm and you will see he is prominent within his reference group. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.iiihs.org/ User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Fred Bauder, if you are going to start cut-and-pasting other users comments from talk pages without indicating that you have done so, as above, I am going to play no further part in this discussion. This is a breach of talk page etiquette, and disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to carefully merge talk pages. I have other things to do, sorry. If you want it all on one page, I'm willing to put it there, but not fiddle around with it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr Bauder, what is your intent in pursuing these links? What, specifically are you trying to reference with them? Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish I knew too. It's kind of confusing.OrangeMarlin 23:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I was exploring where one might learn to be a professional astrologer, and what that might consist of, especially the professional practice of astrology. To tie this in with Noel Tyl, who seems quite successful and prominent, how would one establish that for our purposes. For example, who are the dozen most prominent astrologers and what are their characteristics? Another matter is the question of astrological counseling; what is involved with that? How much is it used and by whom? User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, most of the educational resources on that Indian list are junk, but what differentiates them from one another; reputation, I think, but where and how does an astrologer establish a reputation? User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a pertinent point that Mr Currey and I have been discussing. If astrologers cannot make their oeuvres known in conventional ways, what are the credible references likely to consist of? As I ventured to Mr Currey, though, I believe the problem is one for those who want unconventional sources to be accepted as conventional. Without disputing the possibility that a rational argument can be made for this proposition I nevertheless think it's a tough ask. I would need to be convinced that the evidence of someone somewhere in the world pursuing a rigorous study of astrology translates into credible citations.

I commented recently on the article dealing with LSD mind-control experiments, not to decry Timothy Leary, but to question what, if anything, emerged from those experiments that said anything about LSD as an adjunct to interrogation. All I could see is that a bunch of scientists, keeping careful note of doses and frequency, could say that people dosed with lysergic acid diethyl amide were pretty 'fucked up' (stoned? hallucinating? irrational?). So, was that science or just Leary's pet project? In terms of astrology, if an Indian university offers a unit of study in astrology, what does that actually evidence? I submit to you that what it says is that Indian universities permit the study of astrology; no more, no less. (Oh, and in terms of Leary, its says he was allowed to experiment with hallucinogens, not that he reached any rational conclusions.)

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Noel Tyl

He is described as "Noel Tyl, the legendary Astrologer and author of 29 books," in Meta Arts Magazine and alongside his column there this runs:

Noel Tyl (no-ell till) is one of the foremost astrologers in the world. His twenty-nine textbooks have led the teaching of astrologers for two generations.

Tyl has written the professional manual for the field, the 1,000-page text "Synthesis & Counseling in Astrology" that has securely placed astrology in pace with the most sophisticated disciplines of humanistic studies extant today.

Mr. Tyl is a graduate of Harvard University with his degree in Social Relations (Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology), lectures throughout the Western world, serves his clients from his office in Phoenix AZ, maintains perhaps the most sophisticated astrological teaching website on the web, noeltyl.com, and leads his highly esteemed Master's Degree Certification Correspondence Course throughout 16 countries.

Thus he is not only notable, but the author of a reference work that someone could probably cite as a reliable source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Introduction to an interview in The Meta Arts:

Astrologer, teacher, opera singer, and the prolific author of 29 textbooks on Astrology, Noel Tyl is a legendary conceptualist in contemporary Astrology. He is regarded as one of the world's most gifted Astrologers, whose work has influenced and shaped the art of horoscope delineation. We are grateful for the time he gave us out of his busy schedule, and the viewpoints he shared. One cannot help but be taken by his eloquence and magnificent voice as he speaks about his beginnings in the field of Astrology, and his development as one of its greatest writers, teachers and analytical talents.

User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence that The MetaArts Magazine is (a) notable itself (it is apparently only published online), (b) the magazine has no connection with Tyl, or with his publisher, and (c) the fact that it published the 'interview' was in no way related to Tyl apparently paying to advertise on their website ? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Good question; he's a columnist; they publish half a dozen astrology columns. When I asked "The Crestone Astrologer", he knew who he was. We need to resolve how astrologers are recognized as prominent. They have an associations and conventions. He seems to have pioneered humanist astrology which is less deterministic. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

AFAN Association for Astrological Networking, which he co-founded, might be part of the answer. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Following up on the links at Astrological organizations might be helpful. Also, I wonder if there is not a mainstream book somewhere about astrology from an outside perspective. You know where I'm going to look? In Brittanica... User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Apology

Dear all. It has been put to me that I have conducted myself uncivilly in these pages, that my words carried intimidating tone and intent, and that I have thus made Misplaced Pages a lesser place to visit and work.

To all who felt that this is what I did, I apologise unreservedly. This was never my intent, but I accept the need to ensure my words also don't create a doubt about this.

Following some reflection on comments made to me very courteously by Fred Bauder, I had reason to review exactly what I'd said and how I'd said it. Mr Bauder did indeed have a valid reason to tick me off. I did not assume good faith when I should have.

An issue that therefore arises is exactly what to do about preventing the relapse of this page into a fruitless and never ending spiral of circular arguments about metaphysical aspects of astrology. It is my intention to prevent that from occurring.

So allow me to state as a principle that discussions about faith, belief and truth are inherenctly tendentious because they seek to represent particular viewpoints as ascendant against others. If such discussions are enegaged in here, I will be a sharp critic. That said, I will attempt to be a little less brusque with newcomers who do not yet understand the highly charged environment of this particular page.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Peter. This is something that I hope to see from others. It takes a courageous person to apologize and this is a standup thing you have done. I accept Peter's apology because it shows that he is not being intellectually dishonest and intends to be less brusque while at the same time stating his principles without violating the good faith policy of Misplaced Pages.

We need to see the same from the admins who banned the writers on the Astrology page. Need they be reminded of Jimmy Wales policy - " There must be no cabal, no elite, and no hierarchy or structure to get in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who do occasionally affect us), should be implemented on the model of “strict scrutiny.” Strict scrutiny means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other." Eagle Eye 01:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Eagle Eye, thanks for your kind words, but don't confuse my apology as a reversal of my support for admin decisions, particularly not those by Moreschi, who has been completely open about his/her reasons. Moreover, discussion of those decisions should now be be conducted in the appropriate administrator pages.

To be absolutely clear about this, if I were one of the banned editors, I would make my appeal to Arbitration, quoting (not paraphrasing) each specific point of contention, and then citing specifically why specific (note the double emphasis on specific) Misplaced Pages policies are in question. I think the longer blanket demands for unbanning are made, the less credible those appeals will sound. To be absolutely clear about my intent here, I am not an administrator, I do not know Moreschi or the other involved admins except for my involvement here at astrology, and I'd be having a go at them if the available evidence suggested to me I should. In my opinion the evidence vindicates the decisions made, and actually exposes those decisions as being far more patient and reserved than I might have been.

Can we now move on from this topic of unbanning here? These pages are about an article on astrology. I have spent too much time in discussions and not enough actually contributing. I note that Robert Currey has been the only person since I started taking an interest to propose specific wording and references (except for the hit and run changes that were never discussed). If something is not clear about what I'm trying to say, consider my opinion of rationality, which can be safely assumed to underpin all my work at WP.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I was concerned about the banning, but after looking at the edits by the banned users, I can see the sterility of the edit warring involved. Particularly I am struck by the focus by them on the validity of the astrological world view, its rigor, akin to scientific rigor but nevertheless assuming that the lack of causal connection between astronomical objects and life is not be prominently and definitively noted. Nevertheless I am quite distressed by the lack of an adequate explanation of how astrology is practiced and its theories; a problem for me, as I have very little interest in buying astrological reference works and doing the work of crafting an adequate picture; someone with a passion for astrology will have to do that; certainly not skeptics or someone like myself who dismisses it out of hand other than as an annoying aspect of popular culture. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

May I amplify this comment to suggest that proponents of astrological practice work a little harder to provide encyclopaedic contributions about their craft. It looks to me that currently this is the most conspicuous weakness of the article. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 05:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter S, I trust you were not referring to me when you mentioned 'the hit and run changes that were never discussed'. I have only made changes to the main page that have been openly discussed or corrected a broken link. I agree that the article needs better referencing. I am working on this, but each sentence requires a lot of research. We need help from experts especially in areas like Hindu astrology. Besides, the lack of citation, the article is inaccurate in many places, lacks coherence and has an unwarranted sceptical bias. Robert Currey (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not mean you as a hit and run editor; I thought I'd been clear to separate you distinctly from that category, knowing that it is a concern to you. I don't think the tone or content of the article should be changed at all just because the necessary citations aren't available. Scepticism should be removed where it is unreferenced, but not as a matter of decorum. If the references exist to evidence scepticism about astrology, let's see the prose.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology practice and theory discussed

It is not easy to come back after being banned. I am very aware of the extreme hostility that many editors have shown toward astrology. As I was doing before being banned, I'll continue to confine my comments to the Talk page only.

Mr. Bauder mentioned: "I am quite distressed by the lack of an adequate explanation of how astrology is practiced and its theories." I am not an astrologer but I can discuss this, having studied astrology for over 30 years. Most astrologers are amateurs. They "practice" for the most part on friends and family. They attend society meetings at libraries and community centres, they go to conferences. They'd rather learn astrology at universities, but universities don't teach it. Most learning is derived from patterns of case studies, which is to say extreme cases of personality and events. Because of its amateur status, this is about the only type of research that is open to astrology today.

Most astrologers believe that there is undiscovered science in astrology, provided you can accept that statistical correlations are "scientific." Since Paracelsus, astrology has been considered to be a question of correlations, which means it broke with causal science. This is when it really happened. Since Francis Bacon, these correlations are thought to increase in magnitude with extremity of cases. This is what Prof. Ertel, for example, successfully demonstrated with the Gauqelin (and the skeptic) data.

Astrology is like psychology, and I believe there has always been some cross-fertilization happening, but does not follow the medical model of psychology, which is to say pathologies. It is the very positive outlook of astrology, of making a better world, learning from a detailed analysis of mistakes and bad habits, and being the best you can be, that affiliates astrology with New Age thinking.

People who study astrology also tend to have an amateur interest in science, particularly chaos concepts and quantum concepts. Anything that is difficult to grasp and requires non-intuitive thinking, like quantum mechanics, attracts a lot of amateur interest and some quantum concepts are entering into the astrological discourse where similarities of non-intuitive thinking are found. String theory is not so interesting. It is far removed from anything currently testable or falsifiable, yet it is unaccountably scientific. There must be many esteemed scientists who flatly declare it to be a science, just as they flatly declare, by their own authority and nothing else, that astrology is not.

Adding this all up, I don't know whether the pejorative "pseudoscience" should be applied with an "is" or a "considered to be." From my personal POV, I don't believe pejoratives belong anywhere in Misplaced Pages, but mine is not a neutral POV and I'm sure someone will tell me I should take this up with the people who decided that this particular instance was okay because it seemed neutral to them.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions. Apagogeron (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Banned does mean banned, and I did include the talk page as well. Although I may actually change my mind on this one (Apagogeron), give me a couple days to think about it. Striking rather than redacting because this post was actually constructive. Moreschi (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that was constructive, and I'd be happy to have astrologers in the discussion if they are willing to be this reasonable. (Couple factual errors, though: Of course statistical correlations are scientific; science is not causal, tough causality is valued when it can be determined. "Pseudoscience" is the category that is used; it's irrelevant whether people find it offensive, any more than if they find offensive the myths of the Bible being referred to as "myths" (which many theologians do). String theory has not been verified, but then, unlike astrology, no-one claims that it has been. It's almost the opposite of astrology: astrology is a falsified claim of statistical correlation without a theoretical model; String Theory is a theoretical model which has failed to be verified, and which many physicists (such as Feynman) openly opine is nonsense.) — kwami (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It helps, but the 'pseudoscience' language is non-negotiable, since it's in sources and the research opposing it is slim and considered fringe by our policies. No offense. Maybe it's actually true. Our policies require us to default to the judgment expressed by more mainstream sources, and minority views need to reach a certain threshold before they can be mentioned seriously. The sources you've mentioned don't meet that threshold.

The key things you mentioned are that Astrology has a broad gap between the 'amateurs' and the professionals, that the research that is done is based on case studies of extreme situations, and that it's 'correlational' not 'causational'. That, we can include, if we can find some sources which echo it.

The statistics behind even the best case for astrology, however, are simply not widely repeated or published enough in good enough sources to qualify. Again, they could be true, but you'd need tens of Ertel studies before Astrology had 'minority' status as a science, and hundreds if not thousands before it achieved legitimacy. So, you're way off. The most we can do is maybe describe that some astrologers believe Astrology is a science, on the basis of a few studies that have not received widespread recognition. I suggest helping Fred Bauer on the Astrological Education section, and fleshing out the practices of what 'modern' astrologers actually do, when they are trying to be scientific or not. Ocaasi 18:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the pseudoscience references are well sourced, however I'm not sure I like the way it's handled in this article. Bit heavy-handed at points, no? Reading this, I kept thinking about that old cartoon short, Bambi Vs. Godzilla: was science ever meant to be used as a giant crushing claw? --Ludwigs2 19:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Giant strawman. Science is meant to provide evidence that brings out of the dark ages. Not only is there no evidence supporting this pseudoscience of astrology, there isn't an imaginable way that it works unless you implement more pseudoscience. Science enlightens. Pseudoscience has no purpose whatsoever but amusement. So, using your weak metaphor, science is just a normal person, and astrology is a pathetic little amoeba that's causes dysentery, but is otherwise crushed out. OrangeMarlin 19:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

OM, that's not really helpful or necessary. You might like to consider refactoring, off-topic rhetoric of that strength is certainly not needed nor wanted given the recent history here. Moreschi (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No clue about past history, I wasn't around and I wasn't involved. However, others around here were around and apparently were blocked/banned/smacked with a trout. I'm an NPOV-pusher, and the article is really good right now. It says astrology is a pseudoscience. Couldn't be more pleased. As for my statement, I was just expanding upon a strawman metaphor, not sure what to refactor. If you want to delete it, be my guest, as long as the crushing claw comments are likewise.  :) OrangeMarlin 20:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't fight in here; this is the war room!

Considering the very long and often angry debates that this talkpage attracts, I think the last thing we need is more drama. I'm not going to insist that anybody strikes out or otherwise refactors recent comments, but it may be appropriate to keep metaphors and strawmen on a short leash in future. bobrayner (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh, OM's original research is just a red herring. He can think what he likes about science and astrology; it has no bearing on the discussion. the point is that the language here is a bit over-the-top. There's a difference between pointing out what scientific community says about astrology, and engaging in overt efforts at debunking on our own. would anyone objet if I trimmed back some of the more punchy statements? --Ludwigs2 22:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, the debate about the word 'pseudoscience' is extensive and settled. I invite you to read the history of it before demanding a language change. In considering astrology from an encyclopaedic perspective, it is important to separate scientific disciplines from others that are not. This is a historical progression in Western civilization dating from post-Roman European traditions. To argue that this taxonomy needs to be changed now is an endeavour you'll need to pursue in the academy, not here. We describe what is, not what someone thinks should be. Our work takes place in contemporary Western civilization, where astrology is not considered a science within the academy.

As for metaphors, I'm not sure I understand the claw pitch, but I prefer to employ a simile: astrology, like shamanism, is a recognised practice with a significant role in some societies. We should endeavour to promote an understanding of both by describing in as much detail as sources permit what they are, how they function, and how they are practised. But we are not here to misrepresent either as part of the scientific canon.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter, per policy, consensus can always change. The way that happens is through discussion of issues that arise. Right?

Now, please do not misrepresent what I said - I said nothing about removing the word 'pseudoscience'; I said that some of the debunking language in the article is overly-strong. If you don't care to discuss the matter, you don't need to do so, because I can talk about it with others. If you care to give me a chance, I will either make revisions or present them here on the page for you to consider. but please give up on the rhetoric, because that kind of thing doesn't work for me. thanks. --Ludwigs2 00:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, not literally. We may seek consensus to settle disputes here, but our consensus doesn't have the power to overturn facts, scholarship or rationality. In addition, just because a majority of editors may vote, say, to 'burn the witch', that vote doesn't bind me to murder. Moreover, it would be ethical cowardice not to oppose such a consensus. If you think that's 'rhetoric', you'll get a real blast out of the What Misplaced Pages is not article.

If you check out my proposed edits you will see that I have not approached statements on the basis of my feelings about the tone, but entirely on the basis of whether credible sources exist and are cited. And no, I can't give up on the 'rhetoric' so long as there's a risk of a return to internecine debates about tendentious metaphysical opinions. If you haven't done so already, I highly recommend reading the history of debate on this page to avoid repeating pointless metaphysical debate that has undermined the astrology article for years.

Misplaced Pages is pretty clear in respecting neither your nor my opinions about matters, only our adequately referenced prose. As for the invite to exclude myself from debate here, I'll pass. All of us who work here are subject to scrutiny and challenge by anyone. Learn to love it or take your own advice. On that note, any constructive contributions are always welcome, but removing properly referenced material just because it is judged to be unsympathetic to a particular point of view is vandalism.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwigs: not sure what you have in mind, but would you mind posting them at Talk:Astrology/Workpage first? Thanks. Moreschi (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Apagogeron was questioning the use of the word "pseudoscience," but rather whether it should be characterized as "is" pseudoscience or "generally considered to be by the scientific community" as the arbitration committee clearly stated it should be characterized. (It's plain English, people...) Unfortunately the consensus here seems to be to ignore the arbitration committees decision and treat it as if they didn't make a clear plain English distinction between the way "obvious pseudoscience" and "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" are treated.

Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such asTime Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more consideration.

Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Why do have an arbitration committee if we are simply going to ignore their decisions?Mystylplx (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. For those who think their use of the language "categorized as pseudoscience" means it can simply be labeled as pseudoscience should look at the language under "obvious pseudoscience" which says "may be so labeled and categorized as such." The word "categorized" (from context) clearly refers to Misplaced Pages categories, else there's no distinction between the two groupings whatsoever. I can't imagine they made a distinction between the two groupings and the way they should be treated if they hadn't intended there to be a distinction between the way the two groupings should be treated. Mystylplx (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So, can we see your proposed wording. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 22:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Harder to read crossed out Mystylplxl, but I read: "I don't know whether the pejorative "pseudoscience" should be applied with an "is" or a "considered to be." as covering both cases, or at least the up to the more specific version of the second you offeree (...considered by scientists...). If you're absolutely sure that ArbCom meant something in a ruling, we should perhaps approach ArbCom for clarification. It's a different bunch, and I don't recall there being situations where clarifications are given without opening up new cases, but maybe that's something they could do. Meanwhile, I don't see much difference between 'is', 'is considered', and 'is considered by scientists'. That's a single sentence in a long article, and the word 'pseudoscience' is going to be in it pretty much regardless. Ocaasi 22:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a very fine little piece of wording to take to arbcom, and I suspect the original ruling was not intended to be finely chopped like this. However, if a clarification from arbcom is the only way to settle the matter, then go ahead. bobrayner (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider putting it to an RfC or requesting a third opinion? (Hmm, we have more than two people involved). Or maybe those nice folk over at the fringe theories noticeboard could lend their experience for a moment. bobrayner (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why anyone shouldn't seek third-party input, but for goodness' sakes, lets not start a war again. If that were to occur I would personally take it to arbitration and we would all have to live with the fact we couldn't sort this out among ourselves for behaving like pre-schoolers fighting over lego blocks - and we'd probably all have to live with wording none of us could stand. My suggestion is that we wait until after the major edit I will undertake later today, as announced a week ago, and that the phrasing in the intro (lead, lede, summary) must reflect the referenced definition given in the body of the article.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@Ocaasi, I agree there's not "much" difference, but that was the specific proposal over... during?... which a bunch of people got banned from the article. I know there was more going on immediately prior to that proposal, but that was what was going on right then. And the reason there's not 'much' difference is probably because we are talking about two only slightly different "groupings" that the arbitration committee distinguished between.

@Bobrayner, it seems to me the original ruling is unambiguous. They made a distinction between four different "groupings" of pseudoscience and the way those groupings should be treated. Four, not three. The way it's being interpreted is not only not what the committee said, it's also being interpreted as if the first two groupings are identical, as if the arbitration committee made a rather silly distinction-without-a-difference.

@Peterstrempel, I suspect there will be controversy as long as the ruling remains at the top of the talk page while the article continues to contradict the ruling. Mystylplx (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

the phrase "that information" refers to the facts that

1. Astrology has a considerable (non-scientific) following. 2. Scientific consensus is that astrology is pseudoscience.

There is, however, no difference between "astrology is pseudoscience" and "scientific consensus is that astrology is pseudoscience", because said consensus is the relevant WP:RS for the purposes of Misplaced Pages when determining what is pseudoscience or what is not. Moreschi (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between "astrology is pseudoscience" and "scientific consensus is that astrology is pseudoscience." The AC certainly seemed to think so as they are the one's who made the distinction. If they didn't intend to make that distinction why would they have done so?Mystylplx (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Because what actually matters is distinguishing between pseudoscience that doesn't have any popular following and pseudoscience that does. Articles on the latter need to spend considerably more time discussing their following over time (in spite of scientific consensus) and the reasons for this (as this article does in places). As far as encyclopedia-writing is concerned, that's the relevant distinction. Moreschi (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Pejorative intent

I would like to clarify here that it is possible to use the term 'pseudoscience' without pejorative intent, but entirely as a matter of taxonomic differentiation. That is how I have attempted to use the word.

It appears to me that in the endless discussion of 'pro' and 'anti' astrology, we are missing the point that science and astrology are different as a matter of the rules of the game, not as a matter of qualitative or ethical consideration.

If an NBL star player who'd played some college football said to me that it was unjust he had not been granted a place in the NFL hall of fame, I'd be perplexed. I'd try to be polite about the fact that he may have played a handful of minor league football games, but that he was notable in his career as a basketball player, and that the NFL gets to make the call about its own hall of fame. I might go so far as to comment that he should have played more football to get recognition in that sport. If the basketball player then challenged me irately not to refer to him as a basketball player, but to call him a football player instead, I might demur as matter of keeping the peace in that social interaction, but I would regard it as an irrational demand and as no reason to do so in any other context.

I am in the same situation with the 'astrology as science' argument. If astrologers had notably adopted scientific rules and tests in practising, developing and discussing their craft, I would see no problem at all dropping the word 'pseudoscience'. However, astrology is not notably a part of the international and peer-reviewed scientific debate which determines what is science and what is not. And it is in that debate that many of the arguments presented here should be made if the status of astrology is to change in Misplaced Pages. We are not empowered to alter scientific taxonomy as a matter of debate, consensus or wishful thinking in this forum. We are obliged to report the notably accepted consensus that governs the entire Western civilization. Count the number of contributors to this page over the past three years and tell me truthfully that this small number who argue a change of taxonomy is representative of views in any one suburb, let alone the entire Western world.

In that context, when I use the word 'pseudoscience', I am not being discourteous. I am using notably accepted taxonomy the way it should be used in an encyclopaedia. My judgement, if I have one, about the qualitative or ethical standing of astrology should be opaque in that discussion.

If you personally don't like the word 'pseudoscience', devote a lifetime, or just a brilliant and so recognised short burst of academic work to having it changed, and I will use whatever new word you thus gained notable recognition for. Until then, please don't repeat assertions that the mere act of using the word 'pseudoscience' makes me or anyone else here enemies or opponents of astrology, astrologers and their adherents.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is not necessary to use the word, other than as Category:Pseudoscience. It is sufficient to say that the discipline is not recognized as scientific by scientists. AND LET IT GO AT THAT. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That may be, Mr Bauder, but I do choose to use the word, and I stand by what I said about my use of it. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the word should be used. The AC agreed as well, five years ago. But I have to assume there's a reason the committee made a distinction between "obvious pseudoscience" (which could simply be labeled and categorized as pseudoscience) and "generally considered pseudoscience" (which "may properly contain" the information that it is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" and be categorized as pseudoscience.) I can't know what exactly the AC was thinking, but I suspect it may have had something to do with preventing the type of "wars" that we've seen recently. I'll ask again--why do we even have arbitration committees if we are simply going to ignore their rulings? Mystylplx (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My reading is that there might be a perception the ruling was not granular enough, leaving doubt about every specific application, which I don't think was an arbitration committee intention so much as a presumption of goodwill in applying the ruling. It may be that this goodwill should be considered as absent from this specific discussion, given the repetitive nature of the comments pertaining to the word itself. It was for that reason that I commented if we couldn't play nicely with each other, I would take it back to arbitration to get a definitive ruling for specific application of the policy to this article. As I stated above, none of us may like the specifics of such a ruling, but we would then be bound by it definitively, word for word. It is for that reason that I'd recommend every interested party devise a specific wording, which is what I'm working on next, and one that will stand the scrutiny of all editors here as well as the arbitration committee.

In that regard, I draw everyone's attention to the fact that I have made the major copy edit announced last week and discussed in the sub-page to this talk page. The current wording of the intro (lead, lede, summary) was not part of that edit, but no longer reflects the content of the article and needs to be changed in any case. I suggest we focus on that task for the time being.::::Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any "doubt." Look specifically at the language regarding the different ways the four different categories should be handled--

Obvious pseudoscience: ... may be so labeled and categorized as such...

Generally considered pseudoscience: ... may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

(See how those are different? Not the same, but different.)

Questionable science: ... may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.

Alternative theoretical formulations: ... are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I may be missing something, and if I am I'd appreciate it if someone would point it out to me, but as far as I can see there's only one reasonable interpretation for that unless you believe they intended the first two groupings to be handled identically.

As for the exact wording, I'm not attached to any specific phrasing as long as it's true to the AC ruling. The AC wording of "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" would be fine. Or something like "Astrology has a wide following in spite of the fact it is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community." would also be fine. Mystylplx (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Major edit now made

The major edit announced by me last week, scheduled for today, and discussed on the Astrology workpage has now been completed. Substantial prose was removed, and some was replaced by me with wording provided by Robert Currey, on whom I call to now check that I have made changes faithfully to his edits on the workpage. I am indebted to Mr Currey for the constructive comments he has offered in this process, but recognise that his contributions are subject to the scrutiny of all editors.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Peter S Strempel for your guidance on this. I have inserted the more recent (27th March) version of the Western History section with minor modifications. Otherwise all other changes look in order. Robert Currey (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Does Tyson's opinion add to the page?

I propose that we take out this paragraph for the following reasons:

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson asserted that "astrology was discredited 600 years ago with the birth of modern science. To teach it as though you are contributing to the fundamental knowledge of an informed electorate is astonishing in this, the 21st century. Education should be about knowing how to think, And part of knowing how to think is knowing how the laws of nature shape the world around us. Without that knowledge, without that capacity to think, you can easily become a victim of people who seek to take advantage of you".

1. Tyson’s comments are entirely based on the blanket and unsupported statement that “astrology was discredited 600 years ago”. Is he referring to Copernicus 500 years ago? This is a point of view without supporting evidence. WP:POV
2. Besides being a personal opinion, Tyson’s comments about what people should do and victims are more like a preacher than a scientist. WP:NOTSOAPBOX Nothing he says adds to our knowledge about astrology.
3. Neil deGrasse Tyson is unknown outside North America. The sceptical opinions of Dawkins and Hawking (mentioned in the previous paragraph) carry more weight given their international profile and unique contribution to science. Tyson seems to be better known as a media presenter within one continent than for innovative research work.
4. There is no shortage of astronomers hitting the headlines with controversial unsupported statements about astrology – a subject they have never studied, but are happy to trade off the public interest. Often this coincides with the publication of a book or TV series or raising funds for their planetarium society or just personal PR. The Press mistakenly believe that expertise in astronomy gives authority in astrology and so happily milk the story. However, Misplaced Pages is not the place for this. WP:NOTPROMOTION
5. The science section is well covered but can benefit from quality input rather than this type of superfluous padding.

If anyone feels that this paragraph should remain, please state your reasons, otherwise I propose removing it in the next few days.

Robert Currey (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I vote it stays. My reasons are —

1. Tyson is a scientist speaking for a credible, notable institution, and is quoted in the section on astrology and science.
2. Tyson's comments are not singular.
3. We are quoting a scientist, not necessarily endorsing his views.
4. Tyson may be relatively unknown outside the US, but a Google search returns plenty of entries, including, in fifth and seventh place for me, entries with the .com.au suffix (Australian sites; as an aside, I live and work in Australia, and I don't think this discussion is the sole property of Americans since Misplaced Pages has an explicitly internationalist perspective). I would need to be persuaded more convincingly that Tyson doesn't pass credibility/notability guidelines.
5. I'm not persuaded by a blanket argument that astronomers cannot comment on astrology to represent scientific viewpoints.
6. I have some sympathy for the argument that other scientific positions in the section are more persuasive, but I don't see that as a compelling reason to eliminate the Tyson quote (though it needs to be tidied up stylistically to meet the manual of style guidelines on using quotes).

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 13:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should stay, for pretty much the same reasons as those given by Peterstrempel. Is there a particular minimum depth of astrological study which is required before somebody with expertise in real-world physics is allowed to say that astrology is implausible? If an astrologer could provide some text of how astrology is actually done and how it's supposed to work, I'd happily read each line and compare it to widely-accepted physical principles.

Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. Adherents of fringe theories do often try to discount expert testimony from those outside the fringe theory - of course it's assumed that anybody who disagrees simply hasn't learnt enough yet - but it's fallacious and should not carry any weight here. (Yesterday I had much the same experience with a homeopath, off-wikipedia; they felt sure that I must be ignorant of homeopathy because I disagreed with them, which allows some nicely circular reasoning). bobrayner (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• I hesitate to remove this statement as well, with some caveats. It's not WP:POV of us to neutrally describe the opinions of others, it merely requires in-text attribution. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is more specific about this. Tyson is not only credible but famous. He's become a major spokesperson for science, physics, and astronomy ("American astrophysicist, science communicator... Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space, and Research Associate in the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History, host of the educational science television show NOVA scienceNOW on PBS since 2006, and frequent guest on The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Jeopardy!, Neil deGrasse Tyson..." Neil deGrasse Tyson). His standing to make such a statement is pretty self-explanatory, although a bit Amero-centric; the solution on those grounds would be to add a commentator as well, not to remove Tyson.
• We could perhaps provide the context to Tyson's comment so that the 600 year point makes sense. Do we have a secondary source on this that's not WP:SYN? Tyson's views indeed express an opinion and a preferred direction, but again, with regard to NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX only applies to editors' views, not reliable sources'. More famous practicing scientists don't always directly comment on practices considered pseudoscientific, since they aren't granted prima facie legitimacy. We could perhaps use a different quote from Tyson, or another scientist entirely, perhaps one which is in a more academic and less rhetorical context, but I think the general point would be the same and should be represented in the article.
• Robert, if you have a particular issue with Tyson, you might be in the position of having to find another skeptical quote which you see as an improvement in its specificity, tone, and authority. Tyson's claim isn't useful for informing us about Astrology, you're right. But it does inform us of what a credible scientist thinks about Astronomy, and at least on that point it is quite relevant. I agree that Dawkins and Hawking carry more weight. If this quote is just piling on and not adding any insight, we can look at it on WP:UNDUE grounds or as a lower quality statement than one in an academic context. We could perhaps replace Tyson, or add a comment by a scientist who goes into more detail. But lack of the second, in this case, may not be sufficient reason to get rid of the first.
• The accusation that Tyson is promoting a book is both unsourced, and also involves a misreading of WP:NOTPROMOTION. Tyson couldn't edit his own article about an upcoming book, nor could editors who were trying to give attention to it that hadn't already been given by reliable sources. In this case, I don't know of any books recently by Tyson, nor do I have reason to believe they wouldn't have already received ample coverage in RS, in which case, NOTPROMOTION is not an issue. (As long as newspapers, etc. covered it first, we should report on such books; indeed, that coverage is what makes them suitable for inclusion). Tyson has received ample media coverage, and his views on these subjects meet criteria for inclusion, even if they are not the best quotes we could use. Ocaasi 16:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's WP:UNDUE, and particularly stands out as such following much bigger names like Hawking and Dawson. I don't think it needs to be replaced before removing for that reason. If it stays it should probably be moved up a paragraph so that the section ends with the bigger names rather than ending with Tyson.

The way it's quoted is also odd. The "astrology was discredited 600 years ago with the birth of modern science" part doesn't seem to be a direct Tyson quote but rather a quote of the sources cited. At least that part isn't in quotations in either source. Yet the way it's presented in the article makes it look as if that's a direct quote of Tyson. If nothing else it would make sense to remove everything that isn't a direct quote of his. Mystylplx (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked out the sources. The "600 years" stuff does not appear to be a direct quote from Tyson but is rather the work of the Washington Post. Tyson himself is actually commenting on the accreditation of an astrology course, but whether he opposes the accreditation, or whether he is simply giving his generic thoughts on astrology, is not actually entirely clear from the source article, which is pretty shoddily written. This does need some cleanup work, and if we can find a better quote, either from him or from someone else, I would be sympathetic to replacement. Moreschi (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Or we could say something like, "The Washington Post paraphrased Tyson as saying..." ;-) (Joke) Mystylplx (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Astrology. Online Etymology Dictionary. 2001. Retrieved 24 Nov. 2009.

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class astrology articles
• Top-importance astrology articles
• WikiProject Astrology articles
• B-Class Occult articles
• Unknown-importance Occult articles
• WikiProject Occult articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• High-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles