Talk:Astrology/Archive 23

New 'Varieties of Astrology' section needs editorial attention
I'm not sure who added the "Varieties of astrology" section, but much of this text is merely duplicating what is given below in the World traditions of astrology section.

Previously, editors worked to a proposed structure to make sure that this kind of thing didn't happen. Why are new sections being added without prior discussion, and without any attempt to synthesize new content with information already given elsewhere on the page? It doesn't make any sense to have these two sections duplicating the same information, so can whoever added the new section almagate it into the existing text? I would suggest keeping the header 'Varieties of Astrology' but bringing it down to where the 'World Traditions' section is placed, and expanding that section to give a more comprehensive treatment of notable varieties and traditions. --  Zac   Δ talk! 08:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Unfortunately I don't have time to do that today. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That section was created by me as a temporary solution to house material that had been inserted into the lead. The interested editors are aware of that it needs to be merged into the "World Traditions" section. Lend a hand, if you can. Another problem with the article is that the history and cultural influences sections need to be globalized and cut back substantially, as seperate articles exist for both of them. This is a top level article, so there should only be a brief summary of those articles in this one, not extensive reduplication or forking of content. I think the religion section has to be globalized, too, as only Islam is mentioned, and there are certainly other religions that object to Astrology, such as Christianity. There's probably enough material out there to spin this off into a seperate article. The science section, of course, is facing a major rewrite to remove apologetics and other material based on unreliable fringe sources, per the RfC. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to be paying attention to the criticisms that you are making too many changes by yourself without consultation with other editors. Remember that what you think is necessary derives from your own subjective opinion. Others may not share your view or your interpretation of policy. Even today you have made substantial changes, based on your own assumption of undue weight, without bothering to consider the policy that changes should be discussed and agreed by consensus. Why do that when no one here is showing resistance to sensible suggestions? It is this situation that leads to edit-warring and needless hostility, so in future can you propose your changes first and give your reasons so that other editors have the opportunity to comment and input? Until that happens it is a waste of time for editors to try to create properly cited content, since it has no chance of stability or thoughtful development. --  Zac   Δ talk! 10:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're assuming that because I'm the most vocal advocate for change on the article's talk page means that I'm making the changes myself. That assumption is incorrect. If you took the time, you'll find that I have made very few substantial changes to the article, and those few I made were very conservative and were discussed beforehand and in accordance with the RfC above. The substantial changes were made by other editors. Rearranging paragraphs is not a "substantial change", as you put it. No content was altered. As a matter of fact, that's the ONLY change I've made to the science section so far except for the "Objections to Astrology" part which I discussed at length with YOU and changed with YOUR concensus. And actually, the science section is the ONLY section I'm particularly interested in, and, of course, it's accurate and unambiguous portrayal in the lead. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, a collection of undiscussed changes made by Hippocrite and tidied up by DV. If these are good, sensible changes, then no one is going to oppose them. So please consider what you want to do, propose your changes with your reasons, and allow other editors to input into the process. --  Zac   Δ talk! 19:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Location of "Astrologers for their part" paragraph
In this edit, I moved a paragraph that has nothing to do with Gauquelin out of the section about Gauquelin and into the main appraisals section. This action was reverted. Could someone describe why that would be problematic? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of summary style in Gauquelin's research
The section on Gauquelin is not written in summary style - it has a main article - Mars effect, and should briefly summarize that article. I took a shot at doing that (and something else) in this edit. This action was reverted. Please, in this section, focus on the removal of content and the link to the "Mars effect," not the addition of balancing content. Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, an uninformed comment for a layperson. FYI, Gaquelin's research is not equivalent to the Mars effect. Please review his work before making further comments, proposing changes, or - God forbid - making any edits in this section of the article. Your views on this matter will not be taken seriously otherwise. SLP (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comment isn't valuable to the goal of improving this page. The majority of his research is covered in the article on Mars Effect. Further, please carefully review WP:OWN. One does not need to be an expert to edit here. Do you have a substantive problem with my edit? If so, what is that substantive problem, so I can correct it? Hipocrite (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The book The Mars Effect: A French Test of Over 1,000 Sports Champions is not a reliable source. It contains personal attacks against previous researchers and follows an obsolete protocol that was set out at the start of the experiment, 14 years(!) prior to its publication. It adheres to this old protocol, with unclear selection method, and completely ignores the more recently developed protocol that is objectively based on citation frequencies. By completely ignoring the objective protocol, despite vigorous protests, it raises strong suspicions of selection bias. This source should not be used at all. BTW, post hoc application of the citation frequencies protocol showed evidence of the Mars eminence effect in all the samples used in the book. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Promethius Publishers is a reputable publishing house. Your opinion of the book does not make it unreliable - are there reliable sources that say these things about the book? Hipocrite (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Prometheus Books is apparently dedicated to one side of this issue. The content of the book being correct wouldn't mean it's not a partisan source. You need to look at the credentials of the authors.  I would question whether this could be considered a failed replication  if there's any truth to this.  But as Hipocrite says, it's a matter of sourcing.  And attribution.   Be— —Critical  05:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV of Gauquelin's research section
The section on Gauquelin is not neutral. It turns out that in addition to the sourced used which cannot be used to reliably refute actual science (but can be used for the view of Astrologers), there is also a reliable published book that refutes the mars research. As the article stands now, the POV that Gauquelin is full of merde is ignored. I added content about that book in this edit, but that action was reverted. Please, in this section, focus on the addition of sourced, verifiable, content, and not the removal of other content. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Similarly, your comment is not relevant. SLP (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a productive way to move forward. What problem do you have with my proposal? Be specific. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see my comment on this book a few paragraphs above. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Top of the page notice
I really don't like this. That appears to be trying to make policy for this specific page. Who is claiming the authority to do this? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that is a response to revert-without-discussion instances - there was some disagreement earlier about that. Personally, I just read it as an incitement to people to discuss any significant edits in talk (reverts, additions, whatever).  seems a sensible enough request.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * : Yep. Why don't you check the history of the page. It's been in force since before I started editing. Although I didn't like it myself initially I see the good sense in it for this page and don't believe anyone should take it on themselves to change it without consultation. --  Zac   Δ talk! 22:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the notice itself is a policy imposed with no authority. Since it violates the norms of editing elsewhere, it would need to have a clear justification and strong support to remain. It has neither. Discussion is fine; insisting on discussion first, always, isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha ha ha . I *did* check the history of this page. When you first edited here, we had the bold-but-not-reckless text . and then guess what I found? This William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What can I say? I don't remember making that edit, but now I do remember that I condensed down a page and a half of notices after various complaints that they were intrusive, and tried to retain the most relevant points to the best of my understanding of what was said overall. I'll rule myself out of this one. I'd already reverted the notice change again because I didn't think it was appropriate to change it at this time, without discussion, when we are trying to keep to that principle of consensus-built content and avoid endless edit-wars. --   Zac   Δ talk! 22:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not productive. Stop. Note that the historical aspect of this dispute is distorted by recent edits to a template and should be disregarded. Hipocrite (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Some editors here have used non-discussion as an excuse to revert any changes- without discussion. We need to move on from that.  Please edit generally appropriate changes to the article, even if they're bold, rather than reverting them wholesale.  Be— —Critical  23:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There is confusion here - some of it mine - and I may have accused Z unfairly. See this edit which H pointed out to me. I now notice that Z's edit replaces the *template* with some text, so when I was comparing page versions, I would (I think) in the old versions have seen the current template text. Anyway, I'd like to go back to using the actual template - that way, we're reasonably sure of using a consensus text for controversial pages William M. Connolley (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientific criticism is not scientific research
Why is the scientific criticism now conflated with the research under a new heading called "Scientific appraisal"? This is a distortion. Science as a discipline evaluates data to find facts, it does not appraise the worth of things. Placing all the negative arguments here under this overly-stretched heading strongly biases the content on the two famous research studies: Gauquelin and Carlson. This rigged up heading violates NPOV. The parts of this conflated section that cover fact-finding experiments belong under the previously established heading of Research.

The critical views expressed by scientists belong under the previously established heading of Scientific Criticism. To avoid arguments among editors, the scientific criticism and "assessments" should have direct quotes, such as the Tyson quote, or include direct quotes in footnotes. It should include the "Objections" article (and Sagan's objection to it) and the arguments ascribed by various authors to the pseudoscience label. It should be fully laden with quotes and sources of the best scientific authorities available. Ken McRitchie (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Except that science is not a very notable subject relative to astrology as a whole, and should receive very little space in the article. Looks to me like everything under that heading is basically appraisal by science of the claims of astrology, whether by research or argumentation.  Be— —Critical  19:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's extremely notable, as astrologers commonly use quasi-scientific terminology and appeal to "scientific research" to give their craft an aura of scientific legitimacy and validity. There are thousands of sites, books and articles written by astrologers portraying astrology as a real science. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What is under the heading now is a mix of criticism and appraisals by certain scientists (only negative views are included), which comes first, and notable scientific experiments, which comes last. This order suggests that the experiments should not be read critically, but should just be assumed to be incorrect. Scientists who approach an experiment fairly adopt a "wait and see" attitude and report their results along with discussions of alternative explanations afterward. This section fails to provide a NPOV. Incidentally, what you are reading as "basically appraisals by scientists to the claims of astrology" is in reality criticism by some scientists not of "claims of astrology" but of what they think astrology ought to be. Ken McRitchie (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead
I've modified the lead from stating that "Astrology may refer to..." to "Astrology is...". I hope the point of the change is clear. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so the article is about astrology, not the word "astrology" or its assorted uses. I meant to say in my edit summary, "It should not start 'Astrology may refer to'", but missed out a word by mistake. I need a cup of coffee... Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Gauquelin's research
Tell me about the sources here. It looks like it presents a conundrum, in that it's sourced mostly to fringe journals. It's hard to ignore or eliminate merely on that basis however, as it's important in the context of astrology. I get the impression there are few if any mainstream refutations. But in searching for names I found "leading empirical studies that have claimed to repudiate astrology, ... (e.g. Nanninga, 1996; Benski et al, 1996; Dean and Kelly, 2003)4 or obscured (Carlson, 1985)". I'm sure I could go over it more thoroughly, but someone here knows already. What's happening? Be— —Critical 20:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the section should be deleted in its entirety unless it can be supported EXCLUSIVELY with reliable independent third-party sources. It may be important for astrology, but it's not notable for science, and this section purports to be a science section. Gauquelin's "research" is self-published and non-scientific. The fact that it has generated little interest in mainstream scientific journals and publications is ample evidence that the study is of little scientific interest, hence not notable. Remember, WP is not here to give a platform to proponents of fringe "theories" to present their "research" or promote their cause. I can't see why it would be "hard to ignore or eliminate". It's pure apologetics and has zero encyclopedic value. Just because it's important to the astrological community does not mean that it is important to WP and its readers. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If it's important to astrology as a discipline/system of belief, then it's important to a WP article on astrology. Why would we discuss the main beliefs and controversies within Scientology, but not astrology?  If it's important, we have to include it (how important it is I leave to the judgment of others).  Also, why would we first say it's pseudoscience, then refuse to discuss the ways in which it uses scientific methods to try and promote or prove itself?  That's like saying "it's a forest," then refusing to say what kind of trees it has.  The trick would be to frame the subject well, or come up with refutations, or something, but just deleting it?  I can't see any justification for that.  Be— —Critical  21:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can do it using reliable third-party sources, have a go at it. But fringe sources are out, except perhaps for reference to Gauquelin's "research" itself in strict accordance with WP:SPS. Sorry, but WP is based primarily on what reliable secondary sources written by experts in the relevant field have to say. And since the field in this section is, or proports to be, science, fringe sources cannot be used, and the opinions of the practioneers of astrology are worthless unless they appear in reliable third-party independent secondary sources.
 * Demonstrating how astrologers MISUSE scientific methods to give their field an aura of scientific validity may be interesting, but it is probably beyond the scope of the present article (try the article on pseidoscience). There are better ways of doing that than concentrating on a single "study" of no validity, value or notability as a sort of case study. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources on which to base such a demonstration without having to resort to fringe material of dubious worth.
 * The easy way out would be simply to flush the whole noisome mess into oblivion. Frankly, I see little value in heroics here, and consider the easy way out the wisest course of action. If you disagree, userize the section and try to bring it up to WP standards at your leisure. But, for now, let's just jettison it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be all for it if you can justify it under policy. But I kind of think that there is policy and also the fringe guideline which contradicts this.  Anyone else?  Be— —Critical  22:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I take it you weren't aware of this recent conversation between Zac and Jimbo Wales about sourcing on this very article.[]. Before we go any further, read through it and get back to me if you still have questions. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did know about it, but haven't read every word. Even his most acidic comment "The Journal may have some value as a source, if it is influential amongst crackpots, to document the sort of nonsense that they are willing to publish while pretending to academic standards.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)" seems to be saying about the same thing I'm saying.  I didn't read every word, is there something I'm missing?   Be— —Critical  22:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I agree with you. As long as it's written from the clear and unfailing viewpoint that astrology is absolute nonsense. The one thing I would object to is any attempt to give the proponents of astrology a platform for self-promotion or apologetics. Once you open that door even the tiniest bit, the astrology trolls will have a field day. Be my guest and give it a crack. I'm curious what you'll come up with. Count on my help and support. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, although WP doesn't "write from a point of view." I'll see what I can come up with later.  Also, I'm not fearful about these things.  It's what prevails in the end that counts.  Be— —Critical  23:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither Gauquelin nor Carlson were/are astrologers. Neither of them associated with astrologers and can hardly be described by any stretch as "practitioners." These researchers have become famous because of their scientific investigations of astrology. Wikipedia cannot avoid the need to describe their research and the ensuing discourse if it is to have a credible article on astrology. Professor Ertel has been the most instrumental in clarifying and resolving the issues surrounding both studies and until someone challenges his assessments, that's where it rests today. All of the parties involved are well aware of this state of affairs. Although the studies are famous, as with most scientific studies, it's a small world when it comes down to the actual participants. You can get an idea about Ertel from his website, which unfortunately he has not updated since his retirement in 2004. http://kiwi.uni-psych.gwdg.de/home/ertel/ertel-dir/index.html

You will find what you call "fringe" journals on both sides of the discourse on the scientific investigation of astrology and if you want to understand what it's all about there is no other way than to read the journals because this is something not covered in mainstream journals. Fortunately, offprints of many of the important studies and criticisms are available online. If you have specific questions, post them here. Some of the best sources of recent research are found in PhD. dissertations, but most of that work has not yet been published in any sort of journal because of the publishing conundrum. Ken McRitchie (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ertel published in Journal of Scientific Exploration. That makes him a fringe writer and his work is only usable in WP if it is notable fringe theory and needs to be described. He may also have done mainstream psychology and that work might be reliable but we will cross that bridge if we come to it. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ertel has no theories on astrology and has never done any research in it. As far as I can tell he has no theories on anything, though I'm not familiar with all of his rather extensive interdisciplinary work. His role in astrology and other "anomalies" has been as a skeptic and critic. His involvement has been to raise the scientific standards and the transparency of the experimental research he has looked into. Ken McRitchie (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Krivine describes him as friend of Gauquelin. Whatever, we're not citing JSE for anything except itself, lol. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Over time and through mutual respect Suitbert Ertel and Gauquelin became friends, just the same as Gauquelin and George Abell (one of his most vocal critics in the beginning) became friends. It's not all as black and white as you are trying to make it. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If a respected outside scientist publishes in a fringe journal, I don't see why it would be of less value to WP than if he had published in a non-peer-reviewed publication, and therefore he would be as good a source as his expertise made him. But I can't be here for a while, TTYL.  I would urge people to exercise subtle discernment in these matters.  See this section of FRINGE it should be of help.  Be— —Critical  15:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If a respectable scientist, or anyone else for that matter, self-publishes or publishes the results of their scientific research in a fringe source, it means that they were unable to get them published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal. Undoubtedly because the did or would not pass peer-review because of their lack of scientific validity. Their expertise and reputation count for nothing, as this would be a case of the old logical fallacy appeal to authority. In the peer review system, scientific findings are judged on their own scientific merits, not on the reputation or expertise of the person who publishes them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Dominus Vobisdu, please could you clarify what you mean by "Demonstrating how astrologers MISUSE scientific methods ... "  Are you familiar with the tests involved?


 * Not only should these scientific studies be included to justify the pseudoscience claim (as pointed out by BeCritical), anyone who has read the history of these tests will know that they have played an important and controversial role among sceptics, independent researchers, astrologers and in the public eye through the Press.


 * These test results do not justify extraordinary claims partly because of the conclusions, but notably because they do not challenge any established scientific theory. It’s not exactly a test supporting creationism that challenges the theory of evolution or evidence supporting the fake Moon landings.  In fact, these particular tests and analyses have been and should be viewed as a success for science over those who claim that astrology cannot be measured or tested under scientific conditions.


 * Nevertheless, these astrological tests would not be appropriate in mainstream scientific articles in WP that are outside of astrology. However, this page is about astrology.  To try to suppress the only publications that print astrological studies (essentially because they publish such studies) is a circular argument.  This type of redaction could be seen as a cover-up to push one POV – especially when such views are well documented in four paragraphs under Scientific Criticism of Astrology section.  Robert Currey   talk  18:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Christianity is about Christianity but we don't present the views as real, we present them as non-scientific beliefs that some people hold and we do it from a third party perspective, never attempting to insinuate that they might be correct. Astrology should be treated the same way.  The article should present the definition, what people believe it is, and then the science should be presented as clearly rejecting it as anything but pseudoscience.  That's essentially how fringe articles work.  N o f o rmation  Talk  00:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * N o f o rmation – Comparing astrology with Christianity is a mistake.  Astrology does not require a belief like a belief in God – it can be tested empirically.  There are many potential problems and artifacts in testing astrology under scientific conditions, the Carlson test has, according to most scientists, shown that it is possible.  Robert Currey   talk  13:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You have a mistaken conception of religion if you think that it requires belief in God. Some of the great religions of the world are atheistic, like Buddhism and Taoism. Astrology Astrology may not be a religion, but there are certain similarities that make Noformation's comparison a fair one. Certain aspects of astrology can, and have been, empirically tested, with no scientifically valid results to support the claims of its practioners. That is why it is described as a pseudoscience. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is indeed about astrology, but the sections in question are about scientific claims. Therefore, only reliable mainstream peer-reviewed sources are reliable. Astrology is complete and utter fraudulent bullshit until proven itself otherwise- in mainstream peer reviewed scientific publications, of course. There was nothing stopping Gauquelin, Ertel and co. from publishing their results in real scientific publications except that their findings couldn't pass peer review because they lacked scientific rigor and validity. The burden of proof was on them. Fringe publications are just worthless garbage; that's what "fringe" means. Claims of a "conspiracy" to "suppress" and "censor" pseudocientific "research" are, of course, ridiculous. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * DV, what do you suggest? The Gauquelin research is much too widely known for Wikipedia to just ignore it and the "burden of proof" argument, however defined, does not justify leaving it out, if that is what you are suggesting. Readers expect some information on this famous and controversial research and some guidance to the available sources. The problem, as BeCritical has pointed out, is that the research and the scientific discourse on BOTH sides has been published only in what has been described here as "fringe" journals. This would seem to mean that the research though widely known and discussed among scientists, philosophers, and students, cannot be presented one way or the other in Wikipedia. This represents a conundrum for the editors of this article who have talked themselves into this position. Ken McRitchie (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you just answered the question of how we should guide readers. As you said, this "research" has been published only in fringe journals, and is not part of mainstream scientific discourse. We just need to convey that to the reader - perhaps using essentially those exact words - and we've done our job. MastCell Talk 03:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. The reader is quite well warned already in this article.  Certainly, there is more to be done to eliminate apologetics, but we do need to cover notable topics and we are free to take the best sources available and use them, if we give sufficient context to the reader.  Look at the Creation science sources as an example, which uses this (exact source).   Be— —Critical  05:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence whatsoever, from reliable sources, that Gauquelin's "research" is notable at all outside of a small-but-vocal incestuous subset of the astrological and paranormal community? Notability cannot be established based on inside sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that there is hardly any current notability for this. That Eysenck chipped in is of interest in his biography but doesn't really tell us much about the current standing of astrology. By the way, I don't think it is correct to describe Gauquelin as a psychologist or a statistician. After his initial studies he didn't have a university post or publish in scientific journals but just wrote about astrology. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gauquelin's doctorate in psychology from the Sorbonne (1954) should be enough to qualify him as a psychologist. Robert Currey   talk  13:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that he should be referred to as a psychologist. He earned the degree. Whether he actually practiced in the field is not relevant. We often have the same problem with Creationism-related articles. The consensus there is to use the designation if a higher degree was earned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could open this up to wider discussion for consistency. On other articles it has been argued that that the description "historian" should only be applied when the person has been working, i.e. teaching and/or publishing, in the field. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The place to do that would be WP:VP, not here, as it involves consistency between far-flung articles, and not just this one. Really, I don't see much point in doing so. As a scientist myself, I'm loathe to arbitrarily strip qualifications from someone who genuinely earned them. Gladly if the degree was from a diploma mill or otherwise bogus, but Gauquelin's degree is from the Sorbonne, and there's no reason to doubt its authenticity. All in all, it's a relatively minor point as this article is concerned. There are bigger fish to fry. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely agree that any wider debate has to take place elsewhere. Am looking for a source saying that Gauquelin had a doctorate. At the moment all I can find is this saying he studied psychology and then statistics at the Sorbonne. This is relevant to his biography. I am not trying to put him down just because he got interested in astrology. The detail might be relevant to the history of French philosophy. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Do you have any evidence whatsoever, from reliable sources, that Gauquelin's "research" is notable at all outside of a small-but-vocal incestuous subset of the astrological and paranormal community?" Well, no, but that's not relevant to this article, since it's about astrology. But, there's the question of whether, or how, notable it is within astrology, and I don't have an answer for that. However, I very much disagree with the underlying assumption of your posts, which is that public education has anything to fear from this material. For example, I found this source (not vetted yet), which gives very quotable text for use. I don't see a problem here. I would like to have a source which noted that there is absolutely no evidence, Gauquelin's research included, of stars or planets having any effect whatsoever on humans, because no causal link has be demonstrated. Thus, while there might be effects of timing on personality, the cause of such effect has to be demonstrated in order for it to lend any support at all to astrological doctrines. This is as I understand the issue now, but don't have any experience with this. Be— —Critical 16:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, this article may be about astrology, but this section is about scientific claims, so the opinions of astrologers about those claims and concommittant counterclaims don't count for much (unless published in reliable independent peer-reviewed journals).
 * Next, my question was two-fold, and included the astrological community at large outside of the apparently small subset obsessed with proving scientific validity. My guess is that most practitioners of astrology don't give a rat's ass about whether it's scientifically valid or not. I might be wrong, but I doubt it.
 * Has Eysenck's book been peer reviewed? I doubt that books published by Penguin are. If his arguments had any scientific validity, he would have published them with a publishing house that has a reputation for rigorous peer review. But he didn't. Which very, very strongly implies that he couldn't (he probably tried, and his manuscript was rejected)? So what value does his critique hold as far as the evaluation of scientific claims is concerned??? None at all.
 * The burden of proof is not on me to prove that there is no scientific validity to Gauquelin's self-published "research"? It's on him and on those who want to use his work to support the claims of astronomers. So far, I've seen zip. Absolute zip. And I have no reason to believe there is any (it certainly would be headline news in Science and Nature if any were found, with probably a Nobel Prize thrown in).
 * I know that you are trying to formulate some type of illustration about how the proponents of astrology use what they claim is science to back up their claims of scientific validity, but you're going to have to do that using proper sources. Otherwise, it would be just OR. I know you're having a tough time finding sources. Right now, I'm reading this: []. Yes, the problem of scientifically evaluating the claims of astrologers is complex, but the unanimous conclusion is that no scientifically valid results have ever been produced to support those claims. The only difference is in how that determination should be made.
 * It was not I that removed the material from this section. I'm all for giving you some time to clean it up, even though my better judgement says that you should do this in a sandbox, and not in the live article space, especially if it's going to take some time. However, I'll be patient and hold off deleting the rest of the section until you make your improvements. All I ask is that you be really fastidious with the sourcing concerning the validity of scientific claims. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's about astrology's scientific claims. It's not about "scientific claims," it's about "astrology's scientific claims," thus the astrological sources are appropriate. And read the link I gave you on how to use sources in a fringe articles.  Also, all claims of astrology are inherently scientific, as they deal with effects in the physical and psychological world.  Thus, according to your argument no astrological sources should be valid.  That's just not the way it works here.  But remove the section.  It's obvious that there's no sourcing which would satisfy your standards and allow the section to be kept, so it will be a matter of editorial consensus.  I simply feel that while you may be right in the sense of what ought to be, you are wrong according to Wikipedia policy and practice. You have a good point about how relevant it is relative to the overall subject: it's not very relevant.  Perhaps we could take the whole thing out per consensus, and write the whole article without having to deal with scientific claims?   Be— —Critical  18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, scientific claims are scientific claims, and cannot be evaluated by clowns, er... astrolgers. I know the parity section inside out, as it is often used in the articles on Creationism. You missed two words: "RELIABLE" and "VERIFIABLE". To quote: "for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." You can't use just any old source just because you can't find better. It has to be reliable. The section specifically states the kinds of sources that are NOT reliable: "The Creation Science Quarterly, Homeopathy, Journal of Frontier Science (which uses blog comments as its supposed peer review), and many others." We also have a policy on self-published sources: WP:SPS.
 * I accept the fact that there may be reliable non-peer reviewed sources out there somewhere. But none of the sources produced so far qualify. When a source such as Eyesenck is questionable, we can't give it the benefit of a doubt. When in doubt, toss it out. You can use non-reliable sources to ilustrate what bullshit astrologers publish, as along as it's properly attributed and made ABUNDANTLY clear that the mainstream scientific community rejects it, as the parity section says. But you cannot use them to source acceptance or criticism of scientific claims, just to illustrate such claims. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's what I said, what are you arguing about? Be— —Critical  18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Then I did misunderstand. I seriously thought you had been arguing that if no reliable sources can be found, then an exception could be made to use unreliable sources for fringe topics. I did find it very strange, considering your comments about eliminating apologetics. That's why I decided to sit it out. I do recommend the book I'm reading, though. Does a pretty good job of dealing with the fine points of the arguments. Sorry for my obtuseness. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Yes, we can use fringe sources if nothing else is available and it's notable.  We just, as you said, have to put them in relative context.  Are we really saying anything different?  And right about the acceptance or criticism.  Be— —Critical  19:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. We're on the same page. All the best! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no problem with making it abundantly clear that the mainstream scientific community rejects astrology. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The problem is when that opinion is presented as a scientific claim, in which case it needs to be supported by reputable evidence. There is none. Even in the case of the Carlson experiment, what was touted as the first real evidence against astrology turned out to actually support it.


 * Astrology is a strange case and the scientific view of it is the cornerstone of the demarcation problem of separating science from pseudoscience. To say that it has little interest beyond a few radicals is to dismiss your own interest in resolving the problems that it presents. Are you in this or not? Ken McRitchie (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The claim is "no evidence," and that's easy to support till a causative connection is established. At best astrology would have a correlation which is unexplained.  Be— —Critical  20:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and that correlation could not be used to support the claims of astrologers. At all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Right and that's a significant point, do you have a source for that specific statement, that the correlation between birth charts and character traits actually doesn't support astrological cosmology, but is just an unexplained correlation? Be— —Critical  20:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Western astrology is going viral in China and soon the adjective "Western" won't really describe it.


 * The claim of "no evidence" against astrology is also easy to support because there is nothing reliable to cite. A statistical correlation might not be supported by a mechanism, but that is nothing new and hasn't stopped science from publishing such findings, especially when the results conform to theory. Why is astrology so different?


 * Gauquelin failed to find many things in astrology that he expected to find, but what he did find was that the statistical evidence supported the traditional astrological properties of the planets (theory) for which he had results. It supported those astrological claims. It is not quite correct to say the results are unexplained. The astrological explanation is not a mechanistic one but it has it's own internal logic based on its principle premises (tenets if you will).


 * No scientific study has refuted Gauquelin's results, but instead the results have been replicated by other researchers and the characteristics of these statistical effect are becoming better understood as the statistical investigation is refined. This may sound offensive to some, but mainstream science publications have had plenty of time (over 20 years in the case of the planetary eminence effects) to refute them, which they have not done. Scientists who tried very hard in the 70s-80s have stopped trying, though their vocal criticism has not diminished one iota. So here we have claims that no one has scientific evidence against. I don't know about you, but these findings and the inability of anyone to provide evidence against them seems highly relevant and a main feature of astrology to me. Ken McRitchie (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's notable to some degree. If the results are correct, do they actually confirm astrology, or are they just a correlation in personality relative to the time of day of birth?   Be— —Critical  22:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gauquelin showed a correlation between planetary positions at the time of birth and eminence in certain chosen profession and as Ken says the nature of the planets corresponded to traditional theory. He did not however, identify evidence supporting astrological aspects (angles between planets) or for zodiacal positions of planets.   Robert Currey   talk  00:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The claim that astrology experiments would be published in mainstream science papers if they had any merit is wrong. Carlson was an exception for various reasons already explained.  Unless an experiment is related directly to their specialist field like psychology, there is no reason for a science journal editor to consider peer-reviewing an astrology paper.  They would refer the author to the appropriate specialist journals in the field of astrology, such as Correlation or ISAR – which publish peer reviewed papers that are both sceptical and supportive.  In addition, there are very good reasons why an editor of a science journal might be reluctant to risk his or her credibility and that of the journal by publishing an experiment involving what is considered a ‘pseudoscience’ which arouses a great deal of animosity from some scientists who have not studied it.


 * This attitude is understandable since astrology can show statistical evidence of correlations but no evidence of causation. Science has historically rejected evidence without a mechanism as in the case of Ignaz Semmelweis whose theory of anti-septic procedures was rejected until after his untimely death, when Pasteur discovered germ theory.  This attitude appears to be changing within mainstream science, but not in their view of astrology.


 * The work of Gauquelin was, as someone has pointed out, sufficiently high profile to be investigated by one of the leading psychologists in the world, Hans Eysenck as well as three sceptical groups in Belgium, France and CSICOP in the USA. CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer may not be scientific, but it claimed scientific investigation and included many well-known scientists as fellows including the editor of Nature.  Also, I would be surprised if there was an astrologer who is not familiar with Gauquelin’s work, even though most do not know the details.  Gauquelin’s studies have been replicated in subsequent experiments (Timm & Kobberl 1986), (Muller & Menzer 1993) and (Suzel Fuzeau-Braesch 2009) and influenced the theories of astronomer, Dr Percy Seymour.  To try to minimize Gauquelin's work because there is no known mechanism or interpreting WP rules to push a circular argument that astrological journals are unreliable because they publish astrology, seems to be an attempt to cover-up inconvenient data.


 * The solution is to report these experiments, but to add a general comment that these findings have not been refuted or replicated in mainstream scientific journals allowing others to judge for themselves. Robert Currey   talk  00:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Gauquelin section provides information on scientists who refute Gauquelins work. However, that is not the only position held by members of the scientific community. I provided a citation to a mainstream journal article in which the author discusses support for Gauquelins work but my edit was reverted by an editor. I can appreciate a criticism section of a Wikipedia page, however when criticism is laid out, the opposing view point should also be provided. Lastly, criticism of the criticism should be listed to be fair. Regardless of whether you accept the conclusions or not, the data should be made available, I think everyone can agree on that. How do I get my post back on without getting blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParksTrailer (talk • contribs) 20:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You propose your change here, on talk, along with specific sourcing. Your proposed change distorted the timeline (it put the 83 support before the 90 refutation), and gave undue weight to Eysenck vis-a-vie seven French scientists. It put the words of Eysenck into Wikipedia's mouth ("Gauquelin's research is not outright refuted by the scientific community" stated as fact, when it is merely the fringe POV). How did you find this article? Hipocrite (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * www.sciencedirect.com is how I found the article. If you google the journals name with the word REVIEW you will find that it is not a fringe journal, I do not understand why people keep saying that without proper research. I can understand how that is stated as fact and should be reworded. That makes sense. I'm happy to do so, I'm more interested in getting the information out, which shows that not all scientists are in agreement with these seven. EzPz (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you please email me the text of the article? Use the email-this-user feature of Wikipedia. I was actually referring to the Wikipedia article - how did you find this? Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New to the Article
I am a new editor on this article but would like to join the discussion of this very interesting topic. There is so much to this topic. One question I have is whether it would be appropriate to insert brief definitions of terms, such as sidereal and tropical, at the first use.Coaster92 (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sometimes. Per WP:UNDERLINK, we should link "articles explaining technical terms, jargon or slang expressions—but you could also provide a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link. If there is no appropriate Wikipedia article, an interwiki link to Wiktionary could be used." Hipocrite (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to point me in the right direction on this. I did look at underlink and saw the point that it is recommended to explain highly technical terms with a few words if possible, and to avoid having readers needing to go to a link to understand a sentence. In this article, I have read and re-read the sentence about the difference between western and Hindu astrology, ie, the focus on sidereal versus tropical astrology, and do not come away with an understanding of the difference, without going to the link. These first paragraphs of the article seem to be important for giving the overview of the topic, and considering only three approaches are mentioned, this is a major important point, so this seems it could benefit from a few words of explanation. I could have a go at it.Coaster92 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "pseudoscience" reference in the lead
The lead states that Astrology is a pseudoscience because it "makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations". While I don't have a problem with the lead stating that astrology is a pseudoscience, I find the "explanation" of why it is pseudoscience unhelpful. Only the last part (that astrology is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations) seems to make sense. The first two parts are almost nonsensical. What exactly are astrology's "problems", and how would it attempt to "develop solutions" to them? Precisely what "competing theories" to astrology are there? The problem with astrology surely cannot be that it doesn't "develop solutions" to its "problems", but that its ideas are unscientific. Similarly, saying that astrology doesn't "consider competing theories" leaves open the question of what kind of "theory" astrology is such that it would be worth comparing it to other "theories". Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with your last point. It's the lack of confirming data coupled with grand claims of causation (or some form of non-causation causation like "divination") which make it a pseudoscience.  It seems that there may be correlation between the real world and some parts of astrology, but that's to be expected with any tradition and doesn't justify the claims.  I do agree that the paragraph is non-specific to the point of uselessness, and combining Dominus version  with a more specific description I have this to offer:


 * Astrology has no basis in modern science for many reasons, including that it supplies no physical mechanism that links the movements of celestial bodies to human behavior, proposes disproven causal agents such as electro-magnetism, or says it is a form of divination.


 * Using the wording "no basis," also has the advantage that we may include the lack of a physical mechanism, which with the word "pseudoscience" would not be a decisive factor (because an unknown mechanism doesn't make for pseudoscience).  Be— —Critical  03:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be as well to consider Thomas Kuhn's view of astrology and pseudoscience; here he is discussing Karl Popper's arguments about why astrology is a pseudoscience in The Essential Tension:

I think Kuhn's views (he goes on to say that astrology is a "craft", not a pseudoscience) should be worth mentioning. I'm surprised in fact that Kuhn's perspective is mentioned in the article already. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We definitely need to summarise the views of both Itsmejudith (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Popper and Kuhn.
 * Be critical asked the editors on the creationist related articles for their input, and one just posted this definition of pesudoscience, which is better than what we currently have:
 * "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."
 * Maybe we can incorporate that into the lead. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Where's that from? Because by that definition, again, most everything people believe is "pseudoscience," including religion.  If it stopped at "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method" that would work.  I mean, it's a fine definition to me, but I don't agree with using it here without using it for religion articles. I agree that the Kuhn quote is probably notable.  Be— —Critical  13:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thats from the pseudoscience page, and most religious ideas are pseudoscience, like Intelligent design, Creation science‎, Young Earth creationism, Scientology, Baraminology, Bible Diet, Creation Evidence Museum, Creation geophysics, Dianetics and Flood geology all of which are in the pseudoscience category. Religion it's self isn't a pseudoscience because of the part of the definition "is presented as scientific" but most claims in religion on origins and explanations of things, probably is. — raeky  t  14:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Right and that's the issue here, because most of astrology is not presented as science as are the subjects you mentioned. Look at the science section here and you'll see how small the pseudoscience part is relative to the overall picture.  Only that part of astrology that presents itself as scientific (as opposed to just right and true and factual like religion) is pseudoscience.  At one point I tried to put in the definition here that to the extent that it presents itself as science, astrology is a pseudoscience.  So the analogy here would be that if we call all of astrology pseudoscience, we should call Christianity as a whole "pseudoscience."  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  14:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's why I changed the formulation to "Astrology has no basis in modern science..". However, I think you are underestimating the degree that astrologers do portray astrology as a real science, only to backpedal when confronted and say that "it's not fair that scientists are evaluating astrology in terms of science when it's not a science". This long history of misrepresentation is the reason why I insist on reliable independent sources. Astrologists have proven time and time again that they are not a reliable source for information on themselves or astrology.
 * Another matter is that there seems to be a strong consensus that the word "peudoscience" appear in the text, especially because astrology is THE prototypical pseudoscience. I'm afraid that any solution leaving that word out will get reverted. How about this:
 * "Astrology has no basis in modern science. To the extent that it presents itself as science, astrology is a pseudoscience because it does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, and makes predictions which cannot be reliably tested. When astrological predictions have been scientifically tested, they have never been demonstrated to be more accurate than chance."
 * That combines three ideas which are actually independent: 1) no basis; 2) pseudoscience; and 3) no evidence. What do you think? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, although I think my text above ("supplies no physical mechanism that links the movements of celestial bodies to human behavior, proposes disproven causal agents such as electro-magnetism, or says it is a form of divination") is more understandable to most people, and more convincing. I'm cautious about saying "never been demonstrated" because of the studies which were done (and since I can imagine several ways which astrological predictions might be correct under conventional explanations I don't find the studies too unbelievable). And I don't want to say "conclusively demonstrated," because that supplies wiggle room that overall isn't justified.  I think the issue of proof and chance is too complex for the lead.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  15:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything general about what astrologers do, how they present their stuff. Certainly they do things in a way where it looks like an exact scientific type thing.  Someone had a chart done on me once as a gift and I went to the astrologer.  Practically everything she said was wrong.  Astrology deserves to be called pseudoscience... but then so does religion.  I just want to get everything technically right.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * BeCritical, there are some charlatans who call themselves astrologers and it is unfortunate that you met one. This might have colored your opinion. If you go to an astrologer who is also a licensed psychologist you will be more assured of someone good. There are a lot of these.
 * I do not defend these so-called astrologers such as BeCritical met, but even they do not present astrology as being scientific. There is no reliable astrological source I know of that presents astrology as a science. If the article claims that there is lack of supporting evidence for astrology, then this needs to be demonstrated. Good luck with that because you will have to explain the Mars eminence effect. The statement that astrology "makes predictions which cannot be reliably tested" is incorrect because astrologers do not make predictions. They may make forecasts and give advice.
 * Astrology is not a science, but it is very hard to make any reasonable claim that it is a pseudoscience because none of the reasons stick. Philosophers have argued the demarcation problem for years and the best that can be done is to say that philosophers don't agree on what makes something a pseudoscience. The pseudoscience label is a label only, just leave it at that and don't try to justify it. Ken McRitchie (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the problems that plagues this article is that in the world view of Wikipedia science seems unable to stand apart when it attempts to study astrology. If a scientist does an astrological experiment and finds a positive result, then he/she is an astrologer. If a scientific journal (such as JSE or Correlation) publishes articles on astrology (with either positive or negative results it turns out), then it is a "fringe journal." This is nonsense. Does an anthropologist who studies Rastafarians become a Rasta? Does a biologist who studies elephants become an elephant? What is it about astrology that allegedly makes scientists lose their capacity for scientific literacy and get sucked in to a pseudo world? That would be worthy of a scientific study in itself (except that would get sucked in too). It's an awful contagion that just boggles the mind in some unknown way. Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hummmmmmmmmmmmm, so you're saying that astrologers are more effective if they have psychology training?
 * Yes, the concept of pseudoscience is probably so contested and nebulous that it's technically mostly good as a negative label, but that's not the point because Wikipedia seems to endorse the use of the term, and there are good sources for it here. And it's all about whether astrology is a science, that is to say "a branch of knowledge that is taught and researched at the college or university level," and has the journals to match.  Anyway, the astrologer I went to was perfectly well qualified, it's just that I'm exceptionally hard to psych out... which is why your reference to psychological training is so intensely funny.  Oh, and I think she was a licensed councilor too.
 * What actually colors my opinion is that IF astrology makes grandiose claims without support, then it's a pseudoscience for reaching beyond the data. And IF astrology makes claims per the scientific data it has then at the very best the effects observed can only be established by statistics and are far too slight to be of much use in real life.  So what it basically is, is psychology.  And further, any observed effects can't be ascribed to planets et al, but to unknown causes.  That's why the lack of a mechanism is relevant to astrology's being a pseudoscience: without a mechanism, you look for mundane causes, not say "we observed an effect, so astrology is supported."  So scientifically speaking, even if astrology has observed some effects which correspond to its traditions, those traditions have no scientific support.  And, it's about as useful as the psychological insight of the astrologer.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  03:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Does an anthropologist who studies Rastafarians become a Rasta?" No. An anthropologist who studies Rastafarians will live amongst Rastas, try (and quite possibly fail) to understand their ways, and then explain what s/he has learned about Rastafarian society and culture in the process. Anthropologists don't expect to find 'positive results' (or negative ones) in Rastafarianism - though they may well find positive or negative results in terms of anthropological understanding of Rastafarianism. Anthropologists aren't doing what they are doing to prove the subjects of their study right or wrong. If you set out to do so, it isn't anthropology. Likewise, trying to prove astrology right or wrong isn't science - because astrology isn't a scientific premise, but belief system. It is reasonable enough to take a prediction/forecast (what's the difference?) that a particular astrologer makes, and subject it to scientific testing, but how do you test a belief system? You can't. None of this would matter much were it not for the insistence of certain astrologers that not only can astrology be scientifically tested, but that it has been - see the long and tedious debate over Gauquelin. To simultaneously assert that astrology is scientifically testable, and that science is incapable of falsifying its predictions is utterly illogical - though as someone with a degree in anthropology, I'm not in the least surprised that astrologers can believe two mutually-contradictory things at the same time. That is no reason to assert that both (or either) beliefs are true - instead, a Wikipedia article on astrology should treat it as what it is - a belief system. Or rather, a multitude of belief systems, with their own internal logic, own histories, and own ongoing dynamic. Which is to say that the 'anthropologists-eye-view' is the only valid one here. We should describe it from an external perspective, as a way of understanding the world (or in this case, the 'planets'), rather than trying to make statements about its validity - and to do otherwise is a distortion of scholarly values - or to use an alternative word, pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, although to the extent it goes and says it's science we have to present the opposing view. But I agree with the anthropological approach to the subject. I think that's more or less a consensus here, and we mainly lack someone with the experience and energy to actually write it that way.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  04:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, but anthropologists with a missionary attitude do indeed find positive or negative results when they study a culture and this is what is happening on this page. The alleged "distortion of scholarly values" results in labeling and censorship, which has become WP policy. Where does that allegation come from? What scholarly values have been distorted? The astrological scholars have the experience and the energy to write it all and would be grateful for constructive editing. Instead we have a strong missionary attitude and OR allegations of distortions. In this case it is the astrologers who are upholding scholarly values against censorship. Ken McRitchie (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of writing it anthropologically is so that there won't be any missionary attitude.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Read my friend, is that really what you see? Then read the censored content. Ken McRitchie (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Over the weekend, I was at an astronomy conference and had the opportunity to discuss astrology with a number of eminent astronomers. One astronomy professor from Berkeley claimed that astrology was not scientific because the constellations are out of alignment. He was quite surprised to learn that despite the same nomenclature, the signs and the constellations were (intentionally) different measuring systems and this was well known to astrologers for nearly two thousand years. Ed Krupp of the Griffiths Observatory was more informed and explained that the pseudoscience claim was based on the lack of evidence – so I gave him a copy of my paper on the U-Turn in the Carlson experiment.

I think Ed Krupp has a point. Even if astrology has as Karl Popper described “a stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on observation”, there is very little evidence from statistical studies of data collected under the scientific method (Gauquelin plus three separate replications and Ertel's reappraisal of Carlson). But then there have not been many valid tests by independent researchers and does this fact make it a pseudoscience?

Several other arguments have been proposed to support the pseudoscience claim:


 * 1) The lack of a known mechanism applies to many areas of science. (This has been discussed already)
 * 2) What are the grand claims of a mechanism made by astrologers?  The proposal of Electro Magnetism as a part of a complex model of a mechanism came from Dr Percy Seymour an astronomer.  Maybe someone may want to argue the opposite in that too few astrologers offer theories of mechanism as a case to make it a pseudoscience.
 * 3) I can see how creationism may “shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories” (i.e. Darwin) but what are the competing scientific theories to astrology?
 * 4) What is the evidence that astrology is “selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations”?  Correlation, the astrological journal publishes articles by astrologers, sceptics and neutral researchers. What is selective about that?
 * 5) Whether the premise of astrology (a correlation between astronomical bodies and the Earth) is plausible or implausible is subjective opinion.
 * 6) Astrology is not irrefutable and predictions can be reliably tested – this is not just my belief, this is the hypothesis of the Carlson test.  Andy refers to “…the insistence of certain astrologers that not only can astrology be scientifically tested, but that it has been “  I’d like to clarify that this claim comes from scientists including the editor of Nature.  Whether the practice of professional astrologers can be tested is not in doubt, it is the results of the Carlson test that are seriously questioned by scientists around the world, and to our collective shame the evidence has recently been deleted without consensus.
 * 7) It is true that astrology is presented in a scientific form when it is subject to research and published in peer reviewed journals.  However, there is nothing scientific or pseudoscientific about the presentation of astrology in a chart reading or in most articles.  While I am personally interested in investigating astrology from a scientific point of view with the intention of separating the wheat from the chaff, I regret to say that most astrologers don’t care whether astrology is scientific or is as one editor believes seen to be scientific.
 * 8) Perhaps this opposite argument that most astrologers do not use the scientific method could be used to justify the pseudoscience label.  While this suggests that the practice of astrology by most astrologers is pseudoscientific, it does not make astrology, as a field, a pseudoscience.
 * 1) Perhaps this opposite argument that most astrologers do not use the scientific method could be used to justify the pseudoscience label.  While this suggests that the practice of astrology by most astrologers is pseudoscientific, it does not make astrology, as a field, a pseudoscience.

While some people like to claim that astrology is a ‘quintessential’ or ‘classic example’ of pseudoscience, this is an empty pronouncement and never explained. When compared to astrology, Intelligent Design wins hands down as a pseudoscience (the lack of evidence, the conflict with mainstream science and the scientific pretence). Yet, pseudoscience is not even mentioned in the lead!

The problem is that pseudoscience is a loose, pejorative term more popular with sceptics than mainstream scientists to describe fields that are systematic – even empirical but not scientific. While it should not be necessary to define astrology according to what it is not, I don’t believe anyone should disagree with this statement: While some of the public believe that astrology is a science, neither astrologers nor scientists consider astrology to be a science.    However, since the Arbitration Committee has given us the terms “generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community”, this is what we should be using without embellishing it with personal bias or attempting to justify it with faulty reasoning. Robert Currey  talk  23:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You demonstrate quite nicely that it is pseudoscience.
 * (1–2) irrelevant. that's not what PS is.
 * (3) Psychology etc.
 * (4) a general observation about how astrologers treat the evidence
 * (5) irrelevant
 * (6) Exactly. That's what makes it PS. If astrology as a whole were like Carlson, it would be a science.
 * (7) Yes, that is PS. As you noted above, these are scientifically testable claims. To makes such claims w/o testing them is PS. — kwami (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is better because it narrows down the arguments against astrology. We are agreed then that 1, 2, and 5 are irrelevant, so they now go away.


 * In 3, astrology does not compete with psychology or any other discipline. There are plenty of psychologists who have used astrology for additional insight. Carl Jung drew upon astrology in developing his theory of personality. The four psychological functions of intuition, sensation, thinking, and feeling correspond neatly with the astrological elements of fire, earth, air, and water. These form the basis of the Meyers-Briggs personality assessment, which has become widely recognized and respected. The comparison is eminently complementary.


 * In 4, the verifiable fact that astrology journals are not selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations carries weight, unlike a subjective belief stated as a "general observation." That is not an argument.


 * In 6, the claim published by Nature that astrology can and has been tested dispenses with the argument that astrology is not falsifiable, so that claim of pseudoscience goes away. The Carlson experiment, because it studied whole charts, claimed to test astrology as a whole. Glad we cleared that up.


 * In 7, that astrology practitioners perform their work based on a published literature does make the practice of chart reading or writing typical articles pseudoscientific. The assertion of non-testing is incorrect. Even to make falsifiable claims without testing them does not make something pseudoscience. What is pseudoscience (according to Popper) is to make claims that are not falsifiable. That one goes away.


 * While it is sad to see that even a Berkley astronomer was misinformed about the difference between zodiacal signs and constellations,it is good that his colleague from the Griffiths Observatory was more informed and could explain it.


 * I, like Robert am an advocate of more stringent testing and open disclosure because almost all the testing has been incredibly sloppy and incompletely presented. It only gets interesting when there is a closely followed discourse and accountability, such as we have seen in the cases of Gauquelin and Carlson. For those who are curious about the subject, there needs to be more exchanges such as these two examples that have come to a resolution through critical discourse. Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken, you do not appear to understand what PS is. Per (6), if it were not falsifiable, it would not be PS. It's PS *because* it's falsifiable. Please read the essay ref'd in the lead. It's a good summary of the argument. — kwami (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The same points have been repeated over and over again on both sides here and it's going absolutely nowhere, and furthermore, is really just a bunch of opinions being thrown around. Can we get back on track here?
 * ARBCOM has decided we can call it pseudoscience
 * Because it's a large part of the article it should be in the lede
 * Like it or not, from a scientific perspective, astrology is woowoo and WP takes the scientific perspective (if not explicitly then by default of the sourcing policy respecting science and not respecting fringe as science).
 * My cursory reading of the source leads me to believe that the statements in the lede are sourced.
 * So what exactly is the issue here? I know that the people here who believe in astrology don't like it, but honestly that's not really relevant.  All that's relevant is what I wrote above: is it sourced?  Is it a large enough part of the article to be in the lede?  Has ARBCOM already decided this?  If the answers to those questions are yes, then this conversation is just continuing into WP:NOTAFORUM territory.  If I didn't delve deep enough into the source to find out that it doesn't actually make that statement, then just change it to whatever the source does say and we can be done with it.  There's simply no reason this thread should have continued this far if we made appeals only to policy and not to personal opinion, wishful thinking and how things ought to be in everyone's own personal and perfect encyclopedia.   N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  04:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kwami, Ken and Noformation. The seven points listed are the arguments raised here or the traditional PS arguments.  As per Kwami’s comments, can we now agree to drop the points: 1,2,4 & 5 as justification for PS?


 * Now onto point 3: What are the competing scientific theories to astrology?  Kwami, you wrote psychology, etc.  Could you please clarify how and what you mean with an example so we can explore that avenue?


 * Re points 6 and 7(2): Kwami, I believe, Ken was referring to Karl Popper’s classic demarcation of pseudoscience in that it was not falsifiable and that science must be verifiable. However, as you state now that astrology is considered verifiable, the argument for PS has turned 180°.  So as astrological claims are made without scientific testing, the practice of astrology by most astrologers is pseudoscientific.  However, this does not make the field of astrology a pseudoscience.  For example, if a survey showed that most practitioners of medicine were not following scientifically verified evidence (which could be possibly be valid), it would not follow that the field of medicine now becomes a pseudoscience.


 * Now the core of astrology (planets, signs, aspects) came from the Assyrian/later Babylonian era. This data was collected empirically in the diaries or menologies which recorded daily planetary and terrestrial phenomena over almost a thousand years.  Though historians are still decoding these tablets mostly in the British Museum, this was a rigorous study by scholars in the service of the king resulting in a huge database.  We don’t yet know how they analyzed the data to reach their conclusions.  Later civilizations, like the Greeks (more appropriately Hellenes in this context) were more theoretical than empirical but these ancient theories were repeatedly tested through empirical observation.  In the last century, Gauquelin, using his own data and later that of sceptical groups, was able to verify some of these ancient techniques confirming the nature of some planets and the significance of angular position.  So when an astrologer claims that Mars in a strong position or a ‘martian’ theme in the chart is most likely to result in a direct, assertive personality, it is not derived randomly or arbitrarily.  Without funding, on-going research is amateur and astrologers do not have the opportunity to have the backing of rigorous modern scientific studies like most sciences. (I doubt this point could be conveyed in the text, but this is relevant background to making firm claims and may not be known by some of the new editors.)


 * Kwami, I agree Thagard is possibly the best resource we have on astrology and PS and everyone in this discussion will benefit from reading it. However, he wrote it in 1978 before the creation and expansion of psychological astrology, the publication of astrological journals like Correlation which publishes disconfirmations, replications of Gauquelin and many other developments that have radically altered astrology.


 * Astrology is “generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community” should be included because ArbCom says so. There is certainly no need to explain or justify or add any puff to this plain fact in the lead.  Robert Currey   talk  11:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that the arguments you present are the only arguments, nor do I agree to discard any of them. I see a lot of verbiage, but I am focused on things like "... the publication of astrological journals like Correlation which publishes disconfirmations, replications of Gauquelin and many other developments that have radically altered astrology."

Coorelation is not a reliable source for science, as it undergoes only sham peer review. It is a reliable source for the opinions of Astrologers alone. Hipocrite (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite, you appear to have missed the point. Robert Currey   talk  13:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you explained yourself poorly. Meanwhile, what is the source for "the Arbitration Committee has given us the terms “generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community”"? Arbcomm very rarely dictate content William M. Connolley (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The source I believe is Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience. Now, if I understand WMC correctly, I agree with him.  ArbCom can't dictate what wording we are supposed to use in our articles.  If you go back to the original decision, what they said was: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."  It sounds to me like they are making two points:
 * It's OK for us to include information about this being a pseudoscience in the article. They don't say how this information should be included or what exact verbiage that we use, only that we may properly include this information in the article.
 * This can be categorized this as pseudoscience. By 'categorized', I think that they mean WP:Categorization.  So, in other words, it's OK for us to put one of those  categories at the bottom of the article, which already we're doing.
 * I don't think it was their intent was that we copy the verbiage they used in their decision to mean that we should also use their verbiage. We can if we want, but that's up to us to determine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK - we have three issues to sort here. The first is, can we improve on ArbCom’s wording that “astrology is generally considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community” and remain impartial and encyclopedic?  The second is, do we need to add any justification to this statement in the lede?  And if anyone deems it necessary, what valid reason or reasons (taking into account what has been written so far) should be added the statement? Any statement should be concise and kept to a minimum in the lede section - explanations should come later.  Robert Currey   talk  23:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
According to a source of our Pseudoscience article "According to Brian Baigrie (1988, 438), “[w]hat is objectionable about these beliefs is that they masquerade as genuinely scientific ones.” These and many other authors assume that to be pseudoscientific, an activity or a teaching has to satisfy the following two criteria (Hansson 1996): (1) it is not scientific, and (2) its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific"."

So I'd like to discuss this revert. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 22:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is proving intent. When our professional astrologer was here, people made the argument that astrology is not a pseudoscience because it does not pretend to be scientific. They had all sorts of references to back up that POV. Part of that was a mischaracterization of science (astrology does not claim a mechanism, or causality, therefore it's not pretending to be science), but still, we found several assessments of pseudoscience that didn't require there to be intent to deceive. Also, most astrologers are honest and not attempting to deceive anyone. What makes it pseudoscience is what we have already in the lead: it makes scientifically testable claims without ever testing them or considering the evidence. If astrology were based on Gauquelin's research, and fared better or worse depending on how that research fared, then it would be scientific, if poorly supported. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That doesn't quite make sense to me, because you don't call religion or every other stupid belief that people have "pseudoscience." Where do you stop calling things pseudoscience, if not when people stop claiming it's science?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If a religion makes a scientifically testable claim without testing it, then it is pseudoscience, though people seldom use that word for organized religions, probably because they'd offend. Scientology with its theta meters is pseudoscience, and there have been hundreds of similar movements. The numerology found in the Bible is pseudoscience, at least to the extent that it makes testable predictions. Well, not at the time those passages were written, since they had nothing better to go on, but it would be if people applied it today. But if it's a claim like Jesus died for our sins, how do you test that? You'd have to interview souls entering Heaven and ask them how many had accepted Jesus, and then demonstrate that Christianity had failed to contrast those figures with the predictions of other religions.
 * I don't know what Baigrie in your quote meant by "masquerade". Is a specific claim involved? It wouldn't have to be, with the way I've seen the word used. But the word also has an implication of deception, which is wrong. Deception makes something a fraud, not pseudoscientific. A lot of psychics, palm readers, and astrologers are sincere people, truly believe in what they're doing, and often are motivated to help people, as they see the beneficial effects they have on their clients. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you post one of those sources? And you're right, even a claim like "Jesus died for our sins" is pseudoscientific under your definition.  What's wrong with an experiment like what you describe?  It's a testable claim, and all you have to do is ask the souls.  Since such an experiment is eminently doable -assuming the proposition is correct to begin with- there's nothing besides the fact that no one is claiming scientific validity to keep us from calling it pseudoscience.  And consider the word: pseudoscientific, that is fake science.  Nearly every claim is potentially scientific, but not every false claim meets the definition of pseudoscientific.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Religion unfortunately has a special status in most societies wherein it's taboo to criticize or comment on people's irrationally held beliefs. If the bible had not been written and passed down over thousands of years, and today someone tried to posit the bible as factual, it would rightfully be called something along the lines of peudoscience/pseudohistory if it made the same metaphysical claims that it does now.  In fact, we definitely consider Creationism, Intelligent Design, etc, to be pseudoscience.


 * As was pointed out in the Scientology example, we refer to their methods and beliefs as pseudoscientific and pseudofactual just as we do the Raelians or any other modern day cult, which is simply a religion in training. Astrology, however, goes beyond religious claims by making very specific metaphysical statements that contradict what we already know for a fact about the universe and so it's not much different than a crackpot with a Perpetual motion machine or a Theory of Everything that doesn't fall in line with previously observed phenomenon.  The entire premise is that balls of gas and/or rock in the sky somehow influence our insignificant lives here on this tiny, insignificant rock.  Making a statement like that is pseudoscientific, with or without a mechanism.  Whether it technically falls in line with this or that definition of pseudoscience, the bottom line is that calling it pseudoscience is a lot nicer than just calling it bullshit.  But as an encyclopedia of knowledge, not wishful thinking, we have to present astrology as what it is.


 * With that said, I wouldn't necessarily have an issue with not specifically calling it pseudoscience so long as it's presented in the context of being an unsubstantiated and unjustified belief that happens to be held by a lot of people. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't even have a problem if we didn't mention that most of those people are teenage girls.  Ok I'm kidding, put away the pitchforks.   N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  00:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you are kidding and I will keep my pitchfork out of this ;) but I sense you are confusing the field of astrology as a whole with newspaper sun sign astrology.  Certainly the stats suggest that there are more women interested in astrology than men, but for the record there is no evidence of a special interest by teenagers of either sex.  Robert Currey   talk  14:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL


 * Well yes, except that I went to Raëlism and Scientology and did a search for pseudoscience and didn't find it. Astrology has just as much claim to being grandfathered in as something you don't call pseudoscience as any religion.  And religions of all sorts make just as specific metaphysical claims as Astrology, indeed claims that are essentially the same such as "I was lucky today because of the planets" versus "Saints healed me" etc.  Anyway, without very good sources which trump the ones in the Pseudoscience article, I think we should go with the sources we have, and also with what I think is logic, that is that you don't call something pseudoscience if it doesn't claim to be science (unless we're ready to go and try to categorize Catholicism as pseudoscience) .  Given that Astrologists categorize their beliefs more as Divination than science most of the time, I really think my little caveat is appropriate.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If we can get back to the topic of the present article rather than the Bible and such, note there quite a few statements in the article that astrology conducts "research" and so forth. Thus sure sounds like a claim to status as science, which I agree is a requirement to qualify as a pseudoscience. But in the end what I think doesn't matter -- there are many, many, many sources of great prominence and reliability that describe astrology as a pseudoscience. Omitting this fact would mislead the reader in a very serious way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But since nobody's suggesting that we leave it out... Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, I must have misconstrued comments like "Astrology has just as much claim to being grandfathered in as something you don't call pseudoscience..." etc. Apologies if I misunderstood. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see, no problem, what I meant there is that there is a lot of astrology which is just folk culture, or whatever you want to call it, and makes no claim on science whatsoever. This entire section is over this issue. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 02:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "the saints healed me" – that would be pseudoscience. People actually have done scientific studies of the healing power of prayer. (It works – just so long as the person knows you're praying for them. Rather like executing condemned criminals by casting a hex on them in Vodun: only works if they know about it.) But faith healers do not do that research, and they only concern themselves with it if they think it validates them. Selective attention to the evidence is a hallmark of pseudoscience. Read the ref in the lead: astrology wasn't pseudoscience at first, because there was no scientific theory that addressed the same issues. Now science does. The same with salvation: if we could interview souls in Heaven, then ideas of salvation would be pseudoscience if they weren't based on solid evidence. But since we can't do that, it's outside the realm of modern science. Therefore religions which make claims about salvation are not making scientifically testable claims. Therefore they are not pseudoscience.
 * Or, more briefly: Astrology could be a science. We can test its claims and compare it to other theories. Ideas of salvation cannot be a science, as there's no way to test their validity with current knowledge. "Could be but isn't" = pseudoscience. "Can't be and isn't" ≠ pseudoscience. — kwami (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be disagreement in the sources, with some painting with a broad brush, and others being more specific. So I concede about the edit.

I do contend, though, that any statement which makes factual claims, yet is untested, is unscientific, that is to say anti-scientific or what one would call pseudoscience in the loose sense. So I'd say salvation is pseudoscience. I just don't think it's appropriate to call it that on Wikipedia, unless it is also making a claim to have scientific backing. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 04:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Astrology and astrologers do not claim to be a modern science. I think the problem is where scientists get into the act and try to find out if astrological claims are true. It is very difficult to gather the data for an quantatative experiment, but it can and has been done several times. If these scientists conduct research as Gauquelin did, then does their research automatically become pseudoscientific? Does astrology then automatically become pseudoscientific? There is a constant threat to science that some scientists will investigate astrology and try to find something. Science will be brought into the situation. How does science defend itself against such an act? Pseudoscience of course!


 * Because, it turns out, the answer lies in whether the investigating scientist found support for astrology or not (and the slight problem of finding a publisher with peer reviewers familiar enough with astrology to accurately regognize whether the claim being tested is astrological or not). For example, Gauquelin suffered the misfortune of finding support for some claims predicted by astrology. His research is clearly pseudoscience. And now astrology is pseudoscience because he was a scientist and he made claims. It doesn't matter that other scientists refined his findings in independent studies. They are also pseudoscientists.


 * Carlson enjoyed the good fortune of finding no support for astrology (and getting a publisher - yay!), so his was clearly science. That is until a number of scientists found that he made very serious and quite obvious and illogical mistakes and showed that it supported astrology. Clearly then it was pseudoscience. But wait, we can save the situation by claiming that the critical scientists were actually not scientists but pseudoscientists! They had to be because they showed Carlson's results to be positive for astrology. Carlson was the victim of science heretics and even though his work is obviously flawed, it is still scientific. Carlson was just a student, so we forgive him. All is well. Ken McRitchie (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't know what to say to that, except that I'm sure there is plenty of prejudice within science since it's a human institution. Just the corporate influence is appalling, and I'm sure other biases are there as well (not that it has any effect relative to Wikipedia).  I do consider that astrological studies may have been good science, and picked up on some correlation.  I don't know enough about the subject, and I'm just curious about one thing, and that's what the results were interpreted to mean.  And the Mars effect, I don't understand that: is that a yearly thing, I mean is Mars position in a natal chart something that changes on a yearly cycle, a monthly cycle, or a daily cycle, or what?  Is it a regular cycle?  Sorry, just curious, because if it's a regular cycle then it might be hormonal or seasonal, and I'm not sure if the study took such things into account?  I'm not sure why scientists seem to have taken the results as a confirmation of astrology -if the results are real- rather than something with more mundane causation?  Especially if in the past the effects were more pronounced, Astrology might have picked up on them and ascribed them to the stars.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Curiosity is a sign of intelligence, no need to apologize : ) Ken McRitchie (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether astrology is a pseudoscience or not comes down to definition. The original classic definition by Karl Popper that a pseudoscience was not falsifiable now no longer applies to astrology since the Carlson test showed it was possible with astrology – even if Carlson’s methods were criticised and his conclusions were faulty.  Since then the goal posts that defined pseudoscience are continually moving and the following should be considered:
 * Astrologers don’t claim astrology is a science. If anything some see parts of it like Gauquelin as a proto-science requiring more replication and a mechanism.  As discussed, for anything to be pseudo requires pretence.
 * Researching any field cannot make it a pseudoscience. As Ken, points out are Carlson, CSICOP and other researchers who investigate astrology scientists if they confirm a null hypothesis or pseudoscientists if they get positive results?
 * Astrology does not rely on claims that contradict science. Though many astrologers might speak of the ‘influence of Jupiter’, very few posit a causal relationship or pretend there is a known mechanism (other than for Natural Astrology: the solar and lunar tug and the tides).  (This is like an astronomer saying that IO is a living moon because it has volcanic activity while our moon is dead – it is a metaphor).  There are many fields that identify phenomena without a known mechanism such as continental drift (now plate tectonics) or the efficacy of aspirin where the mechanism was not known until 1971. A lack of mechanism does not make a field pseudoscientific.
 * However, this question is academic in the sense that astrology is classified as “generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community” by Arbcom and therefore should be stated that way with no spin in the article. Robert Currey   talk  14:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay then, so then there's consensus to leave the statement as it is, "While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience..."? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  14:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As it is following a ruling and given that pseudoscience is so loosely defined, I would support following Arbcom's terms: “It is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community”.  Robert Currey   talk  15:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes that is preferable. The statement as it is now is: "While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience because it makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations."


 * The first assertion "superficial resemblance" is not in the sources. Thagard says instead that the discipline has to "purport to be scientific." Astrology does not purport to be scientific, but the scientists who investigate astrology do in fact purport that their studies are scientific. That makes things a bit more complicated.


 * The assertion of "little attempt to develop solutions to its problems (e.g. MG found no evidence in signs so that is still a problem). The scientists who have gotten involved have made numerous attempts. MG tried very hard to find evidence of signs and others have too. Other scientists have researched other parts of astrology, Carlson for example, who we also cite.


 * The assertion is no concern for "competing theories." What competing theories? Astronomical and demographic artifacts? In the case of MG, those were ruled out. Astrology does not contradict other theories. Carlson compared astrology with personality profiles, which we cite. He didn't actually express a concern that he was matching competing theories but he was comparing two theories to see if they could get the same results, so I don't see how this assertion holds in view of the referenced material.


 * The last aserrtion is "selective in considering confirmation and dis-confirmations." Thagard doen't even give an example, so what is he referring to? Astrologers admit they are sometimes (maybe often) wrong. As far as the bold scientists go, what was MG being selective about? Or Ertel? What was Carlson being selective about? Oh well, Carlson is different. He made a conclusion that was illogical even if his facts were right, which they weren't. We cite Carlson, and he was not being "selective" at all. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase "considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" won't do at all. It implies that this view is confined to the scientific community, which is false. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be an acceptable phrase actually. Wikipedia follows the scholarly community, and what they consider to be correct is all that matters.  Such a statement therefore is specially suited for Wikipedia, and has the added advantage of being more persuasive than other formulations, due to the appeal to authority.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  17:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As Becritical said, WP is based on what the mainstream scholarly community reorts in high-quality reliable sources, and the overwhelming consensus is that it is pseudoscience. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but we need to avoid implying that only scientists view astrology as pseudoscience. Many (most? practically everybody?) outside the scientific community think it's pseudoscience too. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So what would you say in such a situation, how would you word it? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * People outside the scientific community are persuaded to believe that astrology is pseudoscience only because of an appeal to the authority of the scientific community. Where else would such a strange and difficult to define concept as pseudoscience come from? Ordinary people don't think such things. The belief emanates from that community. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Becritical: The best wording is "While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience...". This covers the fact that the overwhelming majority of the scholarly community has concluded that it is pseudoscience, as well as the fact that the general public is mostly in agreement. There's nothing tenative about this; in fact, astrology is considered the prototypical pseudoscience. I would oppose any language that implies that this opinion is more limited in scope than it actually is. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are more than 1,000 Google Scholar refs for +astrology +pseudoscience. I doubt if you will find a more archetypal trope in epistemological discourse. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are in fact, 1,940 listings in Google Scholar but there are 58,500 for +astrology +science - does that make astrology a science?


 * Pseudoscience is a philosophical term on which few scholars can agree. The public have no idea what pseudoscience means and there is no evidence that a majority believe that astrology is a pseudoscience or even think about it.  At least we can all now agree that the argument that astrology is a pseudoscience because the public wrongly believe that it is a science is false - even if we are following different reasoning.


 * I understand that when as one new editor here claims astrology is “utter fraudulent bullshit”, it is natural to believe that everybody thinks this way. Moreover, these type of editors feel it is their moral duty to go beyond normal encyclopaedic protocols, WP policy, bypass rational argument and in this case, even Arbcom’s wording to add their personal moral spin on this 'heresy'.  The problem is that while the BS contention may apply to some practitioners who claim to be astrologers and some techniques, it does not apply to the study of astrology.  I will back this up with a post elsewhere.  The fact is that there are and have always been many scientists who reserve judgement about any field especially one where there is a history, evidence, theory, libraries, schools, huge cultural impact and both a scholarly interest and popular following, until they have investigated it.  Often it is these scientists who resist groupthink who come up with the most valuable discoveries.   Robert Currey   talk  11:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't disagree more strongly regarding Astrology and its claims. Astrology and its practitioners:

Not having a clear, quantifiable mechanism does not mean they don't have some idea of a mechanism which contradicts current understanding of the universe. Also, the claim of "not claiming causality" - well, what's the point than in predicting future events if you don't claim any correlation between your predictions and what happens in reality? And of course, the historical link connects those very strongly with the beginning of Astrology.
 * 1) Have roots in semi-scientific research of the cosmos, and has frozen while some time before giving birth to Astronomy;
 * 2) Promote some sort of a mechanism relying on metaphysical "laws of nature" which existence contradict any form of modern science;
 * 3) Make predictions regarding future evens;
 * 4) Characterise persons and entities (planets, states, corporations) in supposedly discernible way.

So, these claims ("no presented mechanism and no claim of causality") are obviously, clearly, and most noticeably "false". As for the question regarding "pseaudoscience" - since the defining trait is the false presentation of "scientific" (in one way or the other), the question is regarding practitioners' presentation; while most probably won't tell you their discipline is scientific in any proper sense, some might claim it has been tested (possibly involving their own confirmation bias or an appeal to tradition). Does this rise to the label of "pseudoscience"? I don't think it does. Does the use of "buzzwords", or even "buzz-suffixes" such as -logy permits the use of the "pseudrscience" label? I'm not sure it does. Were it not for the time of the night I might have attempted to set a criteria separating "pseudoscience" from "other crap", but tonight I'll just say that the difference between Astrology and various "clearer" pseudo-scientific claims and systems is too significant to refer to it as a "pseudoscience" (though it is wholly unscientific, possibly barring the former), though certainly some of its claims could be referred to as such.85.64.116.186 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography?
Why does this page have such an enormous bibliography, including only-tangentially-relevant stuff like ''Merriam-Webster, 1989. Webster's word histories. Springfield, Massachusetts, US: Merriam-Webster. ISBN 9780877790488''? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The bibliography holds the source text details. (Go to the first reference of the page and click the author link to see how it links to the bibliography for source text details, following WP:SFN). This list was originally labelled 'sources', but someone changed it to bibliography making its role less clear. Others have added new references and deleted old text which was referenced to entries in that list without clearing away the no longer needed sources. I restored the bibliography after your removal because all the relevant details need to be incorporated into the references if the citation style that was being applied to the page is to be changed. --  Zac   Δ talk! 14:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed it. Per WP:FNNR there is no one right way to head these sections. If we did not have explanatory footnotes, then the source reference footnotes (short form author and date) could be headed "Notes" and the full bibliographic references "References". Are we sure we need the explanatory footnotes? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've Noticed a problem with the editors/admins discriminating against references which say positive things about Astrology. I have inserted references which were taken out because 'Wikipedia does not condone the use of fringe references.' That is a big problem, as the references I was using were not fringe and the editors clearly did not do any research into what I posted but decided for whatever reason that they 'were fringe.' EzPz (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This addition will help the lede to define the subject effectively
Today I added a reliably sourced and highly pertinent comment which cuts to the crux of the definition problem astrology has:

"Through its straddling of faith and reason astrology is a difficult subject to categorise. The German scholar Franz Boll wrote of it 'Astrology wants to be religion and science at the same time; that marks its essence'.(ref). Although it bears a superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience because it makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations."

This was reverted by Dominus Vobisdu who says it is "too detailed for the lead". I don't see why one simple-to-understand comment, reported from an especially notable source, which goes straight to the heart of the problem and defines the essential quality of astrology, is too detailed for inclusion. As I don't see a justifiable logic for the reversion I propose it be re-introduced as a suitable lede-comment that helps the reader understand the dualistic and contradictory nature of the subject from the start. --  Zac   Δ talk! 12:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a definition (it's a comment on why astrology is difficult to define), and it's not discussed in the text. In any case, it doesn't belong where you put it. Key ideas belong at the very beginning of the paragraph where they stand out and can be clearly seen, and the key idea here is that Astrology is pseudoscience. Placing less revelant information before this sentence buries the key idea. This sentence needs no introduction. The quote, however, is interesting and might be placed elsewhere in the text. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a definition because it ‘marks the essence’ of astrology. And it doesn't need elaborate discussion, being pivotal and obvious. I think you are grossly mistaken in assuming that "the key idea here is that Astrology is pseudoscience" - no; it's not.  That may be salient, and it may be why endless words and hours get squandered on this talk-page, but the key ideas of the lede relate to what is most significant to the topic of the page. Being defined as a pseudoscience is worthy of mention, but it's peripheral to the fact that astrology is  unique and somewhat contradictory  because it "wants to be religion and science at the same time". So this is a better representation of the key idea than anything else in the lede. Not having a p-issue myself I don't really care that the comment currently trying to express that point is loaded with arguable suppositions. I do care that this talk-page has way too much focus on the p-issue, which is holding back the development of helpful, relevant, and informative content. --   Zac   Δ talk! 13:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It is wrong. Astrology is pseudo-science (we don't need to argue about this, we have arbcomm to say so, which is convenient). Astrology isn't reason. Adding your quote to the lead is thus deeply POV. I've no objection to stating that "astrology wants to be a science", as long as we don't add words that imply that it *is* a science, which it clearly isn't. If you really don't care about the P-word then please: stop talking about it, and stop saying how much you don't care about it William M. Connolley (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, POV? This is a quote from a leading notable source. Check the Franz Boll WP page - and note I had no part in the construction of it. I'm not sure why you are forgetting basic WP policy but we don't build content on what you do or do not have objection to; we refer to what has been said of the subject by notable and reliable sources. You are not one of them I'm afraid. And no, we don't need to argue about the P-issue since the addition has made no change to that, which is why I do not believe it is of concern, and refer to it only because it has been made into yet another issue here, unjustifiably. --   Zac   Δ talk! 13:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A discussion of why astrology is difficult to define does not belong in the lead. It belongs in the body of the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a discussion - I think we covered that above. It's a key point, which is why it does belong in the lede if the focus is as it should be: on points of astrological significance --  Zac   Δ talk! 13:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * POV, yes. Who says he was a "leading notable source"? Nothing on the rather short biog you linked to supports that. And please cut out the insulting "You are not one of them I'm afraid" stuff. Many many people have said many things about astrology. Many of those people are far more notable than your preferred source. By asserting that astrology straddles reason you're effectively saying it is half way to being a science; that isn't acceptable, because of the P-word William M. Connolley (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He is a notable source because those who know about the subject know of him and the work he did, even without having to refer to a WP page. It's significant that his quote there is pretty much all that is used to establish the basis of a WP page. So the comment seems to be of especial interest. Sorry if you thought my pointing out that your own opinions are not of as much consequence as those of notable sources was insulting. I was affected by the tone of your earlier response to me, but should have risen above it. --   Zac   Δ talk! 13:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this a good source? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For what? The quote? It's not a source. It's only quoted there. For anything else? Unlikely. It is an apologetic work.
 * The quote is genuine, though. Source is:
 * Boll F, Bezold C and Gudel W. Sternglaube und Sterndeutung. Die Geschichte und das Wesen der Astrologie. Teubner, Leipzig 1918; 7. Auflage Wiss. Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1977, ISBN 3-519-07202-5 Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this one? What I'm trying to do here is see what relationship astrology has to religion, and see if there are any good sources online about that.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Far cry from scholarly. The woman who wrote it has no academic title, but coincidentally is listed on a university directory . There's no indication that she is any more than a secretary or student, though. The fact that she gave her home address in the paper instead of the university's indicates that she does not have an academic affilation.
 * If I were you, I'd start with some very high-quality, very mainstream SECONDARY sources published by university or academic presses, and then work your way down. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks helpful Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with you, DV, that the one source isn't scholarly at all, and the other is. As for Franz Boll, interesting, but part of the history of science, no good without a secondary source to explain who Boll was and where he might have fitted in. This whole exchange makes me all the more sure that we mustn't discuss alterations to the lede before we have agreed a whole section on relationship with science. The writer we absolutely have to mention is, of course, Popper. Kuhn's disagreement with Popper might or might not be relevant (relevant to philosophy of science, not sure yet if relevant to how science perceives astrology). Itsmejudith (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you are not looking at this editorially, as you should be, with concern about explaining what astrology is, how it works, how it has been transmitted over time, and what its cultural legacy and modern expression is. You are looking at this from a very limited perspective of how it stands in modern science, with unjustifyable concerns that every comment might be interpreted to suggest that astrology is scientific. The most common assesment of astrology over the centuries is that it is both a science and an art. It is not POV to state that astrology straddles faith and reason; only an agenda-driven POV editorial process would remove a comment like "Through its straddling of faith and reason astrology is a difficult subject to categorize" on the grounds that this constitutes "a POV statement". This is an uncontroversial and simple statement of fact. If someone has a problem with this please explain what part of the statement offends: whether the denial is that it incoporates elements of faith, or elements of reason, or that the subject is difficult to categorise. --  Zac   Δ talk! 09:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You completely misunderstand. This is only about a section relating to the current scientific standing, let's say from the second half of the 20th century onwards. I would like to get this part of the article resolved, as I am not really interested in it. I am much more interested in how astrology sits in the thought of the European late middle ages and Renaissance, which means also in the interactions with Asian traditions. There is not a "common assessment of astrology over the centuries". How could there possibly be? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Asserting that the straddles stuff is an uncontroversial statement of fact is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I took out:


 * The German scholar Franz Boll wrote of it "Astrology wants to be religion and science at the same time; that marks its essence". 

from the "scientific appraisal" section. Because: it isn't any part of scientific appraisal. It is merely an expression of astrology's desires William M. Connolley (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it probably was a scientific appraisal, but a century or so old. Agree with the removal. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not, and never was a 'scientific appraisal' - it is only the fixation on that issue here that is prompting some editors to try to force it into that perspective. Boll had a known expertise in the subject but was not a supporter of it; just as most of the academics of his time who held a scholarly interest in it were not (Franz Cumont is similarly notable from that period). They studied it critically and intellectually and wrote some quite hostile remarks about it.


 * Boll was known as a leading translator and commentator of ancient astrology. His remarks are as notable and significant of those of the more late David Pingree, who defined astrology quite specifically as being the system which the Hellenists developed out of Babylonian principles as an organised body of logic attached to the planetary cycles and marked by Aristotelian principles. This is what the word ‘astrology' describes, as the etymology section shows - other cultural systems that do not use that word are not using the system that is the focus of this page. For example, the ancient Egyptians have just as long a history of celestial awareness and mythologized cosmology as the Babylonians, and some of those ancient principles were incorporated into astrology around the 3rd century BC. But as every reliable source asserts, the Egyptians are not credited with being the main developers of astrology, because ancient Egyptian cosmology was not focussed on planetary interactions in the way that the Babylonian system was put together, originating a particular study which developed into an integrated body of philosophical principles. So it is quite wrong to think that this page should be distributing cultural significance equally to areas where the local cosmology was not organised as part of that system. It is worthy of mention that some other cultures had their own cosmological perspectives and myths, and to describe what they are, but it is not the focus of this page which concerns the study of astrology. (As an example, take any book focussed on astrology and you will find it describing the system that traces back to Hellenistic and Babylonian roots.  The text that FormerIP suggested above is one example - where are the references to Chinese philosophy, Mayan or even Aboriginal cosmology there?)


 * It is doing a disservice to WP and its readers to a) assume that every notable, and even historical remark was made and then introduced here as a testament to astrology's modern scientific standing; and b) that the page should give equal weight to the cosmological views of independent civilizations that were not involved in the development and transmission of core astrological ideas. The Babylonians are a much more significant part of the astrological tradition than the Egyptians; the Indians are much more a part of the astrological tradition than the Chinese - civilizations such as the Mayans and Aborigines who developed in isolation should be mentioned only by comparison. The first paragraph of the lede is completely misleading, and it sets up the rest of the page to miss its focus. This was changed without proper discussion.  The final paragraph of the lede is editorially ugly and smacks of a comment being made without due relevancy to a key point - which is that astrology suffers from being indefinable in its theme. It is neither a science nor a religion, but it incorporates elements of reason and elements of faith. This is the reason why it is now known as a pseudoscience. The one fact leads to the other but the former fact is more significant because it has always been the case and is one of the most unique and pertinent points of relevance to the definition of astrology; (which explains why even WP editors struggle to know how to categorise its theme or offer a reliable introductory overview). The existing comment was introduced in disregard to the many talk-page comments that expressed dissatisfaction with it. I would be happy to leave everything in the lede exactly as it is, despite its obvious flaws if editors would place their focus on developing properly structured content in the body that moves beyond the science issue and scattered cultural significance, to tell the story of how astrology was originally developed and historically transmitted, with attention given to its cultural impact and status in the modern world as a subject of known popular interest. This requires us to report the pseudoscience status but to move significantly beyond that too. Boll said that the essence of astrology is marked by the fact that it  wants to be religion and science at the same time; not that it was. There is nothing unreliable or POV about that quote, so it should be restated in the interests of generating content based on notable statements from reliable sources that convey the points of key significance. If not, what is the agenda of this page?
 * It is not, and never was a 'scientific appraisal' - I agree. That is why I removed it from the scientific appraisal section, as I said. Which leaves the mystery of why it was added to that section in the first place William M. Connolley (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Responding to your first (now edited) suggestion that I placed it there myself, BeCritical placed it in that section with the comment "Gives excellent context here". And yes he is right that it gives the right context by which to introduce the pseudoscience statement, but this is the reason why I believe it belongs in the lede. Dominus Vobidus edited but retained the referenced comment before you removed it entirely. The removal of relevant and reliably sourced information shouldn't be done without discussion or good reason, so I'll return it to where BC placed it to allow this discussion to run. I still maintain that this is better placed in the lede because the point it makes is central to the understanding of astrology and many of the problems it holds abd faces. --  Zac   Δ talk! 11:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't restore controversial newly added text. WP:BRD, yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @WMC: Zac didn't add it to the appraisal section. Becritical did. Zac added it to the lead, I deleted it, and Becritical re-added it to the appraisal section.
 * @Zac Nobody said the Boll quote was POV or unreliable. Just that it's not particularly relevant. What was POV was your "straddling" sentence that preceeded it.
 * Also, you seem to be claiming that atrology is conterminous with "Western Astrology", and that other forms of celestial divination are not "astrology". I think others would disagree, if that is indeed what you meant. There is a lot of material in the article that is specific to Western Astrology, and should probably be merged into that article, or to the History of Astrology article. This article should contain only a brief summary, as it is a top-level article.
 * All of these articles should be written using highly reliable independent scholarly sources. I'm sorry, but astrologers themselves are just about worthless as sources of information about astrology. Their claims and statements have to be evaluated and interpreted by independent scholars to determine whether they have any significance, and what that significance is. One is not an expert on astrology simply by virtue of being an astrologer oneself. That would be Special pleading. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

DV, I’m not sure if you have read the comments I have made today, including the one of 9:01 UTC which asks why anyone would see that comment as being POV. If you do, please explain why and what part of it you have a problem with, because I sincerely do not understand why you would see it as anything other than an obvious, neutrally reported statement of fact.

In addition, I made a post some time ago – which you may have missed – which pointed out that the phrase “western astrology” is a misnomer. There is nothing intrinsically ‘western’ in a system that has its roots and significant development in the east and near east. The ancient foundations of the system come from Mesopotamia, it was formalised as an Hellenistic study at a time when the Hellenistic world extended far beyond Greece, it was preserved and transmitted by the Arabians and Perians, with an influence to and from India throughout this period. The Arabic-Islamic empire then developed from the west coast of Spain to the borders of India, but it was only from the 12th century onwards that those texts were made available in Latin for circulation in Europe and what we would know as ‘the west’. The article should demonstrate that the parallels between “Western astrology” and “Indian astrology” are stronger than the relatively minor differences between them. This is the top-level article for astrology, which is a specific subject, differentiated from cosmological beliefs and myths that don’t play a part in astrology.

I also fail to see the relevancy of your last remark. We are talking about Boll and as explained, he was not an astrologer. We are going to have a problem if everyone who is known for expertise in the subject is dismissed as a reliable source, but there is no question that Boll was an astrologer as I hope I clarified adequately above.

Now I see that you have removed the comment again, with the instruction that I should not ‘edit war’ - and yet myself and another editor felt the remark was well placed, and only you and William Connolly seem determined not to allow it, despite the time and effort I have put into explaining why this attitude of censorship based on imagined POV is holding back development of the page. Why not let the content stand so it can be evaluated in context by others? You certainly don’t have consensus for its removal, and have not made the efforts that I have to explain why remarks like this serve a good purpose on the page. --  Zac   Δ talk! 12:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It states as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, that "Through its straddling of faith and reason astrology is a difficult subject to categorize." This is, in fact, contradicted by sources that have no problem identifying it as pseudoscience. Hipocrite (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, please try to move beyond reducing everything here to that term which is of limited interest to most of the page readers. Astrology has been termed a pseudoscience, but that does not define the subject or its field of interest. --  Zac   Δ talk! 13:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You had wikipedia stating, as fact, that astrology is "straddling of faith and reason" and that "astrology is a difficult subject to categorize." These are both contradicted by reliable sources. When sources are in dispute, we explain the dispute, we don't take sides. Please review WP:NPOV. Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Zac: Your "straddling" comment was POV because it implies that astrology has something to do with "reason". Placed where it is, it also implies that it is difficult to categorize astrology as pseudoscience, which confilicts with the reliable sources.
 * My last remark has nothing to do with Boll. It has to do with any of the sources used in this article.
 * Like you yourself said, the Boll comment is not a scientific appraisal of astrology per se, and therefore does not belong in this section except perhaps as part of a longer discussion about the concept of pseudoscience, and even then I'm not sure whether it will contribute much. It's pretty much just an observational comment. Boll was a philologist, and probably had little understanding of natural sciences, and even less so of the concept of pseudoscience as it is defined today.
 * Three editors have said that the material should be removed; you forgot about Itsmejudith.
 * The burden is on YOU to convince us that it is relevant and belongs, not on us to prove that it's not. See WP:BURDEN.
 * Leaving it in the article so that "it can be evaluated in context by others" is a bogus argument.
 * As for your remarks about Western astrology etc., we present astrology it as it is presented by reliable experts, in this case, independent scholars publishing in scholarly publications. If you have good sources for any of this, fine. Otherwise, it's little better than OR and SYNTH. Fringe and in-universe sources are worthless.
 * Accusing fellow editors of censorship is a grave violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. You're also suffering from a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your responses and response time show that you do not take the time to read and understand what you're responding to.
 * You were edit warring because you added this material for the THIRD time without consensus immediately after you made your post on the talk page. You did not allow any time for anyone to respond. This shows a callous disregard for the opinions of your fellow editors. That sounds like edit warring to me. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I added the comment yesterday after I came across it whilst working on something else. I did so for no other reason than because it is significant and neatly captures a salient point. Unfortunately, based purely on the observation and past experience, it came as no surprise to me that you reverted my edit within a matter of minutes, asking me to make a case for it first whilst not making any case yourself as to what was wrong with it, other than an unfathomable criticism that it was too detailed for the lede. Only now you reveal your concern that it "implies that it is difficult to categorize astrology as pseudoscience" which comes as a total surprise to me. I don't see how or why you would put the two together that way. I believe that is not a normal reaction to this quote, but can only come from an unnecessarily nervous or fearful concern that the pseudoscience definition is not getting prominent and overarching positioning in this article.  That's not a position I share, although I will say that I did not have any motive to undermine the pseudoscience definition or bring any lack of clarity to that point.
 * It is far more troubling to read your complaint that it "implies that astrology has something to do with "reason"." Of course it does, how could you possibly dispute that?  There are many elements of astrology that are based on pure reason and even most of the conjectural elements are developed out reasoned principles. To save time, do you want to point me to any specific element of astrology that you feel is devoid of reason?


 * With regard to your impression on my criticisms that adopting a purely pseudoscience reference to this article and eliminating the elements that go beyond that amounts to disruptive obstruction, I can only say that I have tried to maintain good faith, beyond the point of reason even, but my good faith that all the editors here are contributing to this topic with the motives of developing good quality content which holds the interests of WP and its readers' to heart has been chiselled away. It’s a thoroughly demoralising experience to see all the attention move away from a structured plan of development, to a situation of sheer chaos, where editors don't know what direction the article should take or even what its remit extends to. There is an almost complete lack of understanding of the subject matter by many of the contributors here, who appear to be only interested in talk-page debates and show no willingness to source and contribute content based on what the reliable sources say - neither do any of us know any more what ‘reliable sources’ can or cannot be allowed. You are misrepresenting the RS policy to state that comments on Western astrology can only come from independent scholars publishing in scholarly publications: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications". I will reproduce the comment that Noleander made on 27th September (still visible above):


 * "There is a guideline on the topic of pseudoscience, which talks about special considerations to be used for pseudoscience related articles. That guideline has an entire section on reliability of sources for pseudoscience/fringe articles, namely WP:PARITY. That guideline states that the requirements for sourcing fringe topics in an article on a mainstream topic is very high, and fringe topics are usually omitted from mainstream articles; but in articles about the fringe topics themselves the standard is much lower, and it is okay to include sources that consider the pseudoscience to be genuine (but the sources should be clearly identified in the article itself). The guideline goes on to say that the threshold for criticism of fringe theories is correspondingly lower: any decent source may be used for criticism, even sources not in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, some of the suspect material you enumerate above can be included in this article, because the article is about the fringe theory."


 * This does not imply that fringe sources are to be paired against mainstream sources on issues like scientific validity, but the quote is not concerned with that. In any case I do have good knowledge of what the scholarly sources say as well as the popular and particularly notable ones, and I have a good understanding of where they become relevant and acceptable. With regard to BURDEN that policy relates to material that is challenged or likely to be challenged which must (according to BURDEN) be attributed to a reliable published source. The Boll comment is.  The license to remove material applies only to that "lacking a reliable source that directly supports it".  It does not apply to any relevant and reliably referenced content which you don't happen to like for reasons that are unclear or not properly set out for discussion. So if you want to remove well sourced content, the onus falls on you to explain your reasoning clearly before rushing to remove it without proper explanation, especially when there are other editors, coming from their own independent perspectives, who also return it to the article with the statement that it makes  a useful addition and "Gives excellent context here". --   Zac   Δ talk! 14:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There might be a number of objections to Boll. Mine is that it was published 1918. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much going to abandon this page because of the limited ability of people here to see reason. The astrologers keep going on about things that aren't relevant to wikipedia, and other people aren't even able to see that it's an obvious statement that astrology has both faith and reason in it.  I can't even get a reasoned response most of the time to the obvious fact that Wikipedia does in fact use in-universe and primary sources for in-universe opinion sometimes, as with religion or culture.  It's just so obvious that Wikipedia does and should in order to present all sides of an issue per NPOV that I can't imagine that there is anything less than an attempt to keep astrology from being fully presented to the reader.  And the continual flood of irrelevant comments from the proponents even when I ask them to try to be helpful is too much to wade through, TLDR.  They need to give up on presenting astrology  as reasonable or scientific and start presenting it as culture or religion.  And the scientists here need to give up on thinking of it purely through the lens of science and agree to present it as culture and religion with a small side of science and pseudoscience.  But reversion and comments that it's POV to even say that there is some reason in astrology (I mean it uses mathematical reasoning doesn't it?) leads me to believe this is impossible.  There's a point when you just give up.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure the terms ‘astrologers’ and ‘scientists’ are applicable here. Most astrologers are not fixed on research and most scientists would not lose touch with reason by insisting that only research results that please them can be reported, whilst notable criticisms and contradictions are ignored.  Otherwise BeCritical’s post is absolutely hitting the nail on the head. What a great shame that another good editor who has spoken out for intelligent, neutral reporting is overcome with the futility of trying to move the article forward under these circumstances. I’m torn between wanting to persuade him to loosen the ties but not cut them entirely, to thinking he’s right to give up –  who of us could be getting any sense of satisfaction out of what is happening here? Maybe we all need to take some time out to reflect on what he has said, and try to lose entranched positions.


 * I’m going to try to work on some other things that are more productive for a while. My suggestions at this time are that the Carlson details should simply include reference to “sources that consider the pseudoscience to be genuine (but the sources should be clearly identified in the article itself)” as the policy says. These sources are not validating astrology anyway. The critical reviews that are given in the text recommend by FormerIP are very good and show  there is more to the criticisms of astrology than we are currently presenting. But I don’t believe the science and research section should be the main priority. As BeCritical says, the cultural aspects of astrology are under-represented and need development. Nothing in the article shows astrology to be the somewhat magical and mysterious subject that many people consider it to be, nor why it has always held a position that balances between critical attention and popular fascination.--   Zac   Δ talk! 09:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * BeCritical and Zac - if you are to be less involved on this page, I shall be sorry to lose your valued and impartial contribution.


 * BeCritical - I agree with many of your points, though there are three where I have to respond as I still cannot understand your reasoning:
 * I have no idea how the premise of astrology can be unreasonable, though I can understand how someone may believe it to be false based on lack of scientific evidence.
 * Astrology is amenable to scientific research (Gauquelin & Carlson), but is not a science by today's measures and except for issues of research it should not be judged or defined by science.
 * Though astrology is undoubtedly a cultural phenomenon, it is very rarely considered a religion in its present form. Most religions originated as solar worship or as a cosmic theology. However today astrology only has symbols and a system - there is no worship, no creed, no rules of morality, no temples, no rituals, no miracles nor a system of irrefutable or supernatural beliefs.  An astrologer can be an atheist or theist or agnostic or gnostic.


 * There are astrologers who seek the special protected status of a religion as an irrational belief system that cannot be tested, but this tactical option doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  Robert Currey   talk  18:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to support the reinstatement of the Boll quote. Irrespective of when it was published, it is a statement where the content is relevant to the discussions and is a reliable undisputed source. It is a shame that editors are leaving this page. I am not convinced anyone here on the page wants to debate that astrology is scientific but it does seem evident that certain editors want to ensure that any content is underlined that it is not. It needs to be mentioned that there is a position that the majority of the scientific community view astrology as a Pseudoscience but this deserves only a mention and it is not helpful to have this point dominate and drive this debate. It would be more valuable and productive for WP readers to move forward the development of the page.Wendy Stacey (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is true that scientists view A as P. Those that think about it at all more likely view it as non-science; it doesn't really rise to the level of P. But: I agree that this isn't terribly important for the article. The article should be about astrology; it needs to make its non-science status clear, but no more. But that means that statements that suggest that it does rise to the status of science or reason will be controversial, and will be opposed. If those that like astrology, or want to write about it, content themselves with describing it, then I can't see there will be problems William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Again the article has become a train wreck riddled with distortions and inaccuracies that have been placed there by stubborn editors who have obviously not studied the subject but have nevertheless taken ownership. The ones with the knowledge who could contribute the most are leaving. What a loss. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Vague general statements like that don't help fix anything. Instead, please just tell us what the first unambiguous inaccuracy (i.e., error) in the article is) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)