Talk:Astrology/Archive 26

Why are editors of this page not adhering to the core policies of WP?
I have attempted to add content to this article in line with WP's core content policies. The material presents a neutral point of view, it is verifiable, and it is not presenting original research. The guidelines tell us that we should aim to account for different notable views - the content I have added makes additions that are not only relevant, but record notable views and a notable definition of the subject. I have asked for any applicable objections to be raised and any that were applicable led to adjustments to eliminate the concern. Now I am aware of no applicable objections to this material, and if there are any justifyable reason for the material not being added I would ask for it to be justified here.

User:Dominus Vobisdu and User:Skinwalker are not engaging in the editorial process by removing material, insisting I gain consensus first, but then refusing to engage in talk-page discussion, (or any kind of debate that would allow their objections to be addressed). Dominus Vobisdu is wrong to claim that the onus is on me to gain his permission first, the onus is only on the contributing editor to adhere to the policies and provide appropriate incline citations - which I have done. The guidelines state:


 * Anything challenged or likely to be challenged
 * All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. The citation should fully identify the source, and the location within the source (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate) where the material is to be found. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.


 * Burden of idence
 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.

So, again, if either of these editors, or anyone else, has an applicable objection please explain it and engage in the process that leads towards consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 18:29, 22 May 2012‎
 * If someone reverts your addition, you should take the issue to the talk page, rather than reverting again. Burden actually doesn't enter in until a discussion is started, so let's start one now. I've only skimmed your edit but I don't see anything blatantly wrong with it. The editors who reverted you should probably explain their objections.  Equazcion ( talk )   18:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The text appears to be inherently original research as you are selecting material out of primary sources in the case of Pingree and interpreting sources in the case of Kassell. Your Kassell reference does not verify the text, I read the paragraph around your two short quotations which appear to be out of context. The sentence actually reads "With the rise sympathetic accounts of occult philosophies and practical sciences, astrology rewarded serious attention", how does that verify The history and cultural impact of astrology remains of interest to scholars. You quote David Pingree but give no indication of the due weight of that particular quote, has the quote ever appeared in an independent reliable source? Why does it have due weight for the section lede? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for commenting Equazcion - I have made a lot of discussion on one of the additions above, but am happy to start again. The extra one I made today was a very notable historical definition, which is presented within a highly respected secondary source - so uncontroversial as I didn't believe anyone could have an objection. I also placed a tag on an existing comment that was not appropriately verified (and is also very misleading), but twice this was removed without the problem being addressed or discussed. I am starting to feel that any attempt I make to contribute to the article is being resisted without due consideration.


 * IRWolfie - though we seem to have have different views (because I think I have already answered these points above) I appreciate that you are making the effort to dialogue and discuss. Please note however - I have not tried to make any edit to the lede. I would like to reassure you that I am not aiming to be obstinate, and if that particular material about the history of astrology (placed in the history of astrology section) is unsuitable then I'm happy to accept that and move on.  With regard to why I propose this material - it makes a pertinent introduction to the section about the history of astrology by illustrating that this is not a redundant subject but is still being explored with serious interest because of what it can tell us about the history of science and culture.  This is a verifiable fact and not an attempt to promote the subject or mislead the reader (an accusation given in an edit summary today). The quote is given as a notable one, because of the weight of David Pingree's reputation.  If you are not aware of his influence upon the determination of our knowledge of the history of astrology a quick internet search will demonstrate that he is regarded as one of the most (most would say 'the most') important contributor to the field.  The quote is attributed to him and published in a reputable academic source, so it offers a verifiable and true record of his published opinion. The Kassel doesn't qualify the Pingree comment, but verifies the fact that many scholars are engaged in the historical exploration of this subject - anyone who checks her article will note that she identifies a number of contemporary scholars and their specialist fields of interest.  All-in-all I feel that this is a more than suitably verified comment that is pertinent, objective, and leaves no implication about the perceived value of astrology except in showing that the subject has left a notable impression on world history --  Zac  Δ talk! 19:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I will list my objections:
 * 1. Summary: for a section lede it makes most sense that it should summarise, in a general way, the content that's already in the rest of the section and also the content in the History of astrology article with with possible perspective from a tertiary source.
 * 2. Verification: The Kassel source does not directly verify the sentence that you have added, inferring as it does is original research and should not be done in any article Policy: Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.
 * 3. Style: A quote at the start of the section is poor style.
 * 4. Synthesis: The Pingree quote is used to strengthen the first sentence. The second sentence added follows on from the first referring to the first with "such research". This is a synthesis, linking a primary source to any material where there is no explicit connection is prohibited by policy: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
 * 4. Pingree does not mention the cultural impact but you say he argued for the value of that research in your synthesis.
 * 5. Selection of material from primary sources is not based on a secondary source but what you believe to be pertinent.
 * You may believe I am picking stuff to nit pick over, but many of these issues are solveable (i.e for 1,3 move the location of the paragraph, for 4. remove the word cultural impact), but the synthesis is a serious issue unless you can find a source that explicitly links it all. An alternative is to break the synthesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire prepositional phrase, "While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science" should be removed. "A superficial resemblance" is a weasel sentiment and it propagates negative POV, teaches it actually. Start by fixing that. My76Strat (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the connection to what we are currently discussing in this section. That sentence is being discussed in the RfC, this talk section is not about the RfC. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi My76Strat, my proposed edits haven't impacted upon any of the text in the lede and don't involve that comment. As an editor I have contributed a lot of references and material to this article in the past, but tend to stay clear of content concerning the scientific standing (or non-standing), except to offer comment.  It is a very problematic area. To get the balance right, editors have to approach the subject impartially to give a simple, informative report of how astrology's involvement with science has shifted over time, and why it now holds a pseudoscience definition.  We don't need to dwell on that point or make it into a big issue.  It is because many people consider some elements of astrology to be scientific (as shown by statistics), and some cultures (for example India) still define it as a science (although their use of the term 'science' is different from ours) that astrology has been termed a pseudoscience. The word itself implies superficial resemblance. It's a hugely complex point and our explanation has to be carefully worded to avoid pro or anti POV as you say. Please continue to contribute as you are right to point out that we need collaboration and not ad hominem attacks.  Perhaps you could offer your own suggestion above, as to how such a difficult point is succintly made without POV implications? --  Zac  Δ talk! 09:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * NPOV doesn't mean we provide equal weight to views that it is pseudoscience and not pseudoscience. Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. We give the mainstream view most weight, that it is pseudoscience and not scientific, views that it is scientific are fringe and have no due weight. Due weight is not given to the prevalence of the view in society but to the view in science see WP:FRINGE. There have been zero ad hominem attacks, noting your misuse of rollback features (for which you received a warning from an admin) and asking for consensus to be reached on the talk page is not an ad hominem attack.IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Disregarding the above (not sure of your problem there, since there is no doubt that -regardless of due weight - we still have to approach this subject impartially and objectively) with regard to your earlier response, I don't have a problem with 'nit-picking' points, so long as the objective is to reach a sensible consensus. I thought your response was very helpful because it doesn't just show the problems as you see them, but offers suggestions for resolution too.   I'll give your comments some thought and leave that proposed historical introduction aside until there seems to be a better way to procede. In any event it seems sensible to look at how it relates to the content on the History of astrology page before raising it again for  inclusion here.


 * I haven't seen any objections to my introduction of the early medieval definition of the subject in the etymology section. That definition has been a significant one; it is reported in reliable secondary sources and it demonstrates that there was a clear distinction between astronomy and astrology historically.  I am placing it in a box, but it may be better placed in the main text. My opinion is that the tagged comment should be reworked or removed because it is misleading and not supported by its reference.  (The tag was removed yesterday but I will reinsert it). I would propose a re-write of the first paragraph to eliminate the suggestion that astrologia came to mean star-divination against the use of astronomia for the 'scientific term'. This is the projection of a modern POV upon the historical development of word meaning. As we can easily see, it didn't; and this is not what the source says. It excludes the salient fact that historically certain elements of astrology were considered to be more scientific and natural than others and we should do no more than report that notable distinction reliably. --  Zac  Δ talk! 10:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have asked ArtifexMayhem to give a talk-page explanation of his removal of the content, since the edit summary, that this important and defining medieval statement on the distinction between astronomy and astrology "muddles things" is not logical. --  Zac  Δ talk! 14:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for offering insight regarding my comment above. My76Strat (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the last bit of the quote the muddles things: "...natural as it [astrology] concerns the temper or "complexion" of physicial things, like health, illness, storm, calm, productivity and unproductivity, which vary with the mutual alignments of the astral bodies..." It is a misleading eye pull that distracts the reader from the prose. Logical. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Attribute
We are undermining the section Astrology by attributing every statement. Per WP:FRINGE claims that are uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources should be presented as simple statements of fact . It is only particularly harsh criticism that should be attributed. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that what is being undermined is the credibility of the article by the addition of unecessarily repeated critcisms, some of which are not well supported, all of which look like desperate attempts to keep getting across the point that science doesn't take the subject seriously. The point has been made; only insecurity would need it to be made over and over and over again. Let's just give an honest, clear, succinct and unemotive account. The criticsms of the subject should be referenced to notable and reliable sources; that gives them credibility. We shouldn't build the report of this huge subject on non-notable comments written in non-notable books.  For example, this recent addition:
 * Most astrologers make claims that the position of all the planets must be taken into account, but astrologers were unable to predict the existence of Neptune based on mistakes in horoscopes. Instead Neptune was predicted using Newton's law of universal gravitation.
 * Where are the astrologer claiming that all planets are equally important? Most argue that Neptune, Uranus and Pluto are 'trans-personal' planets and not of the same standing as the seven classical planets. Why would astrologers predict the existence of Neptune "based on mistakes in horoscopes" if they don't accept that failure to reference Neptune leads to mistakes?  But more importantly - what on earth does the scientific law that led to discovery of Neptune have to do with the main subject theme of this page? This is all off-topic and irrelevant, and comments like this smack of the desire to engage in self-indulgent ridicule of the subject rather than keeping the focus on relevant points that an interested reader will be most likely to want to know. --  Zac  Δ talk! 02:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You can find a copy of The Cosmic Perspective online to check the sourcing, though not necessarily by legal means. The argument and context used in the article is reflective of the source itself.  You're making assertions about what astrologers believe that contradict what an academic textbooks is claiming, so I would think that you'd need an equal or better source to contradict this.  Even if they exist, it would likely be better (depending on the source) to represent both views.  Anything else I could say would be getting into the territory of arguing about the inconsistencies and illogicalities of astrology itself, which would be inappropriate as general discussion of the topic.   S Æ don talk 02:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@Zac, note that your edit here misrepresents the source you provided. It does not say "He rejected the more symbolic and judicial elements of astrology" it says "He rejected most of the commonly accepted rules and repeatedly referred to astrology as 'the foolish stepdaughter of astronomy.'" The way you have it written now makes it seem like Kepler referred to "the more symbolic and judicial elements of astrology" as the foolish stepdaughter, when in actuality both sources have him describing astrology in general as the foolish stepdaughter. Please correct this, thanks. S Æ don talk 03:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted all of Zac's recent changes because none of them were particularly useful. The stuff about the zodiac was unecessary detail. The stuff on Ptolemy and Kepler was a pathetic attempt at whitewashing and appeal to authority, with lots of weasling to boot, and the amendment to the science section was innacurate and weasling as well. @Zac: Propose your changes on the talk page first and get consensus. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have restored the sentence I added regarding Kepler's attitude towards astrology. I think Zac can clarify it if he wants with the source he provided so long as my above points are integrated.  S Æ don talk 03:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The editorial approach to this page should be recognised for the joke it has become
As expected, all the edits I made to correct the patently biased misinformation has been deleted in one click by Dominus Vobisdu, who for some time now has tasked himself with the responsibility of wiping out all the explained and well-cited edits I make, within the hour if possible, if some other editor (hoping to preserve the underlying sentiment "it's just a load of bullshit") doesn't get in there first.

Last year this page had neutral editors and editors who understood the subject contributing. Every non-hostile contributor has been driven away from this page by the pseudo-skeptical prejudice of editors who want to use this page to present only their own hostile view of the subject. So we are to pretend that Ptolemy considered the "predictive power of astronomy" when by his definition the two studies were complimentary: astromony measured and astrology was the means to judge (predict) the influence and effect. Two authorative sources were removed which made this point. Planets are best termed "permanent celestial bodies" and presented in an order that makes no sense according to anyone's reasoning. The correct definition was removed, for no other reason I can assume than that someone who knows something of the subject, who is aiming for balanced objectivity by attending to ridiculous displays of misrepresentative bias, dares to edit this page. And lest I dare again - let's throw in the warning that to attempt to restore would be, on my part "edit-warring".

As I said in my edit summary - the point on Kepler needs more attention. It has now been well established that Kepler didn't "do it for the money" because we now have access to hundreds of his charts, including those he cast on personal matters and spoke about in personal letters, including the astrological analysis of the death of his young son (unpublished letters that have recently come to light and been published within the last few months). Is there any point at all in me forwarding the references for this, when it seems patently clear that there is no intention to report the real story, or what the academic and reliable sources say? Censorship and bigotry prevails here. A bit sad that DV and the other speedily reverting editors are not seeing what others are seeing - this article reeks of smugness, scientific elitism and pseudo-sceptic insecurities. It will continue to lack credibility whilever edits that correct and provide reliable facts based on reliable sources are removed from view as soon as they are made. --  Zac  Δ talk! 04:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The changes you have attempted to make recently have not been constructive and were reverted by four different editors, including myself, and challenged by others. Yet you insist on edit-warring despite multiple warnings. If your changes trulty have some merit and deserve to be included in the article, you should have no problem gaining the necessary consensus after discussing your proposed changes on the talk page. You are expected to adhere to all WP policies when editing, including WP:BRD, and to respect consensus and refrain from personal attacks. Otherwise, you are cordially invited to find another topic area of the project to edit in, or find a different hobby altogether. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think one of the main issues is that you want to treat astrology as though it is a real phenomenon or at least sympathetically when, as an encyclopedia, we should be treating it as an irrational belief system that at one time held prominence but was abandoned by intellectuals after new discoveries were made about the universe. This means describing the history of astrology, what people today believe (mostly in regards to the public, because people who actually "study" astrology are a very small fringe group and likely don't warrant mention), and pointing out that there's no evidence to support it and that it's inconsistent with reality.  Astrology makes claims about the universe that are incompatible with what we as a species have learned about the universe thus far.  That's not a contentious statement for experts, it's only contentious if you believe in astrology and don't know any better.  This is not "scientific elitism" as you've pejoratively characterized it, rather it's a rational approach to dealing with a pseudoscience.  It's the same thing we do on perpetual motion or intelligent design or any other irrational concept.  We have WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FRINGE for a reason: to keep the encyclopedia in line with mainstream, expert thought and to not give weight to farcical concepts.   S Æ don talk 04:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, Zach, I agree with your edits. I see the people arguing against you citing the fact that astrology is currently debunked, but your edits are more about clarifying the history of prominent people who at one time, surprisingly, lent a degree of credence to it, so those arguments seem pretty irrelevant. It's good to make the article reflect current scientific outlook, in its sections about the current outlook, but the history shouldn't be treated in that way. And, for similar record, I think your methods for implementing those changes, Zach, are wrong. Consensus is clearly against you here, even though I personally happen to agree with you; you won't make any headway going on like this.  Equazcion ( talk )   05:09, 8 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * To DV: What you say is not true - only Saeden made a partial and selective edit, no one else, and his approach was standard WP practice. Your regular wholesale deletion of everything I contribute is not - it's thoughtless censorship which constitutes vandalism, (and since it has regularly trailed my recent edits as well as ones made in the past) harrasment and bullying.  Tonight you have broken the 3RR rules by three times making a wholesale deletion of text which comprises a number of individual, time-consuming edits I made in order to improve the reliability of the content, and to add citations and references. So please undo your last revert - if others approve of your unthinking deletion of everything I contribute, you should give them the opportunity to demonstrate that their approach is the same as yours.


 * To Saedon - I have never contributed anything to this page which verifies, promotes or presents astrology as a scientific subject. I don't approve of editors here removing reliable references in order to give false or unreliable information, or to rewrite the historical approach and turn it into something that no one with a good academic knowledge of the subject would recognise.  I am wary of your earlier comment, in proposing changes to the lede, where you revealed your desire for the page to just state that the subject is bullshit. That's not an attitude I share. I would say that justifies my concern over "scientific elitism". The subject may appear farcical to you, but readers should not be subjected to a farcical report of it   -- <b style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help"> Zac </b> Δ talk! 05:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that to the academic and scientific world astrology is bullshit. Obviously that's not the terminology used in academic discourse, instead we say things like "discredited," "illogical," etc.  I obviously didn't mean that we should literally use the word bullshit in the article, but yes, astrology is bullshit and we should not pretend otherwise.  In 2005 that might have flown, but not since the pseudoscience arbcom decision have we treated pseudoscience as anything but.  Note that for the record I did not read the rest of your edit and had no plans to revert it, I was only concerned with the section on Kepler. Lastly, whether you phrase astrology as "scientific subject" is irrelevant; when something makes claims about the workings of the universe or cause and effect it is prima facie a scientific subject, and the idea that it should be rephrased differently is special pleading.   S Æ don talk 05:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Astrology, as I understand it, is not a science and so not a prima facie a scientific subject. I don't pretend to know what it is, that's irrlevant - it is a fact that it has had great cultural persuasion and we're here to report what the reliable sources report, not rewrite history by cherry picking only the critical remarks of men who held sincere and complex views on this subject -- <b style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help"> Zac </b> Δ talk! 05:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To Equazcion - if you agree with my edits, what else is there to say? The fact is, the content I add is well supported and adds clarity or removes blatant misrepresentation.  What gets lost when DV removes everything  is the individual edit-summaries which logically explain my edits.  For example, in regard to Ptolemy and Kepler I expressed the view that the content is not warranted at that place - I agree, these are irrelevant points to make in those places. Ptolemy's and Kepler's stance should get exploration within the history section if they are worthy of consideration. I merely correct the points that are added, though in my opinion such contributions serve no purposeful addition in that place.  The easiest thing is to remove everything that has recently been added when it is questionable content and flies in the face of what is known by reference to reliable sources.  But if it is to remain it needs to be correct and reliable. I would like to know why unreliable contributions are never contested, and not even subject to scrutiny, so long as they are apparently critical of the subject. There seems to be a certain glee attached to quoting something critical, regardless of whether it is relevant or reliable. I would appreciate having DV's removal of all my comments reverted so that each can be assesed individually and subject to the usual editing process.-- <b style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help"> Zac </b> Δ talk! 05:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@Zac: Your recent edits have been unconstructive and disruptive, and have been reverted by IRWolfie, Skinwalker, Johnuniq and me, and you've been repeatedly warned for edit-warring and POV pushing. You are to refrain from making personal attacks on me or any other editors per WP:NPA. Consider this a formal, and final, warning. Accusing fellow editors of vandalism, harrassment and bullying is a severe breach of WP:AGF and WP:ETIQUETTE that could get you blocked or topic banned. Consider this a formal, and final, warning. Before you accuse someone of breaking the 3rr rule, you had better read the rule. Again, you are reminded that the burden is on YOU to discuss you proposed changes and get consensus for them on the talk page first per WP:BRD. You have repeatedly acted in bad faith by trying to shift that burden on the editors that oppose your additions, despite multiple warnings. This is unacceptable. Consider this yet another, and definitely final, warning. Again, I think your contributions and POV would be more welcome on another venue like Astrowiki: []. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course you do :) Thank you for the laugh, but when I used the term "joke" I didn't mean in the funny ha-ha sense, but in the rather pathetic sense. What a daunting prospect that I might get blocked or topic banned (!)  In case you didn't realise, my point is that you have been involved in a vigilent campaign to ensure  I am efectively blocked and topic-banned, just as has happened to many other editors with knowledge of this subject in the past (as the history pages demonstrate for those who care to trawl through them). An obvious reason for why I'm not holding my breath for collective support. I'll put my views on record nonetheless. Thank you for your "definitely, final" warnings - I look forward to not receiving any more. Would you like to demonstrate your commitment against edit-warring by undoing the last of your insufficiently justified reversions of my contributions so that other editors can subject them to  consideration and the usual editing process? -- <b style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help"> Zac </b> Δ talk! 06:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The proper, and only, place where you are allowed to make the logical case for your proposed edits is on the article talk page, not in edit summaries, which not everyone reads. And other editors can easily evaluate your proposed changes on the article talk page, as well. There is no purpose served in leaving your edits in the article space, especially when it's clear that consensus is against them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, only Saedon made a partial edit and has put on record that he had no plans to revert the text that you reverted. So if you claim there was a clear consensus against all the contributions I made, you either think that consensus is determined by you alone or you are aware of a pre-agreed consensus that anything I contribute should be reverted without consideration. I don't actually believe either of these.  You shouldn't believe it either. -- <b style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help"> Zac </b> Δ talk! 06:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While it's true that I didn't plan to revert you, this shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of your edit. I simply didn't read it.  Per BRD, you were bold, DV reverted and now is the time to discuss (preferably in a new section since this section has turned into a discussion on editor behavior and astrology in general).    S Æ don talk 06:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If I may interject; my poor vision of recent days may have spawned enough insight to help this discussion. Two days ago a user asked a reasonable question about a plant. I gave a corresponding, medium length answer about a planet. Today I see this thread; but at first I processed it as: "The editorial approach to this page should be reorganized for the joke it has become". I had some thoughts on that, and was set to begin commenting when I realized the actual context. So I need glasses, that is becoming clear. This RfC needs an answer, and reorganized seems like the exactly appropriate next step. It is common really, to take the key elements from a discussion and move them towards consensus in the proposal. You have plenty of good information; hone it into a modified proposal and continue moving forward. That's what I see right now. My76Strat (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The last two posts make sensible suggestions but something needs to be established. I made amendments only to recent questionable edits that are begging for attention. No editor suggested that any of those recent edits needed prior discussion and consensus before they were accepted as content.  And there they remain, flawed as they are, but taken as perfect because they skew the facts in a negative light. My amendments were self-explanatory in my edit summaries and referenced to reliable sources. Hence I am highlighting the double standards by which no one expects critical content to be questioned, but every good faith contribution I attempt to make is immediately reverted on the grounds that I must seek approval first.
 * Apparently one of the "main issues" is that I treat astrology as though it is a real phenomenon rather than an irrational belief system.  The idea that Wikipedia must treat astrology as an irrational subject (a.k.a. "bullshit) because it is defined as a pseudoscience does not stack up. Astrology is not a rational subject but it is not devoid of rationale or reason.  If it were, it would not have made the cultural impact that it did make, which is still ingrained in many vibrant belief systems throughout the world. Astrology has played a very significant part in the history of science for what were once accepted as logical theoretical reasons, entertained and discussed by some of the greatest names in the history of science. The question has always been, how much of astrology is logical, how much is philosophical and how much is symbolic conjecture. Where does 'natural astrology', which is the logical prediction of changes which affect the earth due to ongoing celestial cycles depart from 'judicial astrology', which is where an astrologer makes personal and subjective speculations incorporating purely symbolic elements. None of this is detailed in the article and my attempts to introduce explanation on the historical division of the subject into its natural and judicial divides are removed for fear that they may suggest that parts of the  subject were once taken seriously, (when what we are told we want to indicate is that everything about this subject is pure and utter bullshit). Hence the recent desire to present refernces to Kepler as a critic. Kepler was a staunch supporter of natural astrology and only a critic of the more extreme elements of judicial astrology. He loathed doing astrology for money but left countless outspoken remarks in defence of astrology, such as:


 * Philosophy, and therefore genuine astrology, is a testimony of God's works, and is therefore holy. It is by no means a frivolous thing. And I, for my part, do not wish to dishonor it. — (Delineation of Wallenstein's Horoscope)


 * We should not report that he rubbished astrology, without allowing explantion of what his criticism was: condemnation of popular trivialisation of a subject he regarded as sacred philosophy.  To maintain that we must present all aspects of astrology in equally mocking terms of ridicule and dismissal, whilst ensuring that its deeper rationale is suppressed, contradicts the claim that the purpose of this article is to present encyclopedic coverage. Intelligent content should not be sympathetic, nor desperate to condemn at every opportunity. -- <b style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help"> Zac </b> Δ talk! 08:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And please note - this article is ranked as being of top importance to WP's religion articles, it is not a purely prima facie scientific subject as has been proposed. -- <b style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help"> Zac </b> Δ talk! 08:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * On shear good faith I concur 100% with Zac's last. This subject must accommodate opposing viewpoints; if it can't be done for some reason through cooperation, the subject would have to split into two articles the pseudo scientific form, and the intrinsic form. So what's it gonna be? My76Strat (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No that is completely counter to wikipedia policy and amounts to a POV fork. Whether you like it or not, astrology makes predictions and I think it's irrelevant that it is not a science, we should still give the scientific coverage of Astrology, even if it is to say it's bullshit. we're here to report what the reliable sources report and that's exactly what we are doing by looking at the scientific coverage (i.e some of the most reliable sources), we are deferring our own judgment by looking at what these sources say. I will point to the arbitration committee ruling which used Astrology specifically as an example: 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. No pseudoscience is actually science (that's the whole point of pseudoscience) but we still give the scientific coverage of the pseudoscience, to do otherwise would be a violation of NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a point - based on what I understand of the subject, astrology is prima facie unscientific. This should really be a central concept in the article. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify my earlier statement: astrology is absolutely unscientific in that there is no evidence to support the claims made wrt to predictive power or correlation between the positions of planetary bodies and earthly affairs. Astrology is a scientific subject in the sense that it makes testable claims that can be studied using the scientific method.  When studied, we find no evidence to suggest any sort of validity (see my last post in the RFC thread where I quote an astronomical textbook to cite this fact).  Astrologers, like some religious people, claim that their beliefs are "outside of science" as a form of special pleading so as not to deal with the fact that their beliefs have been debunked time and time again.  S Æ don talk 09:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem; Science has not debunked Astrology time and time again. Science may well have debunked it's usefulness, or shown specific claims like horoscopes and zodiacs to be entirely unreliable; but they have not debunked the core concept that it remains possible that celestial alignments could affect humans in their biological form. I'm with Sagan on this one. Regardless of stature, an elite scientist can present himself as a damn fool if he insists on presenting non sequitur arguments. Consider above where it has been stated "that it contradicts basic biology and physics". BTW I read the supporting reference also, the one where they failed to provide one basic example to this very basic claim. My scientific background is mathematics and I can tell you unequivocally that it is mathematically impossible to premise a connection to biology as a way to disprove the possibility of a connection. It is these kinds of sensibility affronts that discredit the nature of scientific claims especially when the bandwagon of scientific interns follow so closely behind like lemmings in lockstep. I apologize that my candor is less eloquent than Sagan. My76Strat (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is merely the argument that Science has not debunked the core concept that it remains possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is merely adjusting all of the data in all of their science "experiments" to prevent his discovery. There is no reputable evidence that celestial alignments affect humans in their biological form. Hipocrite (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that humans aren't affected by the position of the Sun in the sky? Or by the Moon's action on the tides (and providing light at night)? Beyond that, the onus is on those who propose causation to suggest a feasible mechanism for that causation. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC
 * Are you being intentionally obtuse? Of course I'm not referring to day and night, summer and winter, high tide and low tide. This discussion would be so much easier if people didn't play "GOTYA, YOU DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS HOTTER IN THE SUMMER NEENER NEENER games." Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I was trying to make a point so succinctly that it hasn't come across at all. To elaborate, astrology is not just one thing but a big complex of ideas across space and time. The ancient Mesopotamians and those who preceded them had to understand and explain things that seem obvious to us now, like the impacts of the Sun and Moon. They elaborated the calendar, which was no easy task. We can't go back into their mentality, but we know they were calendar-obsessed, and it seems that they made a step from identifying the impact of two celestial bodies to purporting an impact of all the celestial bodies. Their speculations were OK for their state of knowledge at that time. They're not all right now. As well as being inconsistent with science, many of the assertions of the "serious" modern western astrologers are also inconsistent with the history of ideas. Their discipline doesn't spring straight from Tetrabiblos. It comes out of the rantings of late 19th century mystics. Hope that clarifies it for you, but I'm sure it will set more talk-page hares running ;-( Itsmejudith (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Science has indeed debunked astrology time and time again in that astrology has failed every single test it has ever been put to. No element of modern astrology has been shown to have any semblence of scientific or rational basis or value whatsoever. Whatever was of worth in classical and medieval "astrology" was spun out as a distinct and now totally unrelated science, astronomy. Whatever stayed behind was and still is complete claptrap.
 * Like Saedon said, astrologers constantly make scientifically testable claims (that their activies have "predictive value" and state that astrology is scientifically valid and proven. They routinely appeal to scientific authority figures like Kepler, Newton and Sagan. UNTIL they are called on it. Then they pull the old "astrology is more like a religion" trick, which is nothing but intellectually dishonest special pleading. Just like believers in other pseudosciences like Intelligent Design.
 * Mathematics is not science, and "proof" in science is not at all like proof in mathematics. The burden is not on scientists to "prove" that it is not "possible that celestial alignments could affect humans in their biological form". It is on proponents of astrology to show that it does, and they never have. Nor is there anything vaguely promising on the horizon. Until they do, it remains, from a scientific viewpoint, as close to useless bullshit as anything has ever gotten, or downright fraud. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * According to our sources science has debunked astrology. See my last post in the RFC thread where I quote an astronomy textbook unequivocally making this statement. Re Sagan: you are missing his point entirely.  He simply pointed out that we can't conclude something isn't true due only to not having a mechanism of explanation.  This is true and no scientist would disagree with it.  There are plenty of drugs that work but we don't know how, the difference is that when we give one group of people the drug and another group a placebo, we see a marked difference between the drug and the placebo - this is what science does.  Astrology isn't false because there's no mechanism to explain its effects, astrology is false because there are no effects to explain and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  S Æ don talk 20:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, if it has been shown the predictions of Astrology are wrong, then as a consequence the underlying concepts and beliefs that led to the predictions are also wrong. But regardless, we defer to the reliable sources to characterize astrology, and they overwhelmingly characterize it as a pseudoscience. Zac has made numerous references to the cultural impact of astrology, but this quite frankly isn't relevant to this discussion, they simply are unrelated points which we can document separately. Whether or not Astrology is a pseudoscience does not counter whether or not Astrology had a cultural impact. As an aside maths is not a science in the normal usage of the word science (i.e referring to natural science etc were proofs do not exist) IRWolfie- (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

{od} Picking up from Judith's point - mechanism wouldn't be the right word for it, but Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos set out a rationale following the argument of Hippocrates, that the individual temperament is understood by evaluating the humoural effect of celestial cycles against consideration of the genetic influence of geological, ethnic and personal family traits - all determined, one way or another by climatic factors  related to celestial cycles. It's actually a very small theoretical leap from this to the recent Vanderbilt University study supporting seasonal imprinting of biological clocks in mammals, published in 2010 in the the journal Nature Neuroscience "personality, and prevalence towards disease, are proven to have links to the season of birth". The other point Saedon should consider is that astrology not being easily falsified is one of he grounds for its pseudo-science status. But these are points I generally try to avoid, because we are not here to judge the subject ourselves, but to merely report what the notable (and reliable) sources say. The editorial task in this top-level article is to identify the relevant and notable points and give the emphasis to them, not clutter the article with endless petty and irrelevant points, like whether astrologers predicted the discovery of Neptune, or nonsense criticisms that are patently false even if they are published in someone's book, like the suggestion that astrologers don't recognise precession (hmmn, yes they certainly do - it's been a major point of division in astrology for centuries, whether the zodiac should move with precession or remain fixed to the vernal equinox). Why are we putting irrelevant comments where they don't belong instead of strengthening the content by pulling it back to its most notable points of interest, explaining these clearly and demonstrating who has led opinion on this subject, historically and currently, when, why and how? -- <b style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help"> Zac </b> Δ talk! 13:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, this directly contravenes policy, we should characterize Astrology as a pseudoscience and then explain why it is, that is what is consistent with the arbitration ruling on pseudoscience. These aren't petty and irrelevant points, you just say they are. Your replies are just puzzling, you note that many astrologers don't include precession and that it's a major source of division, well then, it's perfectly clear why the comment about not taking into account precession is relevant; many astrologers don't take it into account! It's already been noted that there isn't one unified set of beliefs by astrologers, you can hardly expect the criticisms to be relevant to every single different perspective on astrology. Also, Charpak has due weight for being mentioned, Nature itself mentioned his debunking of Astrology in his obituary, if anything he has more due weight assigned to him. Also, notability is what we used to justify the existence of articles not article content, see WP:N, notability has little bearing, instead we look at what has due weight WP:DUE (and WP:FRINGE). The mainstream opinions of astrology are very relevant and should not be sidelined just because you disagree with their opinions etc (and we should present the mainstream thought in the wikipedia tone, not attributed), wikipedia should reflect the scientific consensus on a topic but still treat the article in a balanced fashion. Balance isn't the same as giving equal validity to fringe beliefs though. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, trying to link that Nature Neuroscience paper to this article, I didn't catch the link, looks to be OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be irrelevant anyway because it has nothing whatsoever to do with astrology. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, he wasn't proposing adding it to the article. But of course far from being a support to astrology, it is yet another nail in its coffin. As I pointed out in relation to Gauquelin, it is well established that month of birth affects achievement at school and thus career success. If timing of birth in the year has any influence on our lives, there are rational explanations that have nothing to do with the humours. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Tempest in a teapot
Never having edited this article, I yet think how very apt to its current talk page storm of pseudoscience/pseudoskeptic debate, that a leading scientific publication once surmised: "The ‘tribal’ culture of science is preventing proper discussion, and ... science and scientists must change or face a gradual but certain moral decline." New Scientist, 1999-7-3, p. 39f. Moral decline indeed. Respecting science, humans still depart from its tenets in uncountable ways not requiring scientific corraling back to the fold.

It is axiomatic that astrology is contemporarily considered a pseudoscience, so there is no point to having more than three paragraphs explaining that axiom in an article about a belief system that, within its first sentence, identifies itself as such. At its most basic level in our contemporary world, astrology is a harmless theory of metaphysical cosmology which does not employ an empirical scientific methodology, so by that definition it should not concern scientists in the least. It is not within the penumbra of science apologists' social responsibility to be Thought Police, the best that science can hope for is to educate, and that is best done in scientific articles, not in specious argumentation about such harmless belief systems, nor in endlessly fudmongering within their talk pages as a method of maintaining scientific hegemony in order to stuff ever more extraneous science talk into an article that is not about science, or to keep editors actually interested in the subject from contributing. Such efforts are utterly antithetical to the encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia.

Science may be the arbiter of what is "real", but it is not the supreme arbiter of epistemology, metaphysics, religion, nor any portion of the human spirit. Science's dignity and strength lie in its ability to remain resolute in its push to further discovery, exploring and explaining the nature of the universe &mdash; not in debating the meaning of it all to the human psyche in a futile effort to eradicate all but science itself. A philosophical Circus Maximus is not a forum where science makes its best case, and if, upon being instructed in contemporary scientific cosmologies, people still want to learn about astrology, so what? To continue irrelevant scientific POV pushing in an article about a system of belief makes science look ridiculous, and appear as though it doth protest too much. Worse yet, it underscores the very sort of elitist views that fuel the aims of those who do real and permanent harm to people. So, calling all scientists, get thee back to the lab and get to work. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling something a "system of belief" does not allow one to make farcical claims without scrutiny; that's special pleading and nothing more. In order to present the most accurate description of this subject we must educate our readers as to its status in reality, not simply repeat unsubstantiated nonsense uncritically.    S Æ don talk 19:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)
 * New Scientist is not a "leading scientific publication." Irrational belief systems are not "harmless." The fact that astrology is a pseudoscience is not an "axiom." Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * While certainly not peer-reviewed, New Scientist has a role in shaping public opinion, and mea culpa, that is what I meant. As for its harmlessness, how many people have been killed by astrology? Or assaulted, maimed, lost their homes, or denied education because of it? And I'm afraid I disagree with you Arc, it is axiomatic to most people that astrology is not science, even to those who practice it. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, NS is written for the educated layman but it's not a leading scientific publication like Science (Journal) or Nature (Journal). It may shape some public perception, but it's not an academic publication in the strictest sense, which is what I think Arc meant.  Point 2: how many people have suffered because they believed in astrology?  I don't know, there probably aren't studies on the subject but it's feasible to accept that since a. astrology lacks predictive power greater than random chance and b. People do make decisions based on it, that c. There is potential for loss equal to betting purely on chance except that the believer invests confirmational attachment to the idea and thus may bet erratically.  Point 3: it is certainly not an "axiom" using the definition of the word common in philosophy which is something akin to "a proposition that is self evidently true and cannot be reduced, nor can it be argued against without accepting the proposition implicitly."  In this context, an axiom is something like "existence exists," because one can not deny existence without taking part in it.  In the more loose defintion of axiom, that is, something that is well established in a field, then yes, it is axiomatic that astrology is bunk, but I believe Arc misunderstood your usage.   S Æ don talk 22:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * At the risk of going on a tangent - I would add that astrology and all pseudoscience is antithetical to education. The rest of the problems you listed follow quite directly from that.


 * Second, I've actually never heard a definition of "axiom" that loose (the loosest definition I've ever seen is something like "fundamental assumption"), but I suppose that might just be me. Astrology is pseudoscience because it fails certain basic qualifications like providing rational evidence for empirical claims. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I understand what I read from Sagan. My76Strat (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Saedon: I think you're right, there probably aren't any studies on the subject of whether people have been harmed by astrology (and as a disclaimer, I haven't checked), but I'd be willing to bet there aren't any simply because, if there are instances of harm, they are likely to be so few that sampling would return a non-issue. And that sampling would be in stark contrast to the millions of people throughout all of history who have seen actual harm by wars fought in the name of religion, people burned at the stake, deprived of anything but a religious education, or any number of other real, physical, and lasting harms.


 * @Arc de Ciel: If you ask just about anyone, anywhere in the world, if they think their standard educational science curricula, or any part of them, should be replaced by astrology, I think they would either laugh or not understand the question, whether they believe in astrology or not. But should you ask someone who's interested in the subject, I think you would find most of them are interested in both science and astrology, and well know the difference. Should they be dissuaded from their interest? Should they be dissuaded from their other beliefs such as religion? Should they be dissuaded from a comfort-belief in any cosmology that science finds the pish and tosh of magical thinking?


 * We are all aware of the news stories covering fundamentalist religious sects who actively seek to prevent education, especially in the sciences, who in their earnestness even resort to terrorism by shooting doctors and worse, and who would rewrite history as well, given half a chance. I wouldn't lump people interested in astrology into that group, nor probably, would you.

&mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC) (edited to fix my typos Sctechlaw (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)) (yet more typos Sctechlaw (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC))
 * So the harm you see, which might be real if it attempted, as many religions do, to deny the truth of science in an effort to exclude science from relevance, or as an excuse to truly harm people, is in actuality not there, and is therefore a non-issue. It might not feel good to the scientific mind when we acknowledge that we have graduated from astrology to astronomy and someone else still wants to study both, but there it is.


 * I have never said that there is a danger of astrology replacing science in the classroom, or that its danger is comparable to that of fundamentalists, or that people cannot understand the difference between the two, or that people should not be able to learn about astrology if they want to. If I remove these points from your reply, what remains seems to be the claim that astrology would only cause harm if its practitioners denied science or used it as an excuse to cause harm. I would point out that first, lack of intent to harm does not imply a lack of harm (e.g. see Saedon's reply above), and second, I think it should be uncontroversial that astrologers do deny science - which is to say, the basic standards of evaluating evidence, avoiding bias, etc. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Arc, what I said was to deny the truth of science in an effort to exclude science from relevance, or as an excuse to do harm, I did not say to deny science in order to indulge in harmless flights of fancy. People deny science every time they pray, or otherwise engage in any religious activity, but is it helpful to attempt to dissuade them? I think it is not, and if people want to learn about astrology, it is unnecessary to insure they must wade through pages of scientific disclaimers in order to do so, that is all. This article is currently being vandalized, sourced material removed, and future editors discouraged from editing because of both scientific and fundamentalist (separately, I think) views of what people ought to be able to read on Wikipedia, and that is wrong. That fact is the gist of my observation, and I think that you and other science-minded people could help the situation. Please consider that a few succinct paragraphs, at most, is all the scientific disclaimer that is needed here, and that an overdose of scientific views presented in a condescending manner drive people away from science itself, not to mention from Wikipedia. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Saedon & Arc: I forgot to say that, as in the reply to Saedon, there is no demonstrable harm from astrology, even in Saedon's reply he could only identify a possible harm, rather than a probable harm, and that was simply conjecture, not empirical proof. I think it likely that most people who believe in astrology don't actually base life and death decisions on solely astrology, but actually take the physical world into account as well, and this is why only a short disclaimer about its being a nonscientific field and why is all that is needed. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesnt take a lot to see why astrology can be harmful, and in fact people do make decisions based on it.   Oldey but a goodie[].  never mind all the people who waste money on astrologers.   Or does financial harm not count?

Guyonthesubway (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Guyonthesubway, Orange county didn't go bankrupt because their finance director was an astrology believer, but his gross incompetence certainly played a part. It was, however, only a part amongst a whole team of graft, corruption and malfeasance. I'm afraid it is disingenuous to say astrology caused that calamity, although the headlines certainly made it seem that way. There will always be people who rely on the unreliable, astrology or otherwise, even knowing better, and no amount of pointing to pseudoscience saying "see, see!" will help. The issue remains, how much of a warning is enough? &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Astrology harmless? Tell that to the many people who have been defrauded of large sums of money by astrological scam artists, or those who have made poor personal, financial or health-related decisions based on astrological advice, often with great consequences, including death. Astrology is an excellent tool for parting fools from their money, and it's not all innocent ncikle-and-dime for entertainment only. There are plenty of astrologers doing hard time, and many more that should be doing so. Astrologers wholeheartedly agree, by the way: [].
 * As for the "scam artists are not real astrologers" defense, that is merely a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. There is no such thing as a "real" astrologer. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Dominus, neither science nor astrology are without their frauds, of course. And it appears it was an astrology site you cite that points out those frauds. Some particular science frauds that come to mind are Robert Millikan, William Summerlin, Francois Savery, Martin Fleischmann, Stephen Breuning, Stanley Pons, Victor Ninov, Jan Hendrik Schön, Woo-Suk Hwang, and others, ad nauseum. Because of their behavior do we view all scientists as frauds? Hardly. Because there exist frauds in any field it doesn't follow that an entire field of study must therefore be entirely made up of people whose only goal is to commit fraud. That is exactly what I meant by a needless, specious argument. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see how "deny science" and "deny science in an effort to exclude it from relevance" are significantly different in this context. I just decided to shorten it while I was writing my reply. I don't think that someone's motives for denying science are likely to significantly change the general effects that come from denying science.


 * I should point out that I am not objecting to or supporting any specific edits from the edit war. I have not discussed them or taken a position on them (though I may if I consider them in more detail). This is why I made the comment, "At the risk of going on a tangent." My intent in entering this latest discussion was only to correct inaccurate statements on the talk page. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with your definition of astrology is that in fact astrology does make predicitons, these predictions are therefore falsifiable (and therefore it can be disproven by scientific methods). But regardless, in deferring to the reliable source, scientific works make a point of mentioning and dicussing astrology, some scientists have debunked astrology, these should be mentioned because of the due weight assigned to them and per WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue of pseudoscience is a settled one. The problem seems to be mindset amongst some here that the entire article must be rewritten to accomplish a scientific debunking goal. Editing this article for the purpose of debunking is like editing any other article with a POV goal in mind &mdash; it is simply not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, nor does such an approach have any hint of a collaborative and congenial effort, particularly in view of the arbcom ruling "'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.'." (emphasis added as a reminder). &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is suggesting this, but the article should reflect the mainstream treatment of Astrology. I think what people are asking for is simply that the mainstream view be expressed and that astrology isn't unduly legitimized as being WP:VALID:
 * We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world.
 * IRWolfie- (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Kepler
I shall respond to this AN report in detail later tonight. For now here is an example of the misrepresentation of sources on Kepler... —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to mention Kepler (or Newton, for that matter) at all in an article on astrology. Astrology was a peripheral and insignificant element of Kepler's life, and Kepler was a peripheral and insignificant figure in astrology. This is nothing but an attempt at an appeal to scientific authority. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What we do need to do is explain how astrology was regarded during the scientific revolution. Whether we need to mention individuals in that explanation depends on what we find the sources doing. The sources should be histories of the scientific revolution, not histories of astrology. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think he should still be mentioned, even if it means with a different wording, his connection to astrology is quite famous. I am certain there are high quality sources that make the necesssary connections. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, this is an article about astrology, not about science. If the article's editors find cites to reliable sources describing occurrences in the field, there is absolutely no reason to oppose that. Kepler in particular, is part of the field's history, and should not be dislodged from the article because someone doesn't want to think of a scientific hero casting over 1800 horoscopes. "That the heaven does something in people one sees clearly enough; but what it does specifically remains hidden." See Zeilik, Michael, Astronomy: the Evolving Universe (6th ed.), p. 28, John Wiley & Sons, 1994. ISBN 978-0471308423. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nooone has given that as there reason for the removal, can you please desist from characterizing editors this way. It is unnecessarily confrontational. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * IRWolfie, you are right of course, I inferred it, perhaps hastily. It is late now, for me, perhaps I'll take a break. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

An explanation
With this edit I removed the information on Kepler from the "Core principles" section of the article. My explanation...

<blockquote class="toccolours; "float:none; width:90%; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px; display:table;"> In the 17th century, Kepler, also influenced by arguments in Ptolemy’s Optics and Harmonica,[24]


 * The is pure Synthesis of published material that advances a position:"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
 * The bit about being "also influenced by arguments in Ptolemy’s" works is no real surprise as anybody with an education has undoubtedly studied the significant past and present works in their field.
 * The two works cited do not contain the words "Kepler" or "astrology".

<blockquote class="toccolours; "float:none; width:90%; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px; display:table;"> compiled his Harmonices Mundi ('Harmony of the World'), which presented his own analysis of optical perceptions, geometrical shapes, musical consonances and planetary harmonies. Kepler regarded this text as the most important work of his career, and the fifth part, concerning the role of planetary harmony in Creation, the crown of it.[25]


 * More synthesis, use of sources that do not satisfy WP:RS, and misleading quotations of a primary source in the cites resulting in original research.
 * Given the age and obliqueness of Kepler's works a secondary source is needed for almost any quotation not to be considered WP:OR.
 * Cherry picking quotes from a primary source to advance a position is inappropriate if not disingenuous.
 * The "translated excerpts by Dr. Kenneth G. Negus" from C.U.R.A. The International Astrology Research Center are not a reliable source for the translation or interpretation of Kepler's writings.

<blockquote class="toccolours; "float:none; width:90%; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px; display:table;"> His premise was that, as an integral part of Universal Law, mathematical harmony is the key that binds all parts together: one theoretical proposition from his work introduced the minor planetary aspects into astrology; another introduced Kepler’s third law of planetary motion into astronomy.[26]


 * Even more synthesis.
 * Accurate but not related to astrology.
 * That Kepler's Third Law is also known as the Harmonic Law does not infer that it is somehow related to astrology.
 * Given the fact that the Third Law has stood for four centuries (it's not considered a Law just because it's a good idea), attempting to conflate it with astrology is really beyond the pale...

<blockquote class="toccolours; "float:none; margin-left:8em; width:80%; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px; display:table;"> "Appropriately, Kepler's third law is often called the Harmonic Law because it establishes one beautifully simple relationship among all the planets. From this peak we may survey our progress so far. Starting from the disconnected multitude of Ptolemaic gears we have reached a heliocentric formulation that views the solar system as a simple, logically connected unit. Our mind's eye grasps the Keplerian universe at one glance. and recognizes the main motions in it as the expression of simple laws expressed in a mathematical form. This has ever since been at model of highest achievement of empirical science." —

<blockquote class="toccolours; "float:none; width:90%; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px; display:table;"> Kepler described astrology as "the foolish stepdaughter of astronomy" and "a dreadful superstition," leading to speculation that he cast horoscopes mainly as a source of income.[22]


 * Accurate but out of place in the Core principles section of this article (as any mention of Kepler would be).

It is important to note that like Tycho Brahe, and almost all of their contemporaries, the fact that Kepler was an astrologer is not in doubt. However, the idea they made important contributions to astrology is the creation of modern astrologers and them alone. Tycho, who had much more faith in astrology than Kepler, is not noted for astrology but rather an idea that spawned a revolution in western thought... <blockquote class="toccolours; "float:none; width:90%; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px; display:table;"> "The times after Copernicus were times in which there were great debates about whether the planets in fact went around the sun along with the earth, or whether the earth was at the centre of the universe and so on. Then a man named Tycho Brahe evolved a way of answering the question. He thought that it might perhaps be a good idea to look very very carefully and to record exactly where the planets appear in the sky, and then the alternative theories might be distinguished from one another. This is the key of modern science and it was the beginning of the true understanding of Nature - this idea to look at the thing, to record the details, and to hope that in the information thus obtained might lie a clue to one or another theoretical interpretation." — All of that being said I am not against mentioning Kepler (although it should probably be more appropriate in the History of astrology article) if the information is properly sourced and placed in context. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes there does appear to be severe issues of SYNTH, OR and bad sourcing. He could be mentioned in the history section though with the Cosmic perspective sourced line and some more, perhaps? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are plenty of good sources that cover Kepler's relationship with astrology. We should be able to do better than the line from Cosmic (it's also a bit out of context). A report at WP:AN, full protection on the article and .... crickets. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC on change to pseudoscience summary in lede
The current wording is:

The wording I am proposing is:

See Talk:Astrology for background to the dispute S Æ don talk 21:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Support change My argument: The old wording is clunky and hard for someone who doesn't have a background in science to understand. For instance, the statement "is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations" would likely make little sense to someone who doesn't have a scientific background, or at least be vague enough to misunderstand (I do have a scientific background and I can attest that this phrasing is not something that we would use in scientific discourse).
 * Further, it delves into details about pseudoscience that are not appropriate for a summary per WP:LEDE and since this isn't an article about pseudoscience, but about astrology, it also doesn't make sense to summarize the entire science section of the article by only stating that astrology is a pseudoscience and what pseudoscience is, when the article goes into detail about the scientific research and whatnot.
 * The old wording ascribes a motive to astrology when it says "it makes little attempt..." Astrology is a body of belief and as such cannot logically make attempts to do anything.  One could maybe say that astrologers make little attempt to develop solutions to the problems with astrology, but as written the passage doesn't make a lot of sense.
 * I believe the new wording is more concise and succinct and better summarizes the article. Kwami agreed with the new wording and Polisher of Cobwebs objected but I found his objections to be contrary to WP:LEDE and mostly just obstructionist with a tad of WP:OWN, hence this RFC.
 * Lastly, as Kwami points out above, the old wording is a product of a POV edit war that took place, IIRC, in mid 2011 during a rather chaotic era of this page. S Æ don talk 21:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support change. The new wording is a significant improvement as a summary of the relevant section in the article, per WP:LEAD. I also agree that it is much easier to understand in general. Yobol (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support change In addition to Saedon's summary, I'd add that statements such as "astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science" are self-evidently false. The proposed wording gives a more accurate impression of the mainstream view of astrology. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest you check the verifiable source given in ref 67 "In 2001, 53% of Europeans surveyed thought astrology is 'rather scientific' and only a minority (39%) said it is not at all scientific." This is the reason astrology has been labelled a pseudo-science. To argue that there is no superficial resemblence to science is to argue against referring to it as a pseudo-science.  -- <b style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help"> Zac </b> Δ talk! 19:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose change The old wording is perfectly good, and should be easy for anyone of normal intelligence to understand. Saedon's complaint that "Astrology is a body of belief and as such cannot logically make attempts to do anything" is pedantic, and an irrelevant objection. "Astrology makes little attempt...", or words to that effect, is perfectly reasonable as a figure of speech. Finally, Saedon's version is POV and does not reflect the article accurately at all. Its statement that "the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics" is contradicted by Carl Sagan's comments. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand Sagan's statement. He only said that he would not sign a statement that indicated Astrology was a pseudoscience based solely on the fact that astrologers don't provide a mechanism.  This is a wholly different statement than astrology being a pseudoscience based on contradicting known mechanisms.  Both are compatible with logical positivism, which is the basis of scientific thought.  You said yourself that you don't have a science background so perhaps you'd be better off not attempting to interpret scientific statements.  The rest of what you wrote is your usual style of WP:IJDLI coupled with argument by assertion.    S Æ don talk 23:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sagan's statement obviously contradicts the idea that astrology contradicts known principles of biology and physics - it implies that we don't know that there couldn't possibly be any way in which it could work. Oh, PS: logical positivism isn't the basis of scientific thought, it's a philosophy that has been largely abandoned for more than fifty years. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You may think you're dealing with people who don't know what they're talking about but that's not the case. Your argumentation is transparent and I seriously doubt it's fooling anyone.  S Æ don talk 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Polisher, could you kindly quote the Sagan statement you are referring to? I'm not moved by accusations of pedantry - we are trying to write an encyclopedia here: Correctness is of paramount importance. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the full quote, POC should take care to note the last sentence especially:

S Æ don talk 00:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does the statement by Sagan say that astrology violates "well-established laws of physics." I suppose someone might try to read into it the suggestion that astrology does violate them, but there's no direct statement to that effect there, and we shouldn't try to do original research. So I stand by my case that Saedon's version of the lead is POV. Those concerned with correctness please take note. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering I'm not using the Sagan quote as a source that's not relevant. You were attempting to use the Sagan quote to contradict what I wrote, but it doesn't contradict it, so now you are changing your argument to insinuate that the wording depends on the quote.  It doesn't.  It paraphrases the science section which is supported by a quote by the world's foremost physicist, Stephen Hawking, saying that astrology contradicts known physical facts.  S Æ don talk 00:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? The Sagan quote obviously contradicts what you added to the lead, which was, "the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics." That implies that the hypothesis cannot conceivably be true, while Sagan is pointing out the contrary, that we don't know that it couldn't possibly be true. You're welcome to believe that there's no contradiction, but just making the assertion isn't helpful. And if you think I've changed my argument, then I'm afraid you've utterly misunderstood what I said. I haven't changed my position at all, and I find your comments bizarre. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that you're using anything you can to keep this change out of the article because you just don't like it. Frankly, it's WP:TE and I'm done arguing with you, especially since you've admitted both a lack of a scientific background and on your talk page you admit you lack detailed knowledge of astrology.  There is so far a consensus of 4 editors who think the new wording is better and you are the only editor to hold your position.  S Æ don talk 01:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Saedon, I suggest that rather than make ad hominem arguments, you address what I said. You accused me of changing my position, but as far as I can tell (and I think I know what my position is better than you do), I've done no such thing. It would help discussion if each side understands what the other side is saying, so would you mind please explaining to me again why you believe I've changed my mind? Thanks. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No I'm sorry but I feel as though I've spent enough time debating this with you; it will be up to uninvolved editors to determine the consensus on the matter. S Æ don talk
 * Your conclusion from the Sagan quote was not only far from being obvious, it is patently false. Sagan's statement indicates that it is the current state of any pursuit that should be subjected to criticism, not its origins, and that speculation regarding the psychological motivations of the practitioners is also not a legitimate basis for criticism.  He didn't like the tone of the statement he had been asked to sign, and he said that an absence of a known mechanism need not mean that a hypothesis is incorrect.  All of these are generic comments about the nature of appropriate criticism.  He isn't saying anything specifically about what astrology does or does not contradict, but instead is criticizing the manner in which astrology was being criticized for its origins, the mental state of those practicing it, and the lack of a mechanism. He does not address whether or not astrology contradicts known laws, only saying that the violation of such laws represent a weighty argument against a hypothesis. (It's probably also worth pointing out that we have learned a lot more about physics and biology in the past 42 years, so even were Sagan to have said in 1970 that astrology didn't violate the laws of biology or physics, which he didn't, it wouldn't necessarily apply today.) As to changing your position, he never said that you did, only that you had changed your argument, which you did (although perhaps you didn't intend to).  Your original statement was of the nature of 'Sagan contradicts the new wording,' but after the full quote was given, you made a change to the claim saying, 'Sagan fails to support the new wording', which while superficially similar is actually quite different (and importantly places the burden of proof on the other party). That is when Saedon rightly indicated that you had changed your argument. You have since gone back to the original line of 'Sagan contradicts the new wording.' While you may not have changed your position, you have indeed changed your argument, twice.  However, given that Sagan's quote neither contradicts nor is being used to support the new wording, its continued discussion is an all-together irrelevant distraction. Agricolae (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said about Sagan. It quite simply makes no sense to say that astrology contradicts known principles of whatever if there could be a mechanism by which it works for all we know. I suppose that Sagan could have meant to say that astrology could work by some mechanism for all we know but that this does not mean that it does not contradict known principles, but that would be stupid, and since Sagan was a bright guy, I see no reason to suppose that he meant such an absurdity. Try giving Sagan (and me) credit for a little more intelligence. Also, thanks for attempting to explain to me what my own argument/position is or isn't, but I'm not really in need of such explanation. That Sagan (directly, or by implication) contradicts Saedon's version of the lead is what I've always said. Your comments about what my argument was/is are mumbo-jumbo as far as I'm concerned. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with intelligence, Sagan's or yours. It does have to do with reading what Sagan said, and not reading into what Sagan said.  Sagan was not addressing the basis for astrology, he was addressing the appropriate basis for scientific criticism and more specifically why he declined to sign a specific set of what he considered to be inappropriate criticisms written in an authoritarian tone.  He wasn't going to engage in speculation about the mindset of the proponents or denigrate a field for having origins shared by much of science, and the lack of a mechanism need not mean a hypothesis is wrong - and so he wasn't going to sign a statement criticizing astrology on these grounds, because these are not valid grounds for criticism.  One should not imply from this that, given a different statement that was based on appropriate scientific criticisms, he wouldn't have signed it willingly.  His whole quote is just telling people that when you criticize something, you should use the right arguments (an example of which he provides at the very end of the quote).  Whatever your position may always have been, your response to the complete quote was "Nowhere does the statement by Sagan say that astrology violates 'well-established laws of physics'". Saedon and I both read this as 'Sagan nowhere supports Saedon', which is different from 'Sagan contradicts Saedon'. If this is not what you meant, then at least we have that clear.  Agricolae (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to address the question of the appropriate basis of scientific criticism of anything if you think it doesn't, or couldn't, have any possible basis. So the distinction you're making is false. Blathering posts in which you repeat what you've already said at tedious length are a waste of talk page space my friend. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously the space was wasted because you still don't get it, my uncivil friend - Sagan wasn't really even talking about astrology in this paragraph. It just served as a pretext for him to discuss of the nature of correct scientific discourse. And the reason? Because he thought it was a point worth making. What more reason does one need? Agricolae (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sagan wasn't really taking about astrology? Could have fooled me, because it looks as though he was talking about astrology. But in any case, your side is obviously winning the RFC, which I will respect. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support change. I think User:Yobol summed it up nicely. The change would improve the article even further if its second sentence was amended to read "Scientific testing of astrology has not found evidence to support either the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological tradition.", but no matter, the proposed change will be a major improvement. Moriori (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support change. I would much prefer Moriori's version, though with just a minor change: "Scientific testing of astrology has found no evidence to support either the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological tradition." Agricolae (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be very problematic because science has tested and verified many elements of astrological tradion. The astrological tradition is huge and multi-faceted and science has taken a lot from it historically. It really depends what premises or purported effects you are talking about. We could go into more boring details of course, but it is only WP editors who get so obsessive about exploring this subject through its characterisation as a pseudo-science.  The visitor wants to know what the subject is supposed to be about according to its own definition too. -- <b style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help"> Zac </b> Δ talk! 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is a bit of a problem with the last sentence of the proposed wording: "Furthermore, the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics.".
 * 1)Not all forms of astrology are about effects on "individual lives", there is also "mundane astrology" and "financial astrology" where it is believed that the planetary cycles affect regions, countries or even the whole world. Just like the gravitational pull of the Moon on an individual bottle of water in your fridge is negligible, but taken over a much larger area, the same gravitational pull of the Moon adds up to tidal forces that are clearly not negligible. Actually, "mundane astrology" is the more older and common form, while the belief in "individual horoscopes" is a rather new development within "astrology".
 * 2)The phrasing also suggests that physics and biology are understood so well already, that we can rule out the possibility of astrology. I am not sure that every scientist will be ready to make that contention.
 * Astrology is not considered a pseudoscience because the possibility of it has been disproven by science. Astrology is considered a pseudoscience because it has not produced sufficient independently verified evidence for any of its claims or theories, and is in fact making little or no efforts to do so. So, the first two sentences of the proposal are OK. But, I would suggest to change or remove the last phrase of the proposed edit, if this is to be accepted. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with some of your criticisms also but am ridiculously tired atm so give me till tomorrow and I'll comment and we can find a way to tweak it to address your points. In the meantime, if you have any particular changes in mind (aside from just deleting the sentence, because I think we can reword it rather than delete) please don't hesitate to present them.  S Æ don talk 08:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, there is time. Basically, the lede is supposed to give a brief summary of what is found in the rest of the article. So we also have to consider proper proportion and due weight. We definitely need this paragraph mentioning the pseudoscientific status of astrology. A third sentence can be used here, but I think it should be more broadly phrased. The biology-physics objection to "individual astrology" is a bit too specific for that purpose. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I am unsure if the current 2 sources even actually verify the current text. No mention is made in the second source of astrology superficially resembling science. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support change to first two sentences, with 3rd sentence conditionally on the extra sourcing check mentioned above. I note that the sources to verify much of the content is already in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is that we shouldn't be trying to pretend that astrology is actually taken seriously as a predictive tool. The new wording is far clearer. I think a better wording for the first sentence might actually be that: Astrology is a pseudoscience and as such is not taken seriously as a predictive tool by the scientific community. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Astrology is indeed taken seriously as a predictive tool. See the first comments in the 'Effect on European Culture' section and the references that verify them (from credible scientific souurces). And this is just Western European culture, Eastern Europeans and other geographical regions have a stronger commitment to astrological belief.  So it would be a pretence to suggest that astrology is not taken seriously as a predictive tool, or that it is not respected by a significance number of people.  WP editors are here to report world views not change them.  On the other hand I see that your proposal is trying to clarify an otherwise hopelessly problematic suggestion. But it really is not making things clearer. Giving a clear statement (such as we have already) that astrology is a pseudoscience is all that is needed to demonstrate that astrology does not (in general terms) hold a position in modern science.  What we have already is qualified by the reasons for this, as verified by credible references.   There are divisions of astrology that this article does not explain.  Natural astrology (as opposed to 'judicial astrology') concerns weather prediction, seasonal changes and meteorolgical events and these sorts of planetary cycles are taken seriously as predictive tools, because there really is a correlation between celestial phenomena and earth phenomena. There are lots of elements of astrology that cross the borders of other sciences.  The main point is that the lede should summarise the most pertinent points of the article's content, not be rewritten at whim to make a point that suits a WP editor's personal view of the subject. I hope we can all agree to that -- <b style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help"> Zac </b> Δ talk! 19:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By seriously, I meant by scientists, not by the general public. The consensus of scientists is that it's all bullshit. Wikipedia should reflect that scientific consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There are also many people who take the 2012 doomsday predictions serious, but that doesn't mean that science takes it serious. An encyclopedia tries to be complete, so the general standpoint of science also gets its part of the coverage. That's what the pseudoscience part in the lede is doing. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I support the change to the first two sentences, with the 3rd sentence removed. It doesn't belong in the lede, even IF it is adequately sourced. DigitalC (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support change I think it makes more sense and makes people that may trust astrology less likely to do so because of the wording. Thepoodlechef (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reasons for a change should be based on policy and guidelines. Your vote appears to not be based on policy or guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: "basic aspects of biology and physics". Would you care to define which aspects are intended here? The introduction does not offer a definition. The "Modern scientific appraisal" section does not even mention biology. The lack of a defined physical mechanism (for astrology) is mentioned, but not any specific scientific principle which contradicts its existence. As for the distinction between meteorological astrology, mundane astrology, natal astrology, etc, it is currently not reflected in the text. Dimadick (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose change: The word "science" has changed meanings since the 1600's when astrology was labelled with the word "science".  Back then the word meant something like "general knowledge" - and not "ideas tested using the scientific method", which is what that word means today.  Since we don't write Wikipedia in archaic language - we have to use a modern word that means "makes predictions like a science does, but without following the scientific method" - and the correct word for that is "pseudoscience" (check any dictionary!).  Hence the proposed change is extremely misleading to a modern reader.  The change implies that at some time in the past, astrologers were carefully testing and documenting their ideas, subjecting them to peer review and following the "hypothesis/experiment/publication/reproduction-of-experiment/publication/theory" approach that "science" (by the modern definition of the word) dictates.  This rewording of the lede implies that astrology has changed over the years - when in fact it has not (or at least not in any material way) - when in fact the meaning of the word "science" has changed.  Hence this change to the lede must be soundly rejected. SteveBaker (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Steve, since you're the first voice to oppose, could you explain why? I'm not following your argument. I don't see how it is implied that astrology has changed over the years. — kwami (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he's saying that a comparison to science, as implication of astrology's faults, isn't fair since science's definition has shown to be historically tenuous. I think it's a dubious argument. If science changed, practices that purport to use its methods should've changed with it, or accept their fate. Science is just another word for currently-accepted logic. If you don't use that as a basis for the evolution of ideas, choosing instead to stick to science's one-time definitions, that's a choice to become archaic. That's basically all a comparison to science is saying, and it's accurate. <b style="font-family: Century Gothic; text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion ( talk ) </b>  06:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support change - Hehe... This is the first time I've seen this article and the current wording made me laugh. It looks like a chip on the shoulder. "shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories..." You can tell some scientist was deeply hurt by astrology in his youth. "superficial resemblance to science", "little attempt to develop solutions to its problems", carry similar problems. I might use subjective words like these myself in arguments, but it's not for an encyclopedia. Kind of an angry forum post instead. Replacement is definitely more neutral, and standard with the way we address these kinds of topics. <b style="font-family: Century Gothic; text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;"> Equazcion  ( talk ) </b>  01:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Change per WP:NPOV.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 19:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I support replacing the existing text. However, the proposed replacement is not satisfactory. The phrasing "is not taken seriously" is clumsy and lacks the authoritative tone expected in a reputable reference such as an encyclopedia. And surely there are some academicians, perhaps with expertise in cultural anthropology, history of science, cognitive psychology, or behavioral economics, who have serious professional interests in astrology. MakeSense64's comments on the third sentence of the proposed text are also worth considering. While I am not yet sure of the best alternative, I think something along the lines of the following would be preferable to what has been proposed thus far: While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience. The claims of astrology have not been confirmed by controlled studies, and experiments have found that astrologers perform no better than chance at making predictions.
 * There is no need to explain in the passage what is meant by referring to astrology as a pseudoscience; the reader who does not know what pseudoscience means can follow the wikilink to a detailed discussion of the term. The phrasing I am proposing ("the claims of astrology have not been confirmed by controlled studies," rather than "some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted and no evidence has been found to support either the premises or purported effects") also reflects the generally accepted notion in science that the burden of proof for acceptance of a hypothesis falls on those who argue in support of it, not on those who challenge its validity. The previously-proposed phrasing ("no evidence has been found") may offer some readers the wiggle room of concluding that the reason no evidence has been found is that not enough tests of the right sort have been conducted. Dezastru (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support replacing (in a different way) - I think it would be even better to merge the two proposals, e.g.Astrology is a pseudoscience. The claims of astrology have not been confirmed by controlled studies, and experiments have found that astrologers perform no better than chance at making predictions. Astrologers make little attempt to develop solutions to their problems, do not evaluate astrology against competing theories, and are selective in considering evidence. Furthermore, the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics.
 * I agree that the current sentence isn't presented well though - note that I changed it in this proposal, and I'm sure it could be improved further. I think this is also more authoritative, since "Astrology is a pseudoscience" is a sentence by itself in this version. If I had to choose either version though, I would take the second, so I also support change. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

*I support that changes are needed but oppose the replacement prose in its current form. In presenting my thoughts, red text is bad, black text is mine, and green text is good. Looking at the current prose: While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science I have a problem with this because it is a negative weasel sentiment, casts doubt for no gain, and appears bias affecting credibility it is a pseudoscience because it makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems This is unsourced wp:or and can't be known, let alone taught; a thing we should not be doing. I suggest that it is as reasonable, as far as wp:or goes, that 'it makes great attempts to develop solutions; but to no demonstrable scientific conclusion. shows no concern purely negative conjecture for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations  The alternate text begins well with the simple factual statement: Astrology is a pseudoscience and as such is not taken seriously by the academic or scientific communities. this seems like wp:or and it draws a false conclusion. It is not that as such they are not taken seriously, but that they are seriously taken as such. Their designation as a pseudoscience is the scientific result of serious consideration. Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted and no evidence has been found to support either the premises or purported purported is negative weasel wording, straight off the list effects outlined in astrological tradition. Furthermore, the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood you're probably blowing your own scientific horn by stating how well understood the applicable discipline is (not), basic aspects of biology and physics. Pardon my candor, but those are my impressions. Now, I understand that we should not endeavor to teach a conclusion, but rather present the verifiable facts, allowing the reader to decide. Given that, here is an example of prose which state the uncolored facts as I perceived them to be Astrology is classified as a pseudoscience within academia and the scientific community. Primarily it has failed to provide grounds for its own accreditation; seemingly content functioning at the fringe of believability. When scientific models are applied, Astrology consistently emerges immeasurable and unverifiable. While Astrologists conjecture an hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives, they fail to offer any mechanism for consideration instead being satisfied that an inability to refute assertions is sufficient proof of their truth. I hope something of value may be gleaned from this, for it is the culmination of my ability in this RfC and it lies before you; bare. Good luck - My76Strat (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is definitely useful feedback. I would phrase the last sentence a bit different however:
 * "While astrologers conjecture hypotheses that planetary bodies correlate with human and terrestrial affairs, they fail to offer any mechanism for consideration instead being satisfied that an inability to refute assertions is sufficient proof of their truth."
 * (my changes in bold text). Not all astrologers believe that there is (or must be) a mechanism by which the planets "affect" us, some believe there is only a "correlation" (without further explanation on how that is supposed to work). And since not all astrology pertains to "individual human lives", we better include "terrestrial affairs". MakeSense64 (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this version has a couple of potential things to recommend it, but I don't think it's an overall improvement even over the current text. You have some similar problems in your proposal, e.g. the phrases "seemingly content," "fringe of believability," "being satisfied," and "emerges immeasurable and unverifiable." The phrase "within the academia and the scientific community" is redundant, since there is no other way for something to be classed as pseudoscience. Finally, you left out the point that it contradicts basic biology and physics, which is verifiable, and seem to have "watered down" the point that there is no evidence to support it. Arc de Ciel (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're correct of course. Which source verifies that Astrology contradicts basic biology and physics? My76Strat (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is unlikely we will find a source to describe how astrology contradicts biology as astrology is not exactly a normally discussed topic in the biological sciences, and the reasons deal with some high level biochemical concepts that, frankly, would be a waste of time on the part of a researcher to discuss in regards to astrology. When I wrote my proposed change above I did it based on what I know as a biologist and so it can probably be considered WP:OR.  Physics, however, is not a problem;  we have the Hawking and deGrasse Tyson quotes in the article that describe astrology as both inconsistent with known physical facts and as having been discredited 600 years ago, respectively.   S Æ don talk 20:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, sources for biology are here page 59, and here page 265. The first one actually raises (on the same page) some other useful points that might be incorporated, e.g. that "[no] legitimate scientific body" considers astrology a science, and that astrologers do not use the scientific method. Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I started this discussion but have not been around to discuss due to being busy irl. I just want to say that I'm glad the discussion is progressing in this fashion, i.e. that other editors have taken my text and worked with it to make a better version (it's very annoying when people criticize without offering constructive edits of their own).  I like a lot of what has been proposed.   S Æ don talk 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support change Responding to the RFC. The proposed phrasing seems more neutral and factually correct to me, rather than accusing "astrology" of actively failing to do something as if it were some personal entity capable of taking action or being held personally liable. I don't think that's a pedantic point, as stated in one of the comments above; why shouldn't the words used reflect the sourced evidence? The new wording doesn't substantially change the overall thrust of the statement, but it seems clearer (I'd argue it isn't more concise, because it's longer, but I don't see an issue with that) and, actually, more neutrally phrased. I would add, though, that User:My76Strat makes some good points, and I'd support his suggestions. Anaxial (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Edited to strike oppose and insert support any, also to support changing the current wording to anything better than it is now. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Using an astronomy text book to help define the generalities of the topic is probably our best bet and we can then not have to deal with the cherry picking that comes along with minor results in this or that study. S Æ don talk 00:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Support ANY change Responding to the RFC. While I don't object to the words "pseudoscience" and "astrology" existing in the same sentence, the proposed wording (and the current wording) is a caveat of mainstream smugness and scientific elitism, something that WP should avoid as bias. The current lead identifies astrology as a belief system: right there that tells the reader it is not mainstream science. A better approach than the proposed change would be to treat the issue like any belief system is treated, and avoid such smug protestations of rightness or wrongness. For instance, something like -- "Astrology had a long history as a science, but today is treated as a pseudoscience by most of the contemporary mainstream scientific community." -- would be a less offensive description of the same sentiment. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sourcing I have a copy of The Cosmic Perspective (an astronomy text book), a source we currently use in the article. I forgot about this chapter, but there is a section dedicated to astrology that we can use to support the claim that there's no evidence for astrological predictions.


 * Comment I'm in agreement with the points that Sctechlaw made above. His suggestion "Astrology had a long history as a science, but today is treated as a pseudoscience by most of the contemporary mainstream scientific community" is all we need to say in the lede. It's a credible and reliable comment, and offers a clear and succinct summary of the points explored in more detail in the article.  -- <b style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help"> Zac </b> Δ talk! 02:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support change as outlined in the initial proposal; the text flows better in that version, in my opinion. <b style="color: #006600">It Is Me Here</b> <b style="color: #CC6600">t</b> / <b style="color: #CC6600">c</b> 15:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"Astrology and Science" website
I'd be interested to know if others think the following is a reliable source: self-published by an acknowledged expert in the field: http://www.astrology-and-science.com/hpage.htm --Other Choices (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Reliability is also dependent on what you want to do with it. That is why at WP:RSN they always ask what the suggested text is (Some sources though are so unreliable as to be unusable for anything). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Astrology and Science" is not a source. It's a website that hosts various documents, some of which are potentially reliable sources for information by WP standards, and some of which are more or less useless. Like IRWolfie said, the real question is "reliable to support what?".
 * The website's main value is as a tool for finding sources, and also as a source of biographical data. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV in the "modern scientific appraisal" section and the lede
It seems that parts of the "modern scientific appraisal" section are written from the perspective of the sources cited, and not from a neutral point of view.

For example, the section now reads that Georges Charpak and Henri Broch "dismantled claims from parapsychology and astrology" (implying wikipedia endorsement of their project, and directly violating WP:NPOV's directive not to quote from participants in a heated dispute). Perhaps it would be sufficient to change "dismantled" to "criticized" or "attacked," removing the quotation marks from the phrase.

The section further states that these authors "noted" that astrologers don't take into account the precession of the equinoxes. Once again (aside from the embarrassing incompetence of this particular criticism), the word "noted" implies wikipedia endorsement of the views of Charpak and Broch. I think "stated" or "asserted" is more neutral here.

A similar issue pops up in the lede, with the bald statement that astrology "is" a pseudoscience. The way the lede is currently written implies wikipedia endorsement of the explanation of why astrology is a pseudoscience given in the two footnotes to the sentence. I think that neutrality requires us to say something like "scientists routinely dismiss astrology as a pseudoscience..." --Other Choices (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire point of NPOV is that WP takes the perspective of the sources cited - that's literally what "neutral" means in a WP context. Further, there is no heated dispute as to the merits of astrology anymore than there is to the merits of flat earth theory or intelligent design. There is a minority WP:FRINGE who hold ideas that contradict the mainstream of scientific discourse by pushing a pseudoscientific view of the universe - that's all.  S Æ don talk 01:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We seem to have a serious disagreement about the meaning of NPOV. Could you please explain your contention that WP should "take the perspective of the sources cited"?  Could you please provide a quotation from WP:NPOV to support your view?  My impression is that you are dead wrong, but I don't mind learning if I am the one who is mistaken.
 * Regarding the "heated dispute," I am simply amazed that anybody could deny that there is a heated dispute between scientists and astrologers concerning the merits of astrology. It seems that the only way you can make such an assertion is by denying the existence or relevance of the views of the astrological community about their discipline.
 * --Other Choices (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Take your pick. The entire policy as written states that we represent the content of reliable sourcing without editorializing our own views; so if a source says X then we report X.  Re point 2: a dispute between one group who represents a scholarly body (scientists) does not have validity with the views of a non-scientific, WP:FRINGE minority.  I'll point again to the flat earth example: there are vocal critics of the spheroid earth theory, but because they are a fringe minority we don't treat them the same that we do geologists.  S Æ don talk 01:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A few things to remember. WP is written to represent the consensus of experts in reliable sources. Not all experts are equal, nor or all sources.
 * We give a lot of weight to statements by real qualified academic experts in the relevant field with real academic qualifications presented in real academic publications, especially when the statement is representative of the consensus in the field and have been subjected to real peer review. Impact is another factor to consider, with authors and publications that are widely cited carrying more weight than more obscure authors and publications.
 * We give little, if any, weight to self-proclaimed or sham experts that have little or no standing in the real academic community that are self-published or published in non-academic publications or sham journals, especially if their views represents a minority or fringe views in the relevent real academic field, if they have not been subjected to real peer review, or if they have had little impact on real scholarly discourse.
 * With that in mind, there is essentially no controversy about the merits of astrology among real experts in the real scholarly community, especially in the relevant scientific fields. The overwhelming opinion is that astrology is pseudoscience and does not have any merit to speak of. There may be some controversy over exactly why astrology is pseudoscience, but the fact that it is pseudoscience is essentially non-contested, and can be presented in WP's voice.
 * The opinions of astrologers about the validity of astrology do not carry much weight in the actual debate within the scholarly community, and therefore are assigned little weight here on WP.
 * Astrologers do form associations that appear to be "professional", "academic" or "scientific", but we do not recognize the legitimacy of these associations and publications if they are not recognized by real scholars and they do not play a significant role in real scholarly consensus.
 * Last of all, astrologers are not considered experts in astrology just because they are astrologers, or because they say they are experts. There expertise has to be recognized within the relevent real scholarly fields.
 * Whether they are considered experts by themselves, by their "in universe" colleagues, by sham "in-universe" pseudoacademic or pseudoscientific associations, or by the general public is largely irrelvant. In matters related to science, whether they are considered experts by journalists in the popular or pop-science presses also carries little weight.
 * The opinions of those astrologers who, like Tarnas and Campion, have real academic qualifications carry a lot of weight when published in real academic publications, expecially if they have been subject to real peer review. When they self-publish or publish in sham journals, non-academic publications or sham publications, their opinion carries much less weight, especially if it represents a fringe view that lacks appreciable support within the real scholarly community, or if they are opining outside of their genuinely recognized fields of study.
 * As for philosophy and religion, these are genuine scholarly fields of study with real academically recognized experts who publish in real academic publications. The opinions of real experts in those fields published in real scholarly outlets counts for much more than the opinions of self-proclaimed experts publishing in non-scholarly outlets.
 * Finding reliable sources on modern astrology is greatly hampered by the fact that it is basically ignored by the real scholarly community, and few authors have published high quality reviews in peer-reviewed sources. To deal with that problem, we have a policy called WP:PARITY, so that we can use non-peer-reviewed sources to present the mainstream opinion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Saedon, I think the key phrase in your reply is "without editorializing our own views." It seems to me that, in the three examples that I identified, wikipedia is taking an editorial stance instead of simply reporting what reliable sources say.  Do you disagree?
 * @Dominus Vobisdu, I think the key phrase in your reply is "real qualified academic experts in the relevant field." Where are the academically qualified experts in the field of astrology?  Scientists decree that astrology is a "pseudoscience."
 * However, a fundamental part of the definition of "pseudoscience" (as prominently mentioned in the lede to the wikipedia article on pseudoscience) is the claim that a discipline or theory is "scientific" in the modern sense. Part of the problem here is that there is an older definition of science (as prominently mentioned in the lede to the wikipedia article on science), which applies to astrology's traditional self-description, simply because astrology is so old that astrologers have been defining their discipline as a "science" since before the modern distinction between the two meanings existed.  Astrology's self-identification with the older definition of "science" is prominently featured at the American Federation of Astrologers website.
 * In other words, astrology makes no claim to be "scientific" in the modern sense. For this reason, it seems obvious that when academically-trained scientists pass judgment on astrology, they are venturing outside their area of expertise into a subject where they know little or nothing.
 * I'm sure that the "pseudoscience" label for astrology has been debated here at wikipedia in months and years past, but I have no idea if discussion of the issue has dealt with the points I mention above. If not, then perhaps this whole issue needs to be revisited.
 * I recognize the point you bring up about the proper handling of fringe topics here at wikipedia. However, that is a headache for another day, not immediately related to the three NPOV issues that I brought up at the beginning of this section.  You are welcome to share your opinion on my three objections to the current wording of the article.
 * --Other Choices (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are indeed real academic experts in astrology, and they do publish real peer-reviewed papers on astrology. A good example is Nick Campion, who has published on the history of classical and medieval astrology. Others have published textual or literary analyses, again generally of classical and medieval primary documents, or on the role of classical and medieval astrological symbolism in art and literature.
 * Sadly missing are peer-reviewed comprehensive overviews of modern astrology. In fact, there is a surprising dearth of information in real academic publications, and those that exist are mainly concerned with debunking scientific claims. Suprising, I say, because there are abundant academic sources for creationism and Intelligent Design, which are just as nonsensical as astrology. It is therefore very dificult to judge what modern astrologers believe, how they operate, what are the significant movements, and to assign weight to them. We are left with very low-quality sources published by astrologers themselves in non-academic venues, most of which is so hopelessly biased, self-serving, promotional or apologetic that it is essentially useless for our purposes. It's also very difficult to assign weight to them, as they are rarely, if ever, mentioned in serious scholarly discourse, being discussed solely within the "astrological community".
 * However, a caveat: when these genuine experts publish without the benefit of peer review, they sometimes transform into blithering idiots. Campion and Tarnas are good examples (watch their lectures and interviews on You Tube). Without peer-review, their expertise counts for very little, and there is no test that can be used to distinguish their ramblings from run-of-the-mill blither by non-experts, or even schizophrenics, expect perhaps the choice of vocabulary. It's still blither, just dressed up in impressive sounding pseudoscientific and pseudoacademic language. The part about their being no test is particularly important, as the usual test we use here on WP is whether opinions are significant in scholarly discourse in a serious and substantial manner based on reliable independent sources per WP:FRINGE.
 * As for your contention that astrologers often claim that astrology does not makes scientific claims in the modern sense, that much is true. However, the claim itself is false. They routinely do make claims that are fall within the purview of science, and scientists are most definitly not "venturing outside their area of expertise into a subject where they know little or nothing" when they evaluate such claims. Your argument to that effect is invalid.
 * Furthermore, astrologist routinely present astrology as having scientific validity to the gullible and uninformed general public (the author of the "Astrology and Science" website you mentioned above being a very rare exception). When their claims are shown to have no scientific merit, as has always been the case, they backpedal by claiming that astrology is "philosphical", "psychological" or "religious" in an attempt to evade scientific scrutiny.
 * That defense, however, is merely an self-serving, intellectually dishonest sham, and cannot be taken at face value. Most astrologers do indeed think that convincing the public that astrology is academically or scientifically valid is a high priority because the general public does indeed put great store in academic and scentific validity.
 * That is why astrolgers dance around figures like Tarnas and Campion who have standing in the academic community and who lend a patina of scientific and academic legitimacy to astrology. Or why just about any site promoting astrology blatantly appeals to scientific figures like Kepler, Newton, or even Sagan, who they (falsely) depict as supporting astrology. Or Freud and Jung, like Tarnas does. This is particularly true for the group of "serious" astrologers by whom you seem so enamored, like Tarnas, Campion and Hand.
 * As for the wording of the article, the sentence that "Astrology IS pseudoscience" is totally justified by WP:FRINGE. You don't have a case there.
 * With the "dismantled" quote, I agree that it should not be presented as a quote. However, the words you suggest, "criticize" or "attack", do not square with the source, and the latter is POV. "Debunked" would be a better term. And yes, we can say that they debunked the claims in WP's voice per WP:FRINGE. As I said above, there is no real controversy about the validity of the claims of astrolgers among real experts within the real scholarly community.
 * As for "noted", I don't see a problem with it, and both of your suggestions are inadequate, with "asserted" being both false and POV. I wouldn't have anything against replacing it with "concluded", though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Dominus Vobisdu, you once again push strongly-worded opinions (like "self-serving, dishonest sham") that I think are unsupportable, and your tone is often objectionable.
 * I would be interested in seeing some backup for your contention that astrologers "routinely make claims that fall within the purview of science." It seems like the most basic scientific test would be for a skeptical scientist to study his own horoscope in relation to what he knows about himself.  Of course that would require some knowledge of the basic workings of astrology.  Is there any body of peer-reviewed literature regarding scientists discussing the validity (or lack thereof) of their own horoscopes?  Have YOU performed such a test on your own horoscope?
 * Regarding the article's summary of Charpak and Broch, it currently reads: "They noted that astrologers have only a small knowledge of astronomy and that they do not take into account basic features such as the precession of the equinoxes which would change the position of the star signs with time."
 * What is the relevance of astrologers' "small knowledge of astronomy" to the debunking of astrology? Astrologers are concerned almost exclusively with the movements of the Moon and planets, and have no need to know a lot about astronomy, which deals with the entire universe.  Furthermore, you should know that the bit about the precession of the equinoxes is pure bunk, because western astrologers use the tropical zodiac, which fixes the beginning point of the zodiac in relation to the Sun on the vernal equinox, completely divorced from the constellations from which the signs of the zodiac derive their names.
 * --Other Choices (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The claim that Georges Charpak dismantled claims from parapsychology and astrology was written by Nature, one of the most reliable sources in science that exists, if you wish to remove it though I am ok with that but I think it's a nice quote in the obituary. On the issue of balance, I suggest you read Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ in particular, but also WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI and WP:VALID, we don't pretend views have equal validity on Wikipedia by what we say or by omission, we don't act as if something isn't pseudoscience and omit the scientific details: Pseudoscience may be significant as a social phenomenon, but it should not obfuscate the description of mainstream scientific views. It sounds like you are using original research to counter a reliable source. I also notice you say western astrologers, not all astrologers. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, a scientist judging the quality of their own horoscope, would be a poor non-blind sample size of 1. Rather tests have been performed: Astrology. This leads to an interesting point which is not developed in the article, the ambiguity of horoscopes and the use by some of cold reading. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you IRWolfie, I have been coming up to speed on those wikipedia policies for the past couple days. I am particularly impressed by the reminder that wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, not a scientific point of view, but I also realize that wikipedia should avoid giving undue weight to fringe views.  With that said, the astrological community's collective view toward certain issues that have generated heat from scientists bears mentioning, and such mention is allowed by wikipedia policy  (within the usual constraints about sources, of course), and balance seems to require some sort of mention.
 * In the case of Charpak's embarrassing blooper about the relevance of the precession of the equinoxes, my observation is not OR but rather a basic fact universally known by anybody with a basic knowledge of astrology. Yes, I mentioned western astrology, because Hindu astrology still uses the old sidereal zodiac, as opposed to the innovative tropical zodiac popularized by Ptolemy.  This information is such a basic, obvious feature of astrology that there is already a wikipedia article on the subject here.  Charpak made a raving ass of himself, and then the blithering idiots at Nature demonstrated the abysmal depths of their ignorance, too.  Maybe we should leave that stuff in the article as a monument to the ingrained arrogance and stupidity of scientists.
 * Regarding the Carlson experiment, that seems ambiguous at best. In my opinion, this is a perfect example of where a brief mention of the astrological community's response is in order.  If and when I come up with a source, I'll share it here.
 * --Other Choices (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No sorry, that is not how wikipedia works. We don't use poor sources to counter reliable and peer reviewed scientific sources. By writing from a neutral point of view we don't omit or marginalize the scientific details and should not obfuscate the description of mainstream scientific views. You specifically talked about poisonous bias and the freely-expressed ignorant contempt about astrology but now appear to be talking about blithering idiots and the ingrained arrogance and stupidity of scientists. This appears highly hypocritical. I note you also suggested that individuals who have only contempt for something should, in your opinion, refrain from editing on that topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Also note in the article: Hindu astrology uses an adjustment, called ayanamsa, to take into account the gradual precession of the vernal equinox (the gradual shift in the orientation of the Earth's axis of rotation). Western astrology does not make this adjustment. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IRWolfie, it seems that you are resorting to mischaracterizations to avoid answering the content of my earlier post: the blatant error of Charpak (reinforced by the unfortunate quote from Nature) that is currently enshrined in the article, despite the relevant wikipedia article elucidating the subject. I understand that here at wikipedia we summarize reliable sources; we don't pass judgment on their truth content.  So I support retention of the Charpak reference, but I think a rebuttal from the astrological community of this ignorant smear (or at least a clarification of the issue at hand) is definitely in order.
 * You observe from the Sidereal and tropical astrology article that western (tropical) astrology doesn't make an adjustment for the precession of the equinoxes. That is the essential difference between sidereal and tropical astrology (hence the title of the article).  You seem to have misunderstood this point.  Tropical astrology, following Ptolemy, fixes the starting point of the zodiac with reference to the Sun (not the constellations), eliminating the need for an annual adjustment.  Some might argue that the western system is therefore "artificial" in that it divorces the astrological signs from the astronomical constellations.  Be that as it may, Charpak's handling of this building block of western astrology is just plain incompetent.
 * Your opinion about how wikipedia works is open to question; you might be partially or totally correct. I've been slapped down by other editors on other pages, but upon review it has generally turned out that I was at least partially right.  Communication between the two of us has been rather testy, but it has remained civil.  May it continue that way.
 * --Other Choices (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)