Talk:Astrology/Archive 30

Undiscussed removal of fully-cited materials from History
I'm a little uncertain why properly-cited materials from multiple authors, carefully co-ordinated to summarize many centuries of history, should have been removed without discussion.

It is also unclear what could be meant by saying that the history of a three thousand year old topic "dominates too much" - well, if the topic is old, and has evolved into different strands and with differing cultural impacts during those centuries, then guess what, there will be a lot of history. The coverage was NOT of UNDUE length, and indeed had been chosen as representative from a large volume (several books' worth) of material.

Further, it is quite unclear how the history of astrology could be separated from "cultural aspects" - its history is pretty much exclusively cultural. If the argument is IDONTLIKEIT then it is not valid. If the argument is that culture is exclusively the last few years, then that is RECENTISM. For example, the prognosticatory aspect of astrology has for most of its history been a relatively small and always debatable strand, much of the rest of it being what is now classified as astronomy, or simply symbolism. If astrology is asserted to be wholly or mainly prognosticatory, that is not only recentism but in error. Astrology cannot be understood without its history - indeed, since it has been differently understood at different times, it actually IS its history, which was summarized neutrally and not at any great length. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular edit you're referring to? TippyGoomba (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you should look at my diff more carefully. I didn't remove any material, beyond one speculative line. What I did do was move some cultural details to a separate section. Important historical developments can quite easily be separated from cultural ones such as literature etc. As an aside, the distinction between astronomy and astrology was made much earlier than most people seem to imagine, (while astrology was not rejected, it was treated as different from astronomy), IRWolfie- (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was tired, and confused by the multiple edits. I don't agree with either concluding statement - developments and writings are closely linked in time; and much of astronomy was included in astrology until 16th century. Key issue is that astrology is now presented not as a changing entity tied to the philosophy of each period, but as a current thing detached from time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See a history of astronomy book for the exact relationship. In the medieval period astrology and astronomy were seen as separate. It is just that both were treated as science. Developments are closed linked because they would appear related disciplines, and the writings would be close because often they would be the same people, but they did not call both astronomy, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

When astrology and astronomy overlapped
The situation is not easy to summarize in a few words because people in the middle ages had different opinions. It isn't true that the two disciplines were simply separate in mediaeval times. However, the following might address the issue briefly; it needs to be addressed because it concerns the basic issue 'what is astrology'. That has certainly evolved over time. So here's a first attempt:


 * In the seventh century, Isidore of Seville argued in his Etymologiae that astronomy described the movements of the heavens, while astrology had two parts: one was scientific, describing the movements of the sun, the moon and the stars, while the other, making predictions, was theologically erroneous. In contrast, John Gower in the fourteenth century defined astrology as essentially limited to the making of predictions. The influence of the stars was in turn divided into natural astrology, with for example effects on tides and the growth of plants, and judicial astrology, with supposedly predictable effects on people. The fourteenth century skeptic Nicole Oresme however included astronomy as a part of astrology in his Livre de divinacions. Oresme argued that current approaches to prediction of events such as plagues, wars, and weather were inappropriate, but that such prediction was a valid field of inquiry.

How's that? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks good, but where do you propose to put it? Perhaps we could expand/integrate it into the history section? TippyGoomba (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question. I've reworked it as part of the 'Skepticism' section, given that we seem to have a de facto split of history from history-of-culture, it seems reasonable to have a Skepticism slice through time as well. That actually sets the modern skeptic bit on science more into context also, though that section's language now sticks out as somewhat POV compared to the neutral tone of the rest of the article, and it is somewhat repetitive so it needs copy-editing. The Theological section could in fact be made part of Skepticism as well, but it seems reasonable to have a history-of-theology slice in keeping with the others - perhaps it should have subsection headings (Ancient, Mediaeval, Modern) like the others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What you appear to be doing is trying to make a history of skepticism of astrology section, just integrate that into the history section. I see no POV in the appraisal section, can you be specific, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A couple of things. First of all, astrology and astronomy had largely drifted apart long before Isidore's time. Even Ptolemy treats them seperately. The second thing is that a lot of the stuff you are adding about history is not appropriate for this top level article. A lot is specific to Western astrology, though that article is a mess that needs to be cleaned up. We also have an article on the History of astrology. We really have to be aware of modern common usage here, and to clearly distinguish between astrology as divination and astronomy as science, even in retrospect. I would prefer that this article be almost exclusively about divination, with only minor mention of astronomy. That would delimit the scope of the article and keep it focused on a single topic. I'll look through the recent changes and let you know what I think about them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. However, they hadn't drifted far apart in Oresme's time, long after Isidore. I think the coverage now remains rather clearly on astrology, with only the smallest mention that some aspects of astronomy were once included - there's only the highest-level mention, with no detailed discussion of the cosmological models involved. Since astrology even today has many strands it would be strange not to mention that it is many-stranded, and we need even at the highest level to indicate roughly what those strands are. It wouldn't be right to impose a recentist view, even if there were only one of those, which there isn't. It is clearly focussed on one topic, astrology, and mainly divinatory at that, though given all the other varieties, that could be argued to be unbalanced, and a top-level article ought to give an overview of the whole subject, not one aspect of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You are doing original research with the Isidore piece is the original 1400 year old text. This is borderline original research. Use modern secondary sources to describe any overlap, not an amalgamation of what specific people said from different texts; i.e you appear to be writing about what notable people have said in the past, rather than summarising current consensus in the history of science. You also appear to confuse skepticism with scientific appraisal, and lump theological objections in with scientific viewpoints. The sources in use in the appraisal section are not skeptic sources, they are for the most part academic sources. You also appear to be treating this as a purely history article, and adding excessive historical detail. There are limits to this articles size, and it can not be all historical details from Europe, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There are a number of separate strands to this set of objections, some of which may be valid to some extent and some probably not. Firstly, on article size, we can develop materials to a reasonable depth and then decide if some of them need to be moved to sub-articles: these are discrete and reasonable concerns. However, the article is not particularly long for a major topic. Secondly, the term "scientific appraisal" is itself surely POV as it implies neutral objective assessment by the men who know as opposed to a lot of unscientific tosh. The actual science certainly includes a large element of 'objections' and skepticism which I share. If an ordinary person not involved here was to read the article and answer the question "what is the role of the 'scientific appraisal' section here, they would surely reply "objection" or "criticism", it's the plain reading of the sense of that section. Thirdly, the historical element of a topic which has constantly changed over some thousands of years is necessarily important. Fourthly, the coverage of non-western astrology in the article will have to be worked on by other editors as I lack the knowledge to address those; they are poorly covered, but that is no reason not to work on the poor coverage of historical objections (for instance).


 * Fifthly, a recent edit comment asked "Why are we trying to separate out historical skepticism from the history section?". An earlier discussion seemed to argue (even converge on an agreement) in the opposite direction, i.e. that historical attitudes to astrology expressed by e.g. Gower in his literary writings should be separated from the account of the mediaeval period; therefore it appeared that the article was to be arranged with separate sections for history, literature and objections, i.e. we'd slice the material 'horizontally' by theme rather than 'vertically' by time. Both methods seem perfectly acceptable in principle - obviously they cut across each other, so overlaps are likely if we use both. For example, Gower stated objections historically and described the subject in his lit. works; that could be a reason for keeping mediaeval literature in the history section, but if that is agreed not be what we want, then by the same token it is fine to have a separate slice for 'objections' in general. That section would reasonably encompass both scientific objections ('it doesn't work') with theological ones ('it is not allowed'). These are not the same, nor from the same direction, but they are unquestionably both classes of objections to astrology.


 * Sorry for the TL,DR length but you did raise many questions at once. Of course, fuller answers would be longer than these brief sketches. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. It may be more valuable to develop the history of astrology article first, and work backwards towards this article. 2. Much of the scientific appraisal is neutral objective assessment, such as the Carlson test, the Kelly test, the demarcation criteria of Kuhn, of Popper. The material is, for the most part, not based on opinion. The section provides more than skepticism, and we do not write for the ordinary person. On wikipedia we do not treat science as opinion, if you look at a standard science article you will notice that the scientific consensus is expressed in terms of being true. 3. It is important, but so are many other parts of the article, for example, Principles and practice, and theological viewpoints are particularly under developed. While it is true that often the answer is to expand those sections, but if you look at the history of astrology article you will see that we have a very similar extent of material; we really need to have some way of summarising the history article in this article. If we expanded all the other sections to the same extent, as well as the material for other forms of astrology, the size would be massive. 5. The historical scepticism is historical because the opinions are not necessarily accepted now. The cultural influence is not so time dependent, and has its effects across time. Elements of theological viewpoints should also be moved. I think this also makes sense in terms of makeup, otherwise every section would have a "Ancient, medieval, Modern" subheading, which is actually a division dependent on western astrology, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * On Isidore, I used secondary sources. I agree other sections are poorly developed. The history section was developed based on short summaries of the History of astrology article, hence shorter than that, but with additional objections which had been overlooked there - I agree we can extend that article, but the interplay of practitioners and objectors has been important since classical times and the theme of that 2000 year interplay is arguably central to this article. Also agree that the subject is highly time-dependent. I suspect we'll find that oriental astrologies have also evolved strongly with time, so a 'year 2013' snapshot is potentially highly misleading - it isn't static. While science is more than opinion, it is also less than eternal truth: it is our current best attempt at describing reality, and always revisable (as Popper would be the first to admit). The science section is at the moment repetitive and dogmatic, and needs copy-editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The concept of science is continually self-correcting and therefore anything goes is nonsensical. The continued support of astrology is more a mixture of lack of scientific education and cognitive bias. Astrology has been falsified where it has made falsifiable predictions; and things don't become unfalsified. Science is great at showing falsifiable claims to be false, and astrology has been thoroughly disproved. Trying to cloak the consensus amongst scientists about the falsity of astrology, because of your own opinions about science, does a disservice to the readers. I'm not sure what you are judging repetition by, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * INSERT: IRWolfie, your sweeping generalizations about science thoroughly discrediting astrology fly in the face of earlier discussion that we had on my personal talk page, where we established that your extreme view, supported by defective "scientific tests" of astrology, simply can't stand up to careful scrutiny.--Other Choices (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In previous discussions I had indicated that astrology was tested, and has failed. It was not dismissed without study; failing tests means it is falsified and being largely unfalsifiable and providing no means of self correction means it is unscientific. Post-testing and modern scrutiny it now has no leg to stand on. I have never accepted your opinions on the tests, and not sure where you think I have, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your belief that "astrology was tested" is an unscientific over-generalization. The parameters of the so-called "scientific" tests were well outside astrology as it is practiced, so to use a few limited "fish-out-of-water" tests to discredit an entire field of intellectual endeavor is simply unscientific. Furthermore, in our previous conversation, I discussed my use of astrological transits to predict an unpleasant situation here at wikipedia, the timing of which was recorded for all to see. I indicated that here is a possible avenue toward finding an appropriate way to scientifically test an astrological claim. If there have been no scientific tests of the common astrological technique of using transits in relation to one's natal horoscope, as I successfully employed it during my earlier situation here at wikipedia, then it is indefensible to claim that scientific testing has discredited astrology.--Other Choices (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As is shown in the article, "Astrologers, nominated by the National Council for Geocosmic Research, acted as the astrological advisors, and helped to ensure, and agreed, that the test was fair"; it was specifically natal astrology that was tested and which failed. Wasn't it silly of the board of astrologers, to agree to the Carlson test although you claim it doesn't represent practices. Hopefully we can stick on topic and avoid discussions that don't concern the article. It is amusing that you count a situation which you forced, and whose conclusion was self evident as proof of astrology; I could have predicted the results of the incident without resorting to astrology. The reality is that if you hadn't have been slapped by the admins, it would have been something else you would have used to confirm to yourself that the prediction had come to pass; because it is completely non-specific User_talk:Other_Choices for those who are curious. Reply at my talk page if you wish to continue the discussion IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Carlson test, no it wasn't silly for that particular group of astrologers to participate in a "fish-out-of-water" experiment. Scientific experiments fail all the time, but that doesn't discredit the experimentation process. But it's simply a travesty that the Carlson experiment is seized upon by ignorant pseudo-scientific ideologues to proclaim that "astrology has been discredited."
 * And with your mistaken association of my use of an astrological prediction technique with the incident when I got slapped by the admins, you demonstrate that your memory is faulty. You might want to go review the conversation on my talk page. The actual incident was the banning of Zac from all astrology-related articles one month later.--Other Choices (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not insert words in my mouth, specially when they are miles from what I said. I believe that science works. FWIW, I'm coming to believe that Astrology is pretty much a superstition/religion (with magical overtones), and would wish it could be handled as such, i.e. described as a practice that had nothing to do with science, but which people appear to make use of for a range of reasons. Wikipedia's insistence that it is not like this makes editing extremely difficult, as most sources are excluded as being informed from the inside - it's as if the science of medicine were allowed to be described only by referring to the work of sociologists and anthropologists who had written about the odd conduct of medics and nurses. I'm aware of the falsifiable near- impossibility of changing such a policy, but it really is doing a massive disservice to readers. So please leave my supposed cloaking of science out of it, I'm doing nothing of the sort, nor trying to. Science is big enough to need no such protection - it will always show it is correct by working, e.g. making correct predictions, not by being defended.

By the way, the opinions of philosophers of science, insofar as they are reflecting about science, are not 'scientific' but philosophical (meta-scientific); philosophers do not generally practise science (and when they do, they aren't doing philosophy).

I'd like to talk about the repetition under separate heading if that's ok, it's an unrelated matter, see below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say you hold that belief about science; rather I am hoping to edge you away from that line of reasoning. The issue with treating it purely as a religion is that astrologers will and have come to this page and find the content offensive and unrepresentative (many of them are editors here also) if it says it is a religion in no uncertain terms; a large group of astrologers still view it as science, which is part of why it is viewed as pseudoscience (that and making claims which are under the domain of science). We need good secondary sources to capture this diversity without resorting to original research. I've generalised the appraisal section to include your last point. The philosophers of science are mentioned here because they are involved in characterising the demarcation between astrology and science. An issue with the philosophy section is that it has not been generalised to the current consensus but rather focuses on famous philosophers; something which I have been working on and hope to correct in the coming days, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Copy-editing 'Scientific appraisal'
The addition of Kuhn to the 'Scientific appraisal' section has been beneficial, adding Kuhn's emphasis on actual historical change.

The three sections (unnamed, Effectiveness, Philosophy of science) and their six paragraphs are better than before but still jump about between topics, and the same topics are mentioned repeatedly. For example, the topic of 'failed prediction when scientifically tested' is mentioned in para 1, para 2 quote, para 4 (presumably the intended home for this topic). The topic of falsifability is mentioned in paras 3 and 4, and it is defined in para 4 after being used in para 3 (which is now in a different subsection). The whole section needs rewriting to 1) introduce the concepts, 2) list the defects of astrology, and 3) provide the evidence for those defects. At the moment it scampers backwards and forwards like an excited puppy with a toilet roll. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The appraisal does more than those 3 things. It goes beyond listing defects, and includes its use as the quintessential non-science/pseudoscience for discussions in the philosophy of science (I'm still adding to that though, so expect changes), and also includes the study of psychological factors for belief in astrology (Barnum effect etc). Viewing it purely as "the criticism section" or some such is not what it is (not that I'm saying you do). This section is a summary of another article, and there is going to be a certain amount of introducing things, in summary, so as to limit the text length here, but I will look at the flow, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Indian material deleted from Omen article
This is material I removed from the Omen article. It seemed that it belonged in this article, if anywhere: Leptus Froggi (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Indian astrology "Nimmita" or "shukuna shastra" is the identification and interpretation of omens in Hindu astrology.

Omens seen, heard, or even visualized at the initiation of an activity are said to foretell the outcome of the activity. Shakun & Utpaatsis a branch of Indian astrology dealing with; interpretation of dreams, status of living & non-living items in the environment, sounds produced by human & animals, analysis of portents, and modes of pacification of adverse omens and portents. It acts as a guide in horary astrology when there is a stalemate. In Nimmita it is thought that coming events reveal their results prior to them actually occurring in a means similar to foreshadowing in stories.

According to Nimmita, omens observed at the start of an action foretell its outcome. As a result when an adverse omen occurs some practitioners of Nimmita will say the activity should not be initiated.

The treatises on Hindu astrology have discussed omens in detail in regards to "travel elections". On seeing an inauspicious omen the treatises state the person should halt their journey and return to the starting point. Upon reaching the starting point the traveler is advised to recite Pranayam (a specific Mantra’s recitation) eleven times and then start the journey once more. If an inauspicious omen is again seen during the trip the traveler should return to the starting point once more and recite Pranayam 16 times, restarting the journey once more. Should an inauspicious omen be observed a third time the treatises state the journey should be abandoned.

Interpretation In Nimmita numerous different aspects of the omen come into play in interpreting what the omen means. The severity of an omen is assessed based on its position with respect to the observer, its direction in respect to the observer, the time of its observation, the speed of the omen, the sounds heard during the omen, and the place where an omen is observed.

"and subsequent controlled studies failed to confirm its predictive value"
The lede of the article currently reads: "At the end of the 17th century, new scientific concepts in astronomy and physics (such as heliocentrism and Newtonian mechanics) called astrology into question, and subsequent controlled studies failed to confirm its predictive value. Astrology thus lost its academic and theoretical standing, and common belief in astrology has largely declined.[3]"

(1) This pair of sentences is supported by footnote 3, EXCEPT for the part that is in boldface above, which is completely absent from the source. For that simple reason, the part in boldface should be deleted from the lede.

(2)Furthermore, inclusion of the phrase in question is simply illogical -- "subsequent controlled studies" had absolutely nothing to do with astrology's decline in popularity in the 18th and 19th century!

(3) Finally, the inclusion of the phrase in question appears to be WP:SYNTH, giving the grossly inaccurate impression that "controlled studies" had something to do with the decline in the popularity of astrology.

For all of these reasons, the phrase "and subsequent controlled studies failed to confirm its predictive value" should be deleted from the lede.--Other Choices (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was bad styling, I agree. I've made some changes. Input? François Robere (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about styling, it's about content. The source makes no mention of "modern scientific method" or "subsequent controlled studies," so such language isn't appropriate in this sentence. And furthermore, this language is unsourced WP:SYNTH, falsely implying that astrology's loss of popularity was related to modern scientific studies or the modern scientific method.--Other Choices (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And for whatever it's worth, the issue of scientific testing is brought up in the very next paragraph, which works well with the general flow of the lede.--Other Choices (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The removed content accurately summarizes the content of the article, which is the purpose of the lede. That being said, the lede is beefy enough as it is and the sentence doesn't flow well, given the last paragraph. I agree with the change. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of it is simply styling. So we'll start with that: It's true that the next paragraph deals with scientific testing etc., but the reference was still in place in the first paragraph to summarise the historical chapter. The is, the first finishes the historical review, and the second deals with a different subject which is previous research. They concur, but with adequate phrasing they should not overlap and be redundant.
 * As for the decline etc. - I agree with both you and Tippy, but now there's a different problem which is part of what I was trying to mend - "called into question" leads straight to "declined" - which is not obvious. François Robere (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "declined" fits the source's language: "lost its intellectual viability and became increasingly recognized as scientifically untenable." I think we need to be really careful here to stick to our sources -- either Encyclopedia Britannica (because it is cited for this sentence) or perhaps adding a sentence based on material that is cited later in the article (in which case a citation in the lede shouldn't be necessary). The Encyclopedia Britannica source is very brief -- it reads as follows:
 * "By the 17th century, however—with the displacement of the Earth from the centre of the universe in the new astronomy of Copernicus (1473–1543), Galileo (1564–1642), and Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) and with the rise of the new mechanistic physics of Descartes (1596–1650) and Newton (1643–1727)—astrology lost its intellectual viability and became increasingly recognized as scientifically untenable. Though Kepler attempted to devise a new method of computing astrological influences in the heliocentric (Sun-centred) universe, he did not succeed.
 * "In the West, however, Newtonian physics and Enlightenment rationalism largely eradicated the widespread belief in astrology, yet Western astrology is far from dead, as demonstrated by the strong popular following it gained in the 1960s. There were even attempts to reestablish a firm theoretical basis for it, notably by the French psychologist Michel Gauquelin in his The Scientific Basis of Astrology(1964), though with results that are at best inconclusive."
 * --Other Choices (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They are almost too succinct not to quote. Not extremely happy with the new phrasing, but the direction is better. Your opinion? François Robere (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * New phrasing seems awkward, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I prefer this version. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is called into question is not enough in this case for common belief declined. Just "calling into question" does not cause an entire occupation to disappear - something more has to happen, such as a complete loss of scientific credibility. François Robere (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's logical, but the problem here is that the reliable sources don't give us "something more," and even puzzle about this lack of "something more." For example, to quote Peter Whitfield's Astrology: A History (London: The British Library, 2001): "Surprising as it seems, none of the scientists of the seventeenth century turned their attention to mounting a critical attack on astrology in the light of the new knowledge. The connection between the demise of astrology and the scientific revolution is one that has been made only by later historians." (p. 180) "The truth is that Newton evinced no interest whatever in astrology. He neither attacked nor defended it, but, in common with almost all the scientists and intellectual elite of his time, he simply ignored it." (p. 187)
 * --Other Choices (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is interesting, but it's a whole different source. What did cause its decline, then?
 * As for the Britannica reference - it does give "something more": "astrology lost its intellectual viability and became increasingly recognized as scientifically untenable", as well as clearly stating "Newtonian physics and Enlightenment rationalism largely eradicated the widespread belief in astrology"; this is why I said it's almost too succinct not to quote.
 * At any rate, we're now faced with the problem of how to treat this all issue in light of conflicting sources. François Robere (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the conflict. In scholarship, we use "call into question" as a noncommittal way of calling something wrong. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's really a conflict here. EB simply sums up later historians' assessment of the decline of astrology, while Whitfield points out the lack of a "smoking gun" behind such assessment. While the quote from EB is tempting to use, I'm inclined to wonder if it's bad form to quote another encyclopedia in a wikipedia article.--Other Choices (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tippy: Only as a euphemism. As a matter of meaning these are not the same.
 * Other: This isn't about a "smoking gun" (ie "none of the scientists... turned their attention to... astrology") but about the historical process. Here you see a clear contradiction: "with the... new astronomy... and with the rise of the new mechanistic physics... astrology lost its intellectual viability and became increasingly recognized as scientifically untenable" and "Newtonian physics and Enlightenment rationalism largely eradicated the widespread belief in astrology"; and "The connection between the demise of astrology and the scientific revolution is one that has been made only by later historians". François Robere (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not following. Maybe it's easier if you suggest new text. TippyGoomba (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Called into question" is "called into question". How that latter becomes astrology's demise is unclear. We have two conflicting resources regarding that. François Robere (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fairly standard to use a tertiary source in a lead. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * According to James Holden in "A History of Horoscopic Astrology", one major reason why interest in astrology seriously declined in Europe around and after 1700 was “the upsurge of newspapers, novels, and musical entertainment. With these things available, literate people with a little money to spend could find more pleasant ways to amuse themselves than by reading prophetic almanacs” Another reason why astrology declined is because the popes began to shut it down from the late 1500s onwards. Apart from religious qualms, the popes did not like astrologers predicting their deaths! The first bull against astrology was issued in 1585 and another one in 1631. Universities also began to abolish their chairs of astrology commencing in 1572 (Bologna). Students began turning away from an interest in astrology. The third reason why astrology declined has already been well documented here – the rise of scientific rationalism.Terry Macro (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest something along these lines following the reference to physics and rationalism: "During the following century public interest in astrology declined and today it is considered at a most a minor form of entertainment" or some such thing (the points being these: a) mentioning the decline; b) not mentioning a reason (at most "several theories have been proposed"; c) leading to today), and incorporating whatever source is not yet in the body. François Robere (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Which reference are you referring to? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Those mentioned above: Holden and Whitfield, the former not mentioned in the "early modern" history section, the latter not mentioned at all. François Robere (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you use the Holden reference, the details are: James Herschel Holden, "A History of Horoscopic Astrology", AFA Inc, Arizona, 2006, pp 180-181.Terry Macro (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Holden is an amateur historian with no relevant qualifications. AFA is a fringe press by a sham "academic" or "professional" organization with no reputation of fact-checking or accuracy. The source fails WP:RS by a wide mile. His analysis may be true, and I find his first explanation the most compelling of all, but as he did not bother to publish it in a real academic publication, we cannot use it.

Whitfield is a real historian, and has written the ten-volume Grolier History of Science. His Astrology: A History was published by the British Museum, which is very reputable. It's on par with the Encylopedia Britanica article.

Campion is a qualified historian of astrology, and has published peer-reviewed work on classical and medieval astrology. He unfortunately decided to publish his magnum opus, A History of Western Astrology, in a non-academic press, without the benefit of scholarly review. He's also a major fringe proponent, and a major author of fringe blither of the most embarrassing sort. His work should be used with caution, especially for anything related to modern astrology.

Reliable sources for the history of astrology after the 1700s are scarce as hens' teeth. The topic has been essentially ignored by modern scholars, who concentrate on classical and medieval astrology instead. About the only reliable sources available for modern astrology pertain to scientific validity, or rather lack thereof. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So we're back to the contradtiction between Enc. Britannica and Whitfield's Astrology (as explained above). I repeat my suggestion from earlier in this discussion: "I suggest something along these lines following the reference to physics and rationalism: "During the following century public interest in astrology declined and today it is considered at a most a minor form of entertainment" or some such thing (the points being these: a) mentioning the decline; b) not mentioning a reason (at most "several theories have been proposed"; c) leading to today), and incorporating whatever source is not yet in the body." (ie Whitfield, which is not mentioned in that section). François Robere (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified."
The "Science" section contains the statement, "Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified." This sentence is a generalization, implying that astrology has made more than one falsifiable prediction, all of which have been falsified. This generalization is reinforced by the (unsourced) sentence immediately following: "In the most famous example, the Carlson test, which included a committee of scientists and a committee of astrologers, led to the conclusion that Natal astrology performed no better than chance."

However, the source used to support the sentence in question refers to a SINGLE example -- the Carlson test. The source -- Zarka, p. 424 -- reads as follows: "its predictions and diagnostics are qualitative, fuzzy, and generally not falsiﬁable." "The notable exception is Carlson’s test (Carlson 1985), where predictions were falsiﬁable ... and were falsiﬁed !" (ellipses in original)

In other words, the article transforms Zarka's "notable exception" into "the most famous example" and uses this SINGLE example to falsely support the general statement, "Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified." Either we need other examples from reliable sources of astrology making falsifiable predictions (carefully avoiding WP:SYNTH), or the language of the article needs to be changed.--Other Choices (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I took a hack at it. What do you think? TippyGoomba (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that "astrologers" is better than "astrology." If we actually mention the Carlson test (which I think is a good idea), then perhaps a summary is in order. In a nutshell, the published account reports that astrologers failed to consistently match individual horoscopes to the individual's score on a standardized personality test. I bumped into a paywall at Nature, but I found a summary of the Carlson test here. (Not suggesting we use that link for the article, just a short-cut to discuss Carlson.)--Other Choices (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps "falsifiable predictions made USING [not 'by'] astrology."--Other Choices (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "When astrologers have made falsifiable predictions, the predictions have been proven wrong." Focus on "astrologers", and avoid reusing the word "falsifiable". It's too complex for many people to understand in the first place. Just use it once (wikilinked) and then use ordinary words. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems to have the same problem as the original text -- it is generalizing from one single example. Are there any other examples (besides the Carlson test) in reliable sources discussing astrologers making falsifiable predictions?--Other Choices (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:REDFLAG it is not necessary to have gold-plated sources when dealing with a topic like this. It is best to avoid overstating the case against astrology, but an encyclopedic article has to answer the questions "is astrology a useful method of predicting the future?". Since no reliable source answers "yes", and since REDFLAG abundantly applies, relying on a single example is fine. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to read the main article about the topic? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think certain people are going to extremes about what they think is original research and being pedantic. The clear intention of the article is to say that astrology is usaully vague, with the Carlson test being a notable exception, where astrology fails. Asking for "examples from reliable sources of astrology making falsifiable prediction" is the SYNTH, not this text. The science section is a summary section of the main article. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IRWolfie, the mind boggles at your labeling WP:SYNTH a question on a talk page. And furthermore, you have argued beyond your sources before, so it simply makes sense to double-check your phrasing and assertions when not supported by the cited source.
 * Thank you for providing more examples of scientific testing of astrology. Unfortunately, you added them to the article, not to the talk page, creating noticeable imbalance in the article. Perhaps there should be a separate article on the scientific testing of astrology -- I would welcome such an article if you choose to develop it. EDIT: Oops, I see that there is already an article on the subject, my bad. In the existing article, I think that your additional examples could be reduced to additional footnotes covering the statement that where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified.
 * Regarding the Carlson test, I think the essential fact is that the astrologers failed to match horoscopes to results from a standardized personality test at a level higher than chance. I think that should be added, and some of the details you added should be trimmed, perhaps to be relocated in an article on the scientific testing of astrology.--Other Choices (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no reason for these to become a footnote. The scientific assessment of astrology holds considerable weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a question of balance within the article as a whole, combined with the need to keep it from getting too long. I've had my say; I'll defer to other editors on what (if anything) to trim.--Other Choices (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The science section is only about a seventh of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It WAS about a seventh of the article. Now it's about a fifth. Please keep in mind that the science section includes fully one third of the footnotes.--Other Choices (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It includes a third of the footnotes because it is well referenced. At one point the science section was nearly half the article: since I had spent some months expanding it, before I created the new sub-article. Thus I do not consider even one fifth that much. There are a great deal of reliable sources that discuss this area. Probably far more than even the history of astrology which dominates this article and is overly long. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the science section includes a third of the footnote space because it contains several big blocks of additional information -- see footnotes 6 and 118, for example. I'm not objecting to this, beyond the general concern to strive for brevity. The "history of astrology" section covers several different civilizations over a period of over 3000 years -- each of which deserves its own paragraph. I'm not saying there is no fat in there (I'd start by looking at the second paragraph of the "Ancient World" sub-section), but once again I think the science section is out of balance. I'm inclined to doubt your speculation about the relative number of reliable sources. And once again, I think mention of the Carlson test should not only trim excessive details about how the test was administered (those details belong in the scientific testing article), but it should also include exactly what got tested -- the attempt to match horoscope readings to results from a standardized psychological test.--Other Choices (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While there are good and reliable sources for the history of astrology, especially classical and medieval wetsern astrology, the sources on modern astrology are few indeed and pertain almost exclusively to scientific validity. The Carlson paper is the flagship article of the fleet, and it would violate WP:WEIGHT not to treat it, and the studies that corroborate it, in sufficient detail. As IRWolfie said, this reflects the relative proportion of coverage that astrology receives in the contempory scholarly literature. It reflects even more the coverage it receives in the reliable non-scholarly literature, as the validity question is of considerable interest to the general public, whereas historical details are of lesser general interest. A lot of the historical material can be delegated to subarticles as much of it is specific to particular traditions, and not to astrology as a whole. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Carlson experiment, it wasn't mentioned at all in the article until TippyGoomba put in a brief mention after I began the current discussion. But with that said, I agree that Carlson deserves prominent mention. However, mentioning that two astrologers volunteered to join the group which originally consisted of 26 is my idea of excessive detail. Regarding astrology in the modern period in the west, I'm quite aware that a strong majority of reliable sources consists of rebuttals by scientists and other academics, and this was already reflected in the article before IRWolfie bloated the science section. And there are indeed unnecessary specific details in the historical section as well -- the whole section currently reads like a grab-bag of random facts, instead of mentioning the major developments in astrology's repeated resurgence and decline (in the west, anyway) over the centuries. --Other Choices (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

astrology and divination
The lede was just changed to include a blanket statement associating astrology with divination. Is that supported by the preponderance of reliable sources? For example, the "Science and Astrology" article doesn't include the word "divination" once, but perhaps some of its sources do. Some modern western astrologers see their craft as a form of divination, but others don't. See Brockbank's Ph.D dissertation, Chapter 2 (p. 57 and following), here.--Other Choices (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The only objections to "divination" I have seen have come from astrologers who consider it a science, or when they back pedal, a "academic" discipline like philosphy or religion. Those objections can be ignored. I have never seen a definition of astrology in a reliable sources that isn't synonomous with divination. It certainly isn't a "belief system" by any stretch of the imagination. What would your suggestion be? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, our article on divination makes a distinction between practices carried out as a reliagious ritual and practices such as astrology, which are not. Astrology and other forms of non-religious divination are treated in our article on Fortune telling. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Astrology can be used as a form of fortune-telling (at carnivals, etc.), but that doesn't mean that astrology is always (or usually) used in that fashion. Do the preponderance of reliable sources identify astrology with fortune-telling? Once again, Brockbank's Ph.D dissertation does NOT make such a connection. --Other Choices (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Read the article on Fortune-telling. The shoe definitely fits. Again, I have seen no description in reliable sources that conflict. Even when its used for shits-and-giggles entertainment, it is used as a form of fortune-telling. Personally, I prefer "divination", but unfortunately WP makes a distinction between divination and fortune-telling. If you prefer "divination", we could use that term but link to the article on fortune-telling. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, to answer your earlier question, I would suggest restructuring the sentence in question. Not "Astrology is a xxxxx that yyyy." How about "Astrology refers to a set of traditions, in different cultures, based on the idea that there is a correspondence between human events and planetary movements (and other celestial phenomena)." That's off the top of my head; I'm sure there's room for improvement.
 * With your "shits-and-giggles" comment, your use of the word "even" seems to indicate that you misunderstood my earlier comment about fortune-telling in carnivals.
 * Fortune-telling is "the act or practice of predicting the future" according to dictionary.com, and that's a common-sense definition that disagrees with wikipedia's un-sourced definition of fortune-telling.
 * If the reliable sources don't equate astrology with fortune-telling, then I don't think that wikipedia should, either. Here's a relevant quote from the Evangeline Adams article: "Adams was arrested three times in New York for fortune telling, in 1911, 1914 and 1923.[8] Although practicing astrology was not legalized at that time, all the cases brought against her were unsuccessful, and the May 1914 trial brought particular notability due to the Judge's acquittal 'of all wrong doing' and praise of her skill, after she gave him an astrology reading describing the character of his son from his birth data." In other words, here is an example of a judge, in a criminal trial, drawing a distinction between astrology and fortune-telling. --Other Choices (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple more thoughts on using wikipedia's problematic, un-sourced definition of fortune-telling:
 * (1) "Wikipedia is not a usage guide," per WP:DICTIONARY.
 * (2) Fortune-telling is "the act or practise of predicting the future (especially for money)," per wiktionary
 * And based on that, I'm going to go try a BRD edit at the fortune-telling page.--Other Choices (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * We can't use Wiktionary as a source. Dictionaries in general are also poor resources for determining the meaning of complex phenomena. They aim at nothing more than a brief, ballpark description that is not always useful in discussions on scholarly topics. The court case you mentioned is also useless, as it is one man's non-scholarly opinion from almost a hundred years ago.


 * "Traditions" is pretty vague and non-informative. It basically says nothing.


 * Like I said, I'm not a big fan of the "divination" vs. "fortune-telling" distinction either. I'd prefer to use the term "divination", but would have to link to the article on fortune-telling. You could try suggesting that the material on fortune-telling be merged into the article on divination, but I don't think you'd have much success. Much as I disagree with it myself, I sorta see the reasoning behind the distinction.

Let's see what other editors have to say. I've left a notice on FTN for input. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I posted the following at FTN, raising the question of how much astrology is reliably associated with divination and/or fortune-telling: From what I have seen, there is NOT a 1-to-1 correspondence. Brockbank's Ph.D dissertation, Chapter 2 (p. 57 and following), discusses divination as one of several explanations of astrology. And Peter Whitfield's scholarly Astrology: A History has the following on page 8: "It would be easy to argue that its motive was simply the desire to see into the future, but astrology has always made intellectual claims which were far higher than fortune-telling or crystal-ball gazing."
 * And Whitfield on page 128 states that during the Renaissance "astrology was not merely a system of divination, but had widened into a system of beliefs about cosmology, natural events, health and disease, destiny and death."
 * --Other Choices (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words, any attempt to limit the lede's definition of astrology to either divination or fortune-telling, without citing reliable sources, is nothing more than POV.
 * I'll suggest the following replacement sentence, which draws on Whitfield, page 7: Astrology comprises several technical and mathematical systems based on the premise that there is a relationship between celestial phenomena and events in the human world.
 * --Other Choices (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits changed the first sentence of the lead from #1 to #2: Obviously astrology is based on human attempts to make sense of the world by looking for patterns that might explain events that have occurred, or that might provide guidance for what will occur. But I don't see a need to reduce that to "fortune-telling"—that definition would break with even one counter example, and I imagine that somewhere someone has proclaimed that a certain event last week was due to the position of the planets. If a source is available, it might make sense for the article (perhaps not the lead) to state that astrology is most often used for fortune-telling. Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Astrology consists of belief systems which hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world.
 * 2) Astrology comprises several systems of fortune-telling based on the premise that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world.
 * I think that is fair, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the sentence, a ways down in the article, which says that "Astrology, in its broadest sense, is the search for meaning in the sky." Maybe this is a good starting point, maybe even a good starting sentence, and then going on into the specifics, including a mention of fortune telling. Mangoe (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not a huge fan of the "Astrology, in its broadest sense, is the search for meaning in the sky" sentence, firstly the definition overlaps partly with astronomy, and secondly it misses the most general point in all astrology which is "as above, so below", IRWolfie- (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed it back to divination. As I said above, I'm not personally in favor of the word "fortune-telling" and the distinction made between the diviantion and fortune-telling articles, and think they should be merged. As far as Campion's "search for meaning in the sky" definition, it's so broad and vague that it's basically useless. There is also the problem of distinguishing astrology from astronomy that has to be taken into account. A good account is here: [], page 14, Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no consensus for "divination," so I changed it to "technical and mathematical systems, per Whitfield, p. 7.--Other Choices (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And by the way, there's an ongoing discussion about this question at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard here.
 * --Other Choices (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that is even worse. What was wrong with the original "Astrology consists of a number of belief systems which hold that there is a relationship between ..." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's really not a "belief system" per se, although it can be an element of various belief systems, or operate completely independently of any belief system. Also, having a hard time finding reliable sources that describe it as such. at least in a modern context. It was introduced to replace "divination" by the now mostly banned astrology clique that controlled this article a couple of years ago. As for Other Choice's definition, he's quibbling on the word "astrology". Astrology used to mean astrology (divination) and astronomy together, and is still sometimes used that way by scholars when discussing ancient practices. However, the usual modern use of the word "astrology" excludes scientific astronomy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that astrology isn't really a belief system, but we should go back to the last stable version until there's consensus to change the lede.

@IRWolfie, could you please explain why you don't like my version? "Several technical and mathematical systems" paraphrases the very first paragraph in Whitfield's history (page 7), which introduces the idea "that man is somehow related, organically linked, to the universe around him....The most distinctive feature of this idea is that it was not employed to found a philosophy in the usual sense, but that it became the starting-point of a system, which was technical, mathematical and, in the context of its time, scientific." Whitfield only treats western astrology in his book, so he uses the singular "system" instead of "several systems." Do you think that's a problem? If not, could you please explain your objection?

@Dominus Vobisdu, your last statement misrepresents what I'm saying, as you avoid discussing the two reliable sources that I have quoted both here and at FTN. To re-state my point yet again: Two separate reliable sources show disagreement with your blanket association of astrology with divination. As I asked at the beginning of this section, does the preponderance of reliable sources define astrology in terms of divination. You are welcome to demonstrate that this is the case, but you have not done so.--Other Choices (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't describe astrology in any meaningful sense for a lead. That astrology is technical is not the defining feature. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia britanica, a WP:TERTIARY source calls it divination, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The only sources that I can find that refer to astrology as anything but divination either are A) unreliable fringe sources or discussing usage by them; or B) refering to the special historical use as "astrology + astronomy" (like Whitefield). While not all sources use the exact word divination, they are all essentially consistent with the meaning of the word, or use synonmous terms like "fortune-telling" or "prognostication". Absent any compelling reason to search for reliable sources with a broader definition, I have to conclude that "divination" is indeed the best term. EB's usage seals the deal for me. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * @IRWolfie, your opinion about the defining feature(s) of astrology appears to be original research. Whitfield defines astrology with three defining features -- technical, mathematical, and based on the premise of a correlation between celestial phenomena and human activity. Could you please explain your personal opinion that "technical" is not a defining feature of astrology?
 * @Dominus Vobisdu, if wikipedia editors dismiss a reliable source because it discusses usage by sources that are not "reliable" by wikipedia's standards, that is a clear case of original research. If you believe that Brockbank's summary of various explanations of astrology (some of which include divination, and some of which don't) is inappropriate for a wikipedia article, could you please explain why?
 * You associate Whitfield with "special historical use" of 'astrology + astronomy.' This is simply wrong; it appears that you haven't actually read Whitfield. You continue to ignore the quotes from Whitfield that I've provided; it appears that you are trying to avoid engaging with the content of this reliable source that you've already described as "on a par with the Britanica article."
 * Furthermore, you have not provided a single reliable secondary source that defines astrology in terms of divination. I request that you do so. I have already provided two secondary sources to rebut your definition of astrology in terms of divination. I now add a third: Zarka's "scientific" evaluation of astrology here makes no mention of divination in its introductory definition, and Zarka specifically states that the basic postulate of astrology is "not a priori supernatural." Divination, of course, is "the practice of seeking knowledge of the future or the unknown by supernatural means," per the Oxford English Dictionary.
 * --Other Choices (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the reliable sources don't mention it. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says its divination, thats good enough for us. I don't know why you would expect Zarka to have a nice snappy definition of astrology, so the absence is hardly meaningful. It's precisely when there is a lack of clarity in the secondary sources that one turns to the tertiary sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's just the one's that contain a direct definition and use the exact word "divination". Plenty more that use synonymns, or are essentially the same as divination. And plenty more articles that, while they don't give a definition, treat astrology as divination and discuss it using that word:

Astrology is one of the most ancient and complex forms of divination Astrological counseling in contemporary India JF Pugh - Culture, medicine and psychiatry, 1983 - Springer

... in every system of divination including astrology Is astrology relevant to consciousness and psi? G Dean, IW Kelly - Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2003

Eventually astrology came to dominate all other forms of divination A survey of the attitudes of university students to astrology and astronomy MM De Robertis, PA Delaney - Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 87, NO. 1/FEB, P. 34, 1993

astrology is an attempt to convert certain parts of this information into a kind of divination, to predict the characteristics, behavior, or fortunes of human beings Brues, A. M. (1993), The Objective View of Race. NAPA Bulletin, 13: 74–78

astrology is neither a science nor an art but rather a system of magic divination based on ancient superstitions and the principle of correspondences. LE Jerome - Leonardo, Vol. 6, No. 2, Spring, 1973, MIT Press

The debate surrounding divination in general, and astrology in particular L Racaut - A Protestant or Catholic superstition? Astrology and eschatology during the French Wars of Religion, in Religion and superstition in Reformation Europe. Manchester University Press. 2002.

In summary, astrology is an ancient form of divination that has changed little since its founding on superstition and ignorance nearly four thousand years ago. S Carlson - Astrology, Experientia, 15 April 1988, Volume 44, Issue 4, pp 290-297

Astromancy (or astrology) is divining from the stars T Buchan - Stranger in a strange land, Zambezia, 1980, VIII

astrology and other forms of divination G Sarton - Frederick H. Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politics. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Philosophical Society, 1954.

'''There are many methodologies of divination. ... Astrology is the most frequently employed methodology in highly literate cultures.''' G Van Rheenen - Animistic and Western Perspectives of illness and Healing, International Journal of Frontier Missions, 1998

and my favorite:

'''Astrology has experienced no change from Kepler's time. It is still an art of divination, based on groundless, arbitrary and unprecise rules and on embarrassingly loutish mathematics.''' Marek Artur Abramowicz - Astronomy at the frontiers of Science Integrated Science & Technology Program Volume 1, 2011, pp 285-307

I could go on and on, and list the sources that use synonyms like fortune-telling, prognostication, soothsaying, and so on. Nothing, absolutely nothing, supporting Whitfield's claim. In Fact, several of the sources listed above directly contradict it. Even Brockbank describes it as divination using that exact word. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, you've made your case quite satisfactorily.--Other Choices (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Much broader than how I would define "divination", but perhaps astrology could indeed be treated as nothing more than an elaborate form of divination, based on similar principles. François Robere (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation of cited sources
I saw that this article is nominated for good article status, so I began reading the article to see if it is ready for a formal review. Before reading very far at all, I saw a strange statement: "Among Indo-European peoples, astrology has been dated to the 3rd millennium BCE," but the cited source refers to Babylonians and Assyrians, neither of whom are Indo-European. The time period should also be specified differently, as neither Babylon nor Assyria existed as a distinct nation much earlier than 2,000 BCE (barely into the third millennium BCE, in other words). The editor interpretation and use of cited sources will have to be much more consistent with the known facts of history reported in other sources (which have been used correctly in the Wikipedia articles about Babylon and Assyria) to convince me that it's time for this article to move on to good article review. I'd be glad to hear from other editors here about how to fix this and other aspects of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, we keep removing garbage like that, but people keep putting it back in. It's a difficult article to keep stable.  — kwami (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if the discussion were to remain free of language that might be interpreted as critical of editors. The text and citations in the body of the article clearly support 'at least 2nd millennium BCE', and there is a discussion in the text which shows weak and not very persuasive evidence for an earlier date. I've therefore updated the mention in the lead. For such a controversial topic the article is not particularly unstable, with a modicum of good-faith interventions that are quickly reverted. The text itself has changed little in the last few months. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

History of Astrology and Bias Against Astrology
As it is classified, this is a Good Article. One criticism however is that it reads more as an article trying to prove that astrology is unreasonable rather than giving the facts as you would with any mythology, religion, or philosophy. The statement "Astrologers usually have only a small knowledge of astronomy" is a stereotype that reflects the author's bias. Plotinus' quote " it is laughable to imagine the planets' effect on mankind should depend on their position with respect to the zodiac" is not in quotes. If there is a section on Ancient Objections should there not also be a section that includes the quotes of ancient, learned, scientific men who insisted on the validity of astrology?

I must also add that the history given is inaccurate. By 3585 BCE Egypt already had a calculated circle of Dieties and other representations of the apparent star groupings (or constellations as we now call them) however it is believed that this circle began with what we now know as Taurus and had 11 constellations rather than 12. Very little is spoken of the Egyptians.

Hipparchos (aka Hipparchus or Hipparch) was not mentioned in the article (unless I missed it). Since the article tries to explain the division of 12 sections each having 30 degrees, known as signs rather than exact location of the constellation, Hipparchos, being the astronomer who for more scientific exactness first made these divisions of the ecliptic circle should be accredited for his work and treated with the same respect as those scientists referred to in the article and used to prove to the reader that astrology is simple "not true". Explaining that astrology is a pseudoscience and though astronomy has its roots in astrology they are not the same, should suffice. This is in the same way as when one explains that a deuterocanonical scripture is not accepted by many Christian denominations, it does not give reason for the writer to exclaim that it is not a sacred text just because not everyone accepts it as so being. The reader should be given various perspectives and decide for themself what is "truth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.J.Grey (talk • contribs) 12:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggest some sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly, and the Wikipedia rules on pseudoscience demand extreme care on anything that looks like advocacy. Feel free to identify classical sources and bring them here (to this talk page) and we'll do our best to incorporate them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Dating of Earliest Astrologies
Have a look at following sources.
 * 1) Nakshastras: The Lunar Mansions of Vedic Astrology by Dennis M. Harness, page 16.,
 * 2) The Astrology Book: The Encyclopedia of Heavenly Influences, 2nd Edition, by James R. Lewis, page 707.(used on this page for other references)
 * 3) A Thousand Suns: Designing Your Future with Vedic Astrology, by Linda Johnsen, page 9.


 * None of these three seem to be suitable at first look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * James R. Lewis is used as reference for this page already, and how he is not reliable source? Linda Johnsen has master degree about the Eastern studies. Dennis M. Harness holds doctorate degree in Counseling Psychology, Although not too sure about it, but rest of the two can't be unreliable. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

These are some sources, that dates Hindu astrology to 2000 - 3100 BCE, they usually cite Rigveda, which are probably oldest surviving scriptures, still in use. I tried searching if there are any refusal regarding such theories, I haven't found any yet. Also the given dates for other astrologies on the lead, such as "1950–1651" BCE for Mesopotamia doesn't seems to be popular dating, found 0 results, when i looked about it. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are misreading the lead. It says " A form of astrology was practised in the first dynasty of Mesopotamia (1950–1651 BCE)" If you had substituted the word 'dynasty' for 'astrology' in your search you would have found results. Anything about Hindu astrology in this article needs to be written according to WP:SUMMARY, in other words it needs to reflect the parent article. Neither Johnsen nor Harness are reliable sources - having a degree isn't enough. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Astrology Table/Quick facts
Please include Venus and Neptune as cross-references under the planets used in astrology. K.J.Grey (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I added them to the template. No idea why they weren't there already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

:249 and :424
These numbers appear between cites 5&6 and after cite 7 in the introduction. There's something similar after cite 17, 66, 84 92, 93, 94 and others. Looks like maybe they are supposed to be page numbers, but shouldn't this go inside the cite rather than cluttering the article? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's one of several accepted ways of indicating page numbers. The advantage is that it keeps down the number of citations of e.g. books by using local refs to page numbers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's the style I used and for that reason :) @Mr swordfish, you can read more about it here: Template:RP. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted text on Precession of the Equinoxes (moved from GA page)
Under the section Lack of mechanisms and consistency, I am removing the following paragraph: ''Astrologers usually have only a small knowledge of astronomy and they often do not take into account basic features such as the precession of the equinoxes which would change the position of the sun with time; they commented on the example of Elizabeth Teissier who claimed that "the sun ends up in the same place in the sky on the same date each year" as the basis for claims that two people with the same birthday but a number of years apart should be under the same planetary influence. Charpak and Broch noted that "there is a difference of about twenty-two thousand miles between Earth's location on any specific date in two successive years" and that thus they should not be under the same influence according to astrology. Over a 40 years period there would be a difference greater than 780,000 miles.[118]:6–7 ''

due to its pejorative tone and lack of truth. There is no citation for the phrase "astrologers usually have only a small knowledge of astronomy" and it is complete misconception and misunderstanding of modern astrology to claim that astrologers do not take into account the Precession Of The Equinoxes. The truth is that modern Western Astrology does precisely that, by using the Tropical Zodiac, formulated by Ptolemy in the 1st century AD. This theoretical Zodiac is based on the seasons, more specifically the Vernal and Autumnal Equinox and the Summer and Winter Solstice. Horsechestnut (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)


 * You are right about the incorporation of precession in Western astrology - the debunking book is certainly in error. Precession is the reason why the astrological ages exist, as the first point of Aries cycles backwards through the 12 signs in turn. In other words, Western astrology does take precession into account, and the critique offered by Charpak and Broch is demonstrably misguided. However they have made the critique, so I suggest we include a brief mention of their critique (less than is there now), immediately followed by a cited rebuttal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We should, however, be careful to only issue rebuttals for things, like this, that are demonstrably false, and not fall into the trap of turning a criticism section into an apologia. A similar misguided criticism is that the Sun isn't actually in the constellation of Aries for people with the sun-sign Aries; in that case a rebuttal is illustrative, as it clarifies that astrology has nothing to do with the stars. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely right. Beautifully put. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You might think its in error because you didn't actually bother yourself to read it, or the text quoted. This edit creates a straw man out of what Charpak and Broch actually said. You removed all of the context which is given in the specific quote. For example, astrologers taking into account precession has nothing to do with the statement:  "the sun ends up in the same place in the sky on the same date each year" since the statement is false. If you also read, you will see that it is the astrologer that claims the planetary influences are the same because they are "in the same place". Charpak also deals with the empty boxes of the tropical zodiac (see Astrology_and_science). He is fully aware of astrologers taking into account of precession for the tropical zodiac. That does not mean they always take it into account in everything they say. As far as I am aware astrologers use programs to generate horoscopes. These programs take precession into account, but the astrologers don't in the language they use etc. Second Quantization (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your edit also watered down what is said in the Chris French piece going from "many" to "some". Second Quantization (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please avoid accusatory language. The citation I added demonstrates that astrology has known about precession of the equinoxes since Ptolemy. Horoscopes, whether cast 'by hand' or using programs make use of precession. Any language about 'returning to the same place' - and I do not doubt that confused and ignorant people can be found to say such things - is mistaken, you are correct. Therefore we need to distinguish quietly and carefully between what we will need to call 'serious' or 'professional' (or something of the sort) calculations and 'popular' or 'confused' (etc) astrology.
 * In 'serious' A, precession is a fact, and there is no relationship between 'stars' and predictions; there is no possible mechanism (rays or whatever) because precession changes the geometry between the stars and the Earth. The refutation of this kind of A is simply that it does not work and has been proven wrong.
 * In 'popular' A, it is very possible that precession is ignored and all kinds of unjustifiable claims are made. The refutation of this kind of A is that it could not possibly work because the geometry of precession contradicts it.

Therefore we need to distinguish the two types of Astrology, and offer different refutations for the two. The Charpak and Broch quote attacks 'popular' but the wording in and around it does not make that clear. I think that would be easily fixed. Simply restoring the quote just re-establishes the confusion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Again you are misunderstanding the reference and adding in your own original research. "Professional" astrologers do not understand procession and routinely make mistakes with statements they make. Their computer programs and books they use to churn out horoscopes might understand procession, but they don't (in general) and it comes out when they try to say why they think astrology works. There is a fine distinction here. The quasi-scientist picture you have of professional astrologers is the issue and talking about Ptolemy and the tropical zodiac is missing the point they are making. If you read the text you can see there is nothing incorrect with what it says. Second Quantization (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am glad you agree there is a distinction to be made. Your new text is a slight improvement but it still wrongly suggests that nobody knows how to interpret a horoscope which a computer cast using precession; this is basically just a slur and should be withdrawn. We are however in agreement that there are plenty of people about who are vague or wrong on the matter, so only a small rewording is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Calling my edits slurs is hardly civil. "it still wrongly suggests that nobody knows how to interpret a horoscope", No it doesn't, point out where (there is no correct way to interpret a horoscope since it doesn't work but that is neither here nor there). I also had already added a sentence about precession to the article: "The tropical zodiac has no connection to the stars, and as long as no claims are made that the constellations themselves are in the associated sign, astrologers avoid the concept that precession seemingly moves the constellations." The article says they often don't take into account procession. That is clearly true as evidenced by the example. Second Quantization (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We should avoid casting whatever-they-ares at astrologers, I am not casting any at you. I suggest we replace the "usually", which is very sweeping (and hard to verify), with some typical Wikispeak like 'sometimes', which is undoubtedly true. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Base your reasons on policy. The source clearly says "Astrologers actually know very little about what goes on in the skies". If we were to follow the source closely we would strengthen the language rather than weaken it. Clearly changing that to "Some astrologers" is inadequate and disagrees with the source, and thus I don't support the change. Where is your source to argue otherwise. Second Quantization (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I think it should be obvious that professional astrologers don't need to understand astronomy well to be successful at their work. It is more about interpersonal skills than anything, Second Quantization (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Why don't you use the actual quote, it is stronger and clearer than the current wording. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Excessive quotation, and it would attribute it solely to Charpak rather than it being a general description. Second Quantization (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, but we have no evidence it is a general description. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What is in the source: "Astrologers actually know very little about what goes on in the skies" sounds plenty general to me, Second Quantization (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One source's general statement is a bit different from our making a general statement (in wikipedia's voice) based on one source's opinion.--Other Choices (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Dissent
As I understand it astrology is rejected by scientists. However, are there any significant scientists who disagree? See List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Could there be an equivalent list, “List of scientists opposing/disputing/(disagreeing with) the (mainstream) scientific (assessment of)/(rejection of)/(opinion on) astrology”? Of course, we would first need to find such scientists, and sources to support such claims about them.

Btw, I do not believe in astrology.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's probably some in Transpersonal psychology or other nonsense that could be counted as "scientists" in a loose sense of the word. That would be funny, but I don't think it's a notable topic area. The climate change list is notable because denialism and the use of token scientists in the media are part of the story. There is a general List of astrologers though. (It's unnecessary to state that you aren't an astrologer). Second Quantization (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur. In the latter case there is a gap between the scientific consensus and the general (ie public) consensus. Hence the relevance of dissent etc. even if it is minor all things considered. In the former case there isn't such a gap so any such list is of (eccentrics) little importance. François Robere (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sectioning off the historical objections
What do you think about sectioning off the "ancient objections" and "medieval objections" to a "historical criticism" section following "Enlightenment"? The flow of the text would be better that way, perhaps. Also: I'm not sure why we should what discerns between this article and articles that have a pronounced "Criticism" section except current status. Should this article have one as well instead of interspersed historical criticism + scientific outlook? François Robere (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the Interspersed criticism throughout the article Is redundant and messes up the flow.
 * So any improvement would help My complaint is not the criticism it is how it is placed though out the whole article It is hard to research a topic when going back and forth, Not every area of astrology is related to Science and it cannot be measured by science, It also has Spiritual, Metaphysical and Philosophical Properties. DarkMystik1 (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for that discussion (though I am tempted). If you have a source disputing the validity of any or all research on the subject you're welcome to bring it. François Robere (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a biased article and is totally erroneous in the proof for astrology
How to prove the scientific foundation of astrology:

1. Make the statement that stronomers have now "discovered" that the planetary orbits are locked into the periods of the planets and that this was denied by the same astronomers who stated that astrology ws not real for th elast 400 years.

2. Elucidate the many studies that now show that the positions of the planets regulate the rate of sunspots and flares on the sun and that this has been proven without a shadow of a doubt.

3. Ask them if they think there is a cyclic aspect to time and if they think history repeats itself. If not them ask them how the planets are then locked into harmonic orbits and that they cannot escape from these cyclic phenomena. they illucidate that this is an aspect of cyclic time.

4. Ask them if they realize that the rate of earthquakes on the earth is regulated and timed by the positions of the planets has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

5. State that if they now know that in fact the planets affect the solar activity and that the solar activity has been proven to regulate the climate of the earth and that they regulate earthquakes that they can now admit that the planets affect life on the earth.

6. Ask them if they now know that the planets affect life on the earth is they think then they affect individual people. If not refer them to the article in the April 2014 edition of the journal The International Astrologer that statistically shows that the timing of a presons death is regulated by the angle between the position of the sun in the shy when they died and the position of the sun when they were born.

7. Ask them if they believe in synchronicity as proven by Carl Jung. If yes then refer them to the article in the April 2014 edition of the journal The International Astrologer that proves that the effects that Jung found were in fact due to astrology. If they do not believe in synchronicity then have them read sychronicity then The International Astrologer.

8. Ask them if they think that the sunspot cycles could be predicted by astrology. If not then refer them to the April 2014 edition of the journal The International Astrologer and the article on sunspot prediction and the positions of Saturn and Jupiter. In fact it has been found that this method correlates at the 0.96 confidence level for the last sunspot cycle which better than almost any other scientific studies results for almost anything. It was also found that for the first three decades of the 20th cetury the correlation was found to be 0.57 which is above the limit of 0.50 needed to prove a hypothesis.
 * Ask them if they have read WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. N o f o rmation  Talk  19:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Problem seems to be that there is a group of people trying to destroy articles that they deem as "unscientific" They have been editing the heart out of articles to the extent the articles are not based on the topic of the article but on the argument against the topic.
 * They have also been using WP:Policy to try to justify their behavior, Instead of reading about Astrology it now currently reads like an anti-astrology article. There is an article in place for that argument it is called Astrology_and_science. DarkMystik1 (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of this phenomenon you're referring to. This article, for example, is structured so: Introduction (only the third paragraph refers to current scientific status); etymology; A long history section, mentioning objections in only three places (Greco-Roman x2, Medieval, Enlightenment); Principles and Practice; Science; Theology; Cultural Impact. Overall it does not seem like a badly-structured article, or a biased one. I agree that the historical objections should probably be sectioned-off, but they are relevant as much as they are relevant in an article about the geocentric model or mediumship. Apart from sectioning off the above and renaming or sectioning the science and theology viewpoint sections (renaming: "scientific overview" or "scientific outlook and research"; or sectioning: "external viewpoints") I do not see any special bias in this article. Keep in mind Astrology is debunked and anachronistic and you cannot avoid that in such an article. François Robere (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with François Robere's summary of this article, and I favor keeping the criticisms of astrology in the appropriate historical era, because criticism of astrology at specific times led to its decline in following centuries, only to re-emerge once again as a prominent part of the intellectual landscape in western civilization.
 * With that said, perhaps more than one editor needs to be reminded to be cautious about injecting personal opinions about astrology into the talk page. Two or three years ago this article had a strong pro-astrology bias, which got replaced by a strong anti-astrology bias (accompanied by much vitriolic bad feeling on the talk page), but over recent months the article has become much better balanced.  If DarkMystik1 wants to propose re-wording of specific sentences in the article and/or discuss new reliable sources for inclusion in the article, that would be welcome on this talk page.  EDIT: Perhaps a further word of caution to DarkMystik1 is in order: Because of its history of incendiary debate, together with its special status (falling under the umbrella of the Arbitration Committee's decisions on "pseudoscience") this particular article may not be a good choice for newbie editors who don't have a clear sense of what can and can't be said in wikipedia articles.--Other Choices (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I Have done nothing out of line, I am New but I also will not let that stop me from editing on this article to improve it. Not every Philosophy can be proven by science, But that does not mean Philosophy does not have a worthy place in Wikipedia. DarkMystik1 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * While we are meant to be efficient encyclopaedic knowledge-processing machines, reference-churning, spewing perfectly-phrased paragraphs of consensus wisdom; imperfect programming elicited, ex nihilo, knowledge of said consensus; and there was no return. François Robere (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed; hopefully there will be no return to the bad old days when this talk page was filled with pervasive, openly-expressed contempt for the subject of this article, poisoning the article itself.
 * @DarkMystik1, your attempt to argue the scientific merits of astrology at the beginning of this section appears to directly violate the wikipedia policy, clearly stated at the top of this talk page, that this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. If this policy is not respected, then things tend to get vicious around here very quickly. Back in the bad old days, in an effort to tone down the discussion on this talk page, I welcomed other editors to discuss their negative views toward astrology on my personal talk page, with quite interesting results -- until that discussion also got shut down with a reminder that even a wikipedia talk page really isn't the place for that.--Other Choices (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You're confusing some terms here. No philosophy is ever proved by science; firstly because science does not deal with proofs—which fall into the realm of logic and mathematics—and secondly because philosophy is a deductive inquiry into truth and as such does not rely on inductive premises, which fall into the realm of science.  Wikipedia has hundreds of articles on philosophical topics, from absurdism to zombies, and they are certainly worthy of inclusion.  However, astrology is not philosophy, at least not in any meaningful or modern sense of the term.  None the less, the standards for inclusion in WP are verifiability and notability, and as such we have an article on astrology—that does not mean that we cover it from the perspective of a believer.  Instead, we cover it from the perspective of high quality, reliable sources.   N o f o rmation  Talk  06:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just noticed the woolly thinking nonsense at the start of this section - I now have to clean up the monitor screen of my PC. I suppose I should have known. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sentence needs to be reworded

 * Scientific testing of astrology has found no evidence to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions. Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been proven wrong.[7]:424
 * The source Is being took out of context this sentence states that there is "No evidence" and "ANY of the premises or purported effects" Astrology is a really broad topic and that is a false statement that the source does not even support. DarkMystik1 (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree in part. I think that part of the problem here is that a single source is being used to support a summary statement which is better-sourced at the Science and Astrology article.  So perhaps the thing to do is double-check over there, and then make sure that the summary statement here is properly-worded in accordance with the reliable sources (plural).  For the time being, I would suggest the following rewording of the sentence:  "Where astrology has been used to make falsifiable predictions..."--Other Choices (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do as you will It was just a suggestionDarkMystik1 (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

footnote 7 link re falsifiability
the link is to an article by phillipe zarka, apparently translated somewhat clumsily from french, and specifically to one sentence on page 424 (the fifth page of six), which in turn cites a 1985 article in nature magazine by shawn carlson, which concluded that in a double-blind test predictions by astrologers of personality profiles of subjects based on natal charts corresponded with results of the california personality inventory only randomly. one might observe this assumes the accuracy of the CPI itself.

in any event, while i do understand that the carlson article would be considered a primary rather than a secondary source, there ought to be something better than zarka, which does not describe the methodology and conclusions of the carlson study, which incidentally have been severely criticized by h.j. eysenck, suitbert ertel, and others.

at the very least, rather than "where astrology has been used to make falsifiable predictions, it has been proven wrong," it would be more accurate to say "in one study, participating astrologers attempting to match natal charts with profiles generated by a psychological inventory produced results not significantly at variance with random chance."

and footnoting some source that actually allows the reader to understand what it was carlson was testing. but of course most of those sources include references to the critiques, so it would probably be appropriate to add a sentence saying "the methodology and conclusions of that study have been criticized."

Zach bender (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

a link to the carlson article itself is at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v318/n6045/abs/318419a0.html i would intend to substitute this for and/or add it to the zarka ref, but i still need to learn html coding for footnotes. Zach bender (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This reference should assumed Zarka's conclusion as comprehensive; if indeed it is only to a quote of Carlson's experiment than it is out of place. If anyone can review Zarka's original article that would be welcome. Any appropriate changes should be applied here as well as in Astrology and science and any other place where Zarka's is used in a similar manner.
 * There are alternative sources in Astrology and science that support the same claim that can be used without a significant change of wording, which is preferable since the wording is essentially correct (note I have the page between your comment and my reply, among other reasons to remove ambiguity in the use of the term "falsifiable predictions").
 * The question of the validity of the CPI is not for this article, and in general any such criticism should come as part of a critique of the experiment itself (since otherwise it constitutes original research). Such criticism should be mentioned either in Astrology and science (which the place for a comprehensive discussion of the relevant experiments) or in an article dedicated to the experiment itself (which might as well be due considering it's a major experiment in the field). François Robere (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * thanks. i have no quarrel with your edits.  i will go take a look at the "astrology and science" page.Zach bender (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for section on cosmic cybernetics
I am new to wikipedia editing and hopefully I am doing this properly.

There is a small but significant amount of work being done in a field which is often referred to as cosmic cybernetics. I work in this field. For example, my youtube channel has over 30,000 visits in 2 years so there is some interest in this. Theodor Landscheidt was the pioneer in this area and he is a well-known author in some circles.

Below I have written a rough draft of what a section on cosmic cybernetics might look like. I have not included full references because this is a proposal to see if there is support for this idea. If there is, then this text can be edited and proper references added.

Thank you for your consideration. If this proposed section is regarded as not appropriate, I will not "push" the idea and I will accept the majority opinion, but I do think that the information provided on astrology is very incomplete without including information similar to what is given below.

Cosmic Cybernetics

Theodor Landscheidt coined the term cosmic cybenertics for the scientific pursuit of relationships between cosmic events and both human and non-human behaviors Landscheidt proposed that the movement of the solar system barycenter and harmonic relationships such as golden ratio aspects between planets affect weather, the results of the Gauquelin research, etc. ((reference: his book Cosmic Cynernetics). Landscheidt does not utilize most of the astrological variables that astrologers use such as zodiac signs and houses but he does attempt to correlate cosmic events with behavior on Earth in ways that cannot be explained by gravity or force fields.

Landscheidt states that cosmic cybernetics is a lineage of ideas that can be traced back to Pythagoras and then to Kepler and is related to the concept of a music of the spheres. Landscheidt also sees connections between fractal theory and cosmic cybernetics, and this idea has been further developed by David Cochrane (refernence; one of my videos at youtube.com). Cochrane uses exploratory research methods like extreme case sampling and data mining to find relationships and that because cosmic cybernetics is still in an early stage of development, hypothesis testing will typically fail to find significant results. One of the more promising results obtained is in a study of gold prices (http://www.avalonastrology.com/GoldForecastReplication.htm ).

Cosmic cybernetics is distinct from astrology in that it proceeds with cautious scientific methods, does not at this time claim to have obtained any clear and unambiguous research results that validate astrological principles, and curren theory focuses on cosmic variables that are largely different from the variables used by astrologers. Cosmic cybernetics shares with astrology the idea that cosmic events correlate with terrestrial behavior that to date have not been corroborated by scientific inquiry.

DavidCochrane100 (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)DavidCochrane100


 * Without elaborating on the loads of pseudoscientific crap that the above text contains I ask that if you have any reputable source supporting such a section (ie anything that shows that his are any different than typical astrological claims or explanations and worthy of their own section) bring it forth; if not then the article is to be spared. François Robere (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Astro Theory and Research:


 * Introduction to Astrology Research Using Kepler or Sirius: practical ways that research is done in ways that conform to modern research methods rather than just convenience sampling.


 * The theoretical framework for an ultra-modern form of astrology: Cosmic Cybernetics. Explains a theoretical framework for astrology that is compatible with scientific models. Please watch before assuming that this may be pseudoscientific psychobabble.


 * Astrology, Chaos Theory, and Fractals: Exploration of similarities of chaos theory and astrology. Simply an exploration of possibilities.


 * Possible Astrological Indicators of Mental Illness: Practical eample of how to do research.


 * Did Gauquelin Prove Astrology? Part 1. Re-analysis of Gauquelin data using modern research methods.


 * Did Gauquelin Prove Astrology? Part 2. Exploratory research on Gauquelin data.


 * Astrology Research: Evaluating Your Findings: More practical examples of how to do research in astrology.


 * Extreme Case Sampling: The Fast Path to Understanding Astrology. One of the most important videos on modern research methods in astrology and the importance of not using convenience sampling.


 * A Formula for Determining the Importance of Asteroids: Exploration of possible theoretical basis for determining astrological importance of minor planets.


 * The Harmonic Basis of Arabic Parts, Composite Charts, and Critical Degrees: Exploration of a theoretical framework in which various astrological ideas may fit together nicely. Theory development.


 * Here are some papers:


 * http://www.astrosoftware.com/goldpriceforecast.htm Research on gold prices
 * http://www.avalonastrology.com/GoldForecastReplication.htm  Third analysis of gold prices with new data.
 * http://www.avalonastrology.com/GoldForecastReplication.htm  Third analysis of gold prices with new data.


 * http://www.astrosoftware.com/harmonicfirst32.pdf Qualitative study of harmonics in astrology. Example of research based on extreme case sampling rather than convenience sampling.


 * DavidCochrane100 (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC) DavidCochrane100


 * I'd say that it is a pretty safe bet that a section on Cosmic Cybernetics will not be forthcoming. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. François Robere (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: pseudoscientific crap: Use of buzzwords, terms taken out of context and esoteric terms; possible appeal to antiquity; lack of credible, peer-reviewed research; exhibiting confirmation bias and disregard for hypothesis testing; reliance on previously-refuted research and possible reliance on statistical methods prone to bias, all the while claiming to practice "cautious scientific methods". However, WP:FORUM so if you'd like to continue this discussion do email me.


 * See WP:NOR.
 * See Verifiability. François Robere (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See Verifiability. François Robere (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See Verifiability. François Robere (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In regards to comments like "disregard for hypothesis testing" and "possible reliance on statistical methods prone to bias" you really need to get up to speed on research methods in areas that are in an early stage of theory development. For example, Introduction to Data Mining by Tan, Steinbach, and Kumar is a good introductory text. The classic book Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference by Shadish, Cook, and Campbell is essential reading. Your comprehension of research methods appears to be stuck in the statistics courses taught 40 years ago and these are not appropriate for research that is in the early stages of theory development. You seem to have entirely missed the point that cosmic cybernetics is in an early stage of theory development and therefore uses primarily exploratory methods. One does not do hypothesis testing at this stage of research; this is Stat-101. Really, this discussion has sunk to a very low level and we are tracing back now to an undergraduate level of research methodology discussion at best.


 * I do agree that we do not have authoritative sources for information on cosmic cybernetics such as peer-reviewed academic journals. As a sociological phenomenon cosmic cybernetics is interesting. Not ALL astrologers are unaware of proper research methods.


 * I am busy as I am sure you are as well. I will not push this issue further. I have work to do and I just thought you might be interested in presenting a more balanced view of work that is done in astrology. This appears not to be the case. We don't need to waste each other's time.


 * On a different topic only mildly related to this wikipedia article on astrology: I work a lot with random forests, SVM's etc. These research tools are very exciting. If we ever ran into each other somewhere, we could have a great time talking about these things and leave astrology and cosmic cybernetics out of the discussion. The R statistical package is wonderful. These tools are opening doors for anyone with a computer to explore and research in ways that were not possible just a few decades ago. We live in exciting times. DavidCochrane100 (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC) David Cochrane100

Also, there are some factual inaccuracies in this article. Here are some:

"no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions" Not true. It would be accurate to write that "no definitive evidence" or "no completely unambiguous evidence"

"There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics" Not true. See http://www.astrosoftware.com/PlanetMandalasAndNewScience.htm

"Where it has made falsifiable predictions under controlled conditions, these has been falsified". This is generally correct. An exception to the rule: http://www.avalonastrology.com/GoldForecastReplication.htm

Also, you have completely misconstrued the reason why including information about cosmic cybernetics is important. It is important NOT because it validates that astrology is capable of producing measurable effects. For example, if you watch the video on the analysis of the Gauquelin data, you will see that the results of the analysis agree with the cynics ("skeptics" of astrology) that Gauquelin did NOT find a measurable effect. The importance of cosmic cybernetics is historical and sociological and cosmic cybernetics currently has NOT shown that astrological variables clearly and definitely can produce measurable effects. It is not important at this stage of work in cosmic cybernetics whether the work is published in journals or not. Just as it is not important whether experts in music regard Justin Bieber to be a great singer or not; the fact is that he exists and people listen to him. Similarly, cosmic cybernetics is a significant modern movement in astrology. People are attempting to determine whether astrological variables areas capable of producing measurable effects. Cosmic cybernetics arguably has more in common with the philosophy and perspectives of cynics of astrology than of many astrologers, even though the work in cosmic cybernetics is done by people who intuitively expect and hope to find a measurable effect. . . although they have failed to do so yet. Again, you have misconstrued and distorted the relevance of cosmic cybernetics to the article about astrology; it is not about evidence that shows that skeptics are wrong. . . if we define astrology as what astrologers do, the article misrepresents what modern astrologers do by portraying only part of the story. Cosmic cybernetics exists in a land halfway between science and astrology, using the approach of science on a subject which science usually dismisses. Consequently, cosmic cybernetics has supporters and detractors among both scientists and astrologers. DavidCochrane100 (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC) DavidCochrane100


 * Last post for now . . . I promise. :)


 * Also, cosmic cybernetics at this point in time neither confirms nor contradicts the opinions of believers and non-believers in astrology. The results of cosmic cybernetics can be construed as either support for astrology (because some studies produce results that suggest that there may be a measurable effet) or as support that astrology is nonsense (a clear and unambiguous measurable effect has not been found despite attempts to find them.) Personally, I don't care much about how one ultimately interprets the results, and it can be used as ammunition for either believers or cynics of astrology. I do think that is is unreasonable to dismiss cosmic cybnenetics research based on faulty research designs or because the field has not evolved to the point yet where it produces peer-reviewed papers. Cosmic cyberneticsis exists and represents another side of contemporary astrological activity.


 * DavidCochrane100 (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to take issue with a couple of DC's points. Firstly, the statement - "no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions" is absolutely fine in the article.


 * Secondly, "There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics" is likewise completely fine.


 * Thirdly, all of DC's speculative nonsense is original, and very poor, research, and has no place in the article or on this Talk page. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * To DavidCochrane100: You are new to wikipedia, and perhaps for that reason you don't realize that you are mis-using this talk page.  I know from personal experience that it's hard for newbies to get their heads around two simple points:  (1) Talk page discussion should be limited to suggestions for improving the article.  (2)  Proposed improvements to the article should be based on reliable sources as defined by wikipedia.  The videos that you are promoting do not qualify as reliable sources, so they are off limits for discussion of the article.  And for subjects like astrology that are defined as "pseudo-science," wikipedia has decided that "in-universe" sources (published within the astrological community) do not qualify as reliable sources.  That's just the way it is around here: wikipedia editors have to conform to these basic rules.  Any questions -- please ask and I'll clarify.--Other Choices (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Proposed improvements to the article should be based on reliable sources as defined by wikipedia. The videos that you are promoting do not qualify as reliable sources, so they are off limits for discussion of the article." OK, that's clear. Sorry for not following proper wikipedia guidelines and taking up space here.


 * "all of DC's speculative nonsense . . .". Oh my. In many years within academic settings I have never before encountered such a hostile response. In the past the professor would always read a paper and make relevant and useful comments or would state that he/she does not have the time to look at the work at this time. I suggest that this higher standard of etiquette, respect, humility, and care in studying material would improve the work in wikipedia. In contrast to Roxy's statement which is devoid of any real information other than his personal POV, I very much appreciate the helpful and clear information form Other Choices. Again, my apologies for taking up time and space here with information that lies outside the wikipedia guidelines, as clearly explained by Other Choices.


 * DavidCochrane100 (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC) DavidCochrane100

Why is it that I never get the credit for policy pages, arbitration and the like? Not fair. :-P François Robere (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And use your goddamn colons! François Robere (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, François Robere for the references on appropriate sources. I just read through these links just now, and I should have read them earlier. These are very helpful. Again, my apologies for taking up space here with material that is not from acceptable sources. DavidCochrane100 (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC) DavidCochrane100

The question of whether to treat this subject in this article or elsewhere on Wikipedia should not rest upon whether it is pseudoscience or not. Plenty of psudoscientic ideas are presented on Wikipedia, including everything in this article.

The right criteria for determining inclusion is due weight, and my editorial judgment is that the subject of Cosmic Cybernetics is not sufficiently prominent to warrant inclusion in this page. Nor do I think it sufficiently notable to deserve its own article. This is a judgement call, and I could be persuaded otherwise.

David,

Welcome to wikipedia, and apologies for some of the harsh language above. I would like to remind by fellow editors not to bite the new editors. That said, I think it would be beneficial for you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's poliocies regarding promoting ones own work. - Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind and thoughtful post Mr. swordfish. From what I understand regarding a threshold for being sufficiently prominent, my guess is that your judgement call is reasonable. There is some interest in various aspects of cosmic cybernetics beyond the narrow confines of a minority group. For example, Stephen Wolfram found planet mandalas very interesting and implemented them in the mathematica software and this is presented on the mathematica company website. There are a few other examples of the impact of cosmic cybernetics beyond a very narrow minority group but overall, however, your judgement call appears to me to be reasonable. The field was really developed initially by Theodor Landscheidt and I can list other people in the field but I don't think it is necessary because my sense is that cosmic cybernetics is still primarily an activity of a minority of people and these activities to date have had little impact outside of this group. Some of the most enthusiastic support has been from scientists rather than astrologers. DavidCochrane100 (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC) DavidCochrane100

The following was posted on my Talk page -


 * Roxy, as a postscript to the discussion on cosmic cybernetics, I wanted clarify something. I have done serious work in astrological research, research methodology, and statistics. For example, here is a link to a published paper on a technical issue in statistics and I was one of the authors: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10705511.2011.557342?journalCode=hsem20#.U2KG-PldXD4 Also, one of the astrological papers was monitored and reviewed by published professors and data collected by a professor. Stephen Wolfram found my work in planet mandalas interesting and implement them in the mathematica software. Published professors have been impressed with much of this work. I have never encountered the hostile response that I received from you and other wikipedia editors. As a result of being told that I use buzzwords, conduct poor research, etc. when in fact I correspond regularly with distinguished professors, have attended academic conferences on research methodology, etc., my impression is that people like yourself actually have less experience and knowledge in the details of research methodology, statistics, and academic publishing and yet were condescending to me. I cannot see any justification for this, other than an a priori assumption that anyone pro-astrology must be daft. The entire experience gave me the impression that wikipedia is not a forum for information on controversial topics but instead a forum for defending philosophies and belief systems. I hope this information is helpful to you. There seems to be little interest in dialogue and I feel like I am forced into a position of defending myself rather than sharing information for the betterment of wikipedia. I have decided to avoid involvement with wikiepdia entirely and focus my attention in academic circles, but as a last attempt to try to make some positive contribution to wikipedia, I am posting this note here. DavidCochrane100 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)DavidCochrane100

I thought it belongs here, rather than there. I suspect David may have posted similar thoughts on other Talk pages -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose one way to evaluate his commitment to the betterment of wikipedia is to check his contribs. If he starts editing unrelated articles and showing a commitment to understanding and following wikipedia policies for content and discussion, then he'll stop giving the appearance of being a self-promoter with an ax to grind.  I want to go the extra mile and assume that this appearance is not accurate, but it is up to him to take an interest in wikipedia beyond discussing his specialized personal interest.--Other Choices (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The first part is irrelevant - if I were a history professor solely interested in Otto von Bismarck I could have made a thousand edits there, all to the benefit of the article. The second part is relevant regardless of his choice of articles, in which case the contributions list is as beneficial ever as a follow-up tool.
 * As far as his intentions go - I honestly do not believe he's here for the self-promotion. He seems to be honest in his efforts, even if his intentions are misguided. François Robere (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * @François Robere, I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I think it's important that he be aware of how his input so far might be taken (and seems to have been taken) by others. Regarding your Bismarck example, I agree in principle, but -- as I mentioned earlier -- the astrology article really isn't the place for pro-astrology newbies to cut their teeth.  There's just too much of a gut-level backlash by experienced editors who zealously defend wikipedia articles against supporters of fringe pseudoscience.  If he puts in the time  (by editing other articles) into learning what can and can't be reliably said in wikipedia articles in general, then later he'll be ready to step up to the realm of avoiding in-universe sources (for example), and awareness of this article's specter of discretionary sanctions against those who attempt to edit from a particular POV, and the realization that wikipedia, by its very nature as an encyclopedia (with its inherent conservative bias favoring well-established thought), isn't well-suited to showcase the latest beyond-the-cutting-edge research that MIGHT turn into a future trendy paradigm.--Other Choices (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And kudos on the carefully-phrased understatements. François Robere (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The above comments regarding appearing to be self-promotion, etc. make sense. Thanks. DavidCochrane100 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)DavidCochrane100

New lead section
Following User:Gaba p's edit of the lead section I've re-written some of it and invited him to review. There are several issues with the current revision that my rewrite was meant to solve: Astrology consists of several systems of divination dating back to the 2nd millennium BCE Not all of the systems date back to that time, hence "dating back to as early as..." in the previous revision. Also: dating is not essential to the definition of Astrology; the definition ("a system of divination based on the premise that...") should come first, the dating second. based on the premise that there is a correlation between the appearance, position, and movement of celestial objects and human events Not sure we need this elaboration. Also - "human events" is not as inclusive as "events in the human world" (eg weather and crops) which was in the original and so only partially correct. As an attempt at studying celestial mechanics it was the precursor to modern Astronomy. It is rejected by the scientific community as a pseudoscience, having failed to demonstrate any predictive or explanatory power for describing the universe. "Attempt" is too narrow; drilling for oil once is an "attempt", drilling all over the globe is a "systematic search".

The current lead lacks any mention of the cultural significance of Astrology. As it was a leading system of divination affecting anything from crop seeding to royal marriage (and one US president's schedule as recent as 1988) I think some note on the cultural significance of Astrology is due.

I also think that the demise of Astrology and subsequent replacement by Astronomy should be specifically mentioned - it gives a much better textual flow to the historical subsection; and that to separate all of that from Astrology's current status the phrase "its practice today" should come before defining it as a pseudoscience.

So essentially I'm suggesting this structure: François Robere (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Definition
 * History (early, middle and recent: rise and cultural significance, transition to Astronomy and eventual decline)
 * Current status (debunked)
 * Tell you what, why don't you post here your proposed lead with all the edits you'd like to make so we can discuss/tweak it before adding it to the article? Let me ping who also made some edits to the lead so he can contribute too (if he wishes of course). Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  22:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, I already did the edits: ->
 * François Robere (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've made one more edit to the lead to accommodate your first concerns about the dating. Here are my comments on the rest of your proposal:
 * "events in the human world" <-- is too vague. What is the "human world"? The Earth?
 * "Attempt" is too narrow <-- I've removed the word entirely to avoid this issue.
 * "I think some note on the cultural significance of Astrology is due" <-- I could agree with this, would you like to make an edit adding this?
 * "I also think that the demise of Astrology and subsequent replacement by Astronomy should be specifically mentioned" <-- What do you mean by "demise and subsequent replacement"? Astrology is practiced even today and I'm not sure if it was really "replaced" by Astronomy. Personally I'd avoid this statement.
 * Regards. Gaba  (talk)  23:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reasonable edit.
 * "Events in the human world" - I think it's a perfectly reasonable use of "world". "World" isn't synonymous with "planet". See.
 * As the science of celestial mechanics it was fully replaced by Astronomy. It's only practiced today by a small subsection of the public and by the rest it is at best considered fringe. This is a far cry from what it used to be.
 * If I want to make that edit? I already did (see above). I was quite content with mine. This part summarises the history of the phenomenon and its current status well:
 * It can be styled better (which is just as well, considering it builds on previous revisions by other editors), but as I mentioned on your talk page it has the necessary details and textual flow. François Robere (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It can be styled better (which is just as well, considering it builds on previous revisions by other editors), but as I mentioned on your talk page it has the necessary details and textual flow. François Robere (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I like the organisation and flow. Hope you don't mind a few c.e.'s (commas, caps, extraneous words). It could use some more, but that's secondary. I am a bit concerned about "astrology has been dated to as early as the 2nd millennium". Astrology is a rather broad field. Maybe "astrological practices" so we don't imply that what people currently think of as astrology dates back that far? — kwami (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised that there have not been more objections to Gaba P's edits to the lead. They frankly seem awful to me: they amount to butchery and mutilation. I'd like to ask exactly how much of the material that was removed he might agree to consider restoring? Do you object to the restoration of, for instance, this: "Many cultures have attached importance to astronomical events, and the Indians, Chinese, and Mayans developed elaborate systems for predicting terrestrial events from celestial observations." And what would be your objection to restoring this: "In the West, astrology most often consists of a system of horoscopes purporting to explain aspects of a person's personality and predict future events in their life based on the positions of the sun, moon, and other celestial objects at the time of their birth." What possible valid reason could you have for removing such basic information? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually started this discussion on Gaba's talk page with What's "the bare minimum" for this article I've specified above:
 * Definition
 * History (early, middle and recent: rise and cultural significance, transition to Astronomy and eventual decline)
 * Current status (debunked)
 * Shall we roll back the discussion to the original ? François Robere (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * if you bother to check my two edits where I shorten the lead, you'll see I that most of the content was moved to the 'History' section. The only bit removed (see second edit) I did so because this information was already present in the 'Scientific analysis and criticism' section and thus I could not move it since it would duplicate statements almost verbatim. Now, you might disagree with my shortening of the lead and you are of course allowed to revert back to before I made them but I'd appreciate if you could avoid describing them as "butchery and mutilation" since, as I explained above, no actual content was removed from the article.
 * I oppose rolling back (obviously since I made the edits) I'd rather we work together in the lead and try to come up with a consensus version where we can all feel happy both with its content and its extension. I see already reverted to your version of the lead (this one if I'm not mistaken) I don't particularly like the flow of the text but it can be improved in little bits to avoid issues
 * I won't have time until next week to do it, so see you in a few days. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  13:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that anything that needs to be cited should be moved into the body. But the reader should be able to get the basics from reading just the lead – it should be able to serve as a stand-alone article, and you took out so much that it no longer served that purpose.  I wasn't evaluating the quality of its writing.  — kwami (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur.
 * The lead is essentially a summary of the body of the article and as such should not contain any new material (relative to the body). Any material introduced and cited in the summary, or mentioned in the summary alone, should be moved to the body. With this part of Gaba's edit I agree.
 * As the lead is essentially a summary of the body it should be general, but inclusive of all major parts. Length is debatable, as are specific details. I maintain that it should at least contain the definition, historical overview (including cultural significance in times passed) and current status, in this order. A short discussion of principles and methods could be included, but without any technical details. Indeed it should be able to serve as a stand-alone article, as you very accurately put it. François Robere (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Also: The list of revisions is getting longer, so just to maintain order I suggest we leave the article alone for half a day or so so whoever wants to can catch up on the various revisions. François Robere (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In reply to Gaba p: yes, I realize perfectly well what you did. I also understand the rationale for it. However, it's clear that you removed far too much information from the lead, and I'm glad that other users have pointed this out to you. I think that you are overly concerned about statements in the lead duplicating statements elsewhere in the article. Whether the same verbatim wording is used or not should not be the crucial issue. I'm going to start restoring some material unless someone can give me a very good reason why I shouldn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ,, please see section below for answer. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  19:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead
In response to Gaba p's edit comment here:

A) No, the lead was not too long. It was fine the way it was. B) The lead is meant to duplicate information in the article. It is in fact a summary of the article.

Gaba p should be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Most of the content that was present in the previous version of the lead could easily be moved into the article (which is what I did). The lead is supposed to be a concise and clear introduction to the article, it shouldn't try to outline everything the article covers. In any case, you can disagree and we can of course discuss it some more, but what I meant whit my summary about your edit is that it duplicated verbatim content that now is present in the History and Scientific analysis and criticism sections (go check it out for yourself) and of course this is not acceptable. The discussion about the new lead is happening in the section above and you are more than welcome to contribute. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  21:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The previous lead was very good, and I think the current version is much inferior. There was nothing unclear about it, and I don't think that the lead needs to be extremely short to qualify as "concise." I still think most of the material you removed should be restored, if not in precisely the same form, then in a modified form. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough we can surely discuss your concerns. The section above deals with modifications to the lead proposed by another editor, it'd be great if you could state your position over there so as we avoid fragmentation of the same topic. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  21:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we even have a paragraph like yours as an introduction to the lead: A summary of a summary.  That can be useful when a long lead is required to summarize the article adequately, but readers may need some orientation to start with.  — kwami (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Good grief. I've restored the 4-paragraph lead per WP:MOS; this lead was good enough to get through the GA process, and was crafted over a long period by many editors to summarize the article's contents. It is utterly unreasonable simply to remove or fillet such a lead, as its jot is to give readers a brief overview of what is to follow. Leads normally rely on the citations in the body of the article, and this one does; if you disagree with something mentioned in the lead, please study the corresponding section in the article and check the citations on JSTOR or wherever. I can assure you that the statements in the lead are about as brief as they can be given the number of cited facts in the article, its complexity and the range of topics covered in the different sections, so please do not look at the lead as a thing in itself, but as the front of a complex article born of thorough discussion. There is no sense in moving lead material into the article's body, as it is itself based on the content there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Very well, the consensus seems to be that the long version of the lead is the preferred one so I'm bowing out. Just to be clear: I never disagreed with contents of the lead nor with its sources; I simply assessed the lead of the article as being too long and edited it accordingly. Clearly the majority of editors here disagree with my assessment so it's back to the old version. Regards all. Gaba  (talk)  20:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That being said, as I stated in the beginning the lead does need some more editing, and I intend to do some. The history paragraph is all too detailed (and boring), and the science paragraph starts with such an ambiguous phrase as "astrology was considered a scholarly tradition", whatever "scholarly" means in this respect (witchcraft is quite a scholarly issue in the social sciences these days); and ends with "in one study", as if anyone cares about any one study supporting a current scientific consensus.
 * As a side note I just want to remind everybody to take their daily dose of Omega-3 fatty acids and keep the saturated fats to a minimum - studies show it helps maintain cardiovascular health. François Robere (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Origins of Hindu astrology
The cited work by Pingree makes it quite clear that Hindu astrology is derived from (and not merely tangentially related to or influenced by) Hellenistic astrology; Pingree's work is serious and reliable scholarship, but the same cannot be said for sources such as Lewis. I have therefore reverted recent changes to the documented and referenced state of affairs. No claim should be made about Hindu astrology without new scholarly evidence that rebuts Pingree's work, and even then Pingree would have to be cited and explained as the standard historical view. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * James R. Lewis and Pingree has no comparison here, let us not compare apples with oranges. You seem to be limiting with the one single scholar but there are many around in the world. James R. Lewis has been used in this whole page, so why not Hindu astrology which is actually evident. Pingree doesn't seem to be saying that Hindu astrology didn't existed before the Hellenistic influence. David Pingree in 1981, Jyotiḥśāstra, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, cites the period of 2nd millenium BCE for the origin of Hindu astrology, per page 9. Although he was sure that it existed much before, but heavily evolved after 3rd century BCE. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are at least two things wrong with your edit. You have placed your claim immediately before the Pingree references, wrongly implying that they support your claim, which they do not. You have provided no evidence at all of exactly what is asserted to have existed before Hellenistic times, nor for the sudden and unexplained appearance of the date "2500 BCE": how does Lewis claim to know this so precisely? Is that just his opinion or are there any actual facts that it is based on? The assertion from an "Encyclopedia of Heavenly Influences" is not sufficient for a contentious claim in a WP:FRINGE article; if Lewis has written a scholarly journal paper that describes this claim, then please quote and cite it here (on this talk page).


 * We need to work on the article text if you do have evidence to add. It is certain that the broad scheme of astrology as it currently exists in India was borrowed from the Hellenistic world, complete with concepts such as the signs, the planets, declination and conjunction. The most that could be claimed (if any evidence exists) is that some rudimentary concepts developed earlier and were subsumed into the far more comprehensive Hellenistic scheme. What is this Pingree citation that you mention? Please provide (here) both the actual quotation and the full citation (journal, volume, issue, pages, date, URL). We may then be able to put together a revised wording along the lines claimed, which might be something like "Hindu natal astrology originated with western (Hellenistic) astrology in ancient times[Pingree refs], subsuming earlier Hindu concepts of [what exactly?][missing refs] which may have developed in the 2nd millenium BCE[missing full Pingree 1981 ref]." You can see, I hope, that without the facts (quotations, citations) we must not change the article to imply an origin earlier than Hellenistic. Cordially, Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not going to deep with the sources. But there are a number of scholars, including James and David Pingree who had mutual agreement that Hindu astrology originated in ancient times(i.e. Ancient India). If you want the dating (2500 BCE) to be removed, I would have no problem but the particular line should remain and assert that the astrology was originated in ancient India. Indeed by 3rd century BCE it would evolve with the Hellenestic.(which is clear on current version) Bladesmulti (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thankyou. The 3rd century BCE Hellenistic astrology in India is uncontroversial; what is inadequately supported currently are two things: 1) any mention of earlier origins, and 2) the 2500 BCE date, which I agree we should immediately remove, thankyou. For (1) we need an exact source, or we must remove the claim under WP:FRINGE. But since you mention a possible source, we ought to investigate it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The earliest mention I've seen is Pingree 1990, "The Puranas and Jyotihsastra: Astronomy": "The concepts of [Mount] Meru [as axle of heaven and earth] and Dhruva [the pole star] serve to date this cosmology to the middle of the last millennium B.C. at the earliest." This means a date of around 500 BC for the earliest Hindu astrological concepts is imaginable but not proven; Pingree's analysis goes on to say "a date sometime in the third or fourth century A.D. for their common source [of the Puranas] seems quite likely". Is this what you meant? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Anything like "Some of the earliest text related with Astrology are found in Vedanga Jyotisha." Can replace the current sentence that you have disputed. And I can added 3-4 reliable sources to that. That's it. Pingree also considered Vedanga Jyotisha to be one of the earliest. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, let's try that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically, it covers up all analysis whether by James or David or any other. I moved it to starting sentence, as per the periods. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow you there, nor am I sure that the sentence works as the introduction, but we'll leave it for now, pace future developments. I have however removed the source which does not appear reliable and independent per WP:FRINGE. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for astrological signs
The articles for the various (western) astrological signs (Aires, Taurus, etc. etc.) need proper oversight from neutral editors. Attempts to add additional information, even when well sourced, are repeatedly reverted on the basis that the information is "made up", or similar objection, with the result that many articles return to being little more than stubs despite many editors' efforts over time. Well, duh. Obviously the information is "made up". What the self-appointed reverters and deleters cannot seem to get their heads round is that although astrology is total nonsense, what people believe about it is still encyclopedic. In this respect it is no different from a religion. I appeal to people who have more time and experience of negotiating Wikipedia procedures to come forward and protect these articles from the people who are bent on destroying them. 31.52.148.214 (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)