Talk:Astrology/Archive 31

Additions to theological viewpoints
I would like to expand the theological viewpoint section with some information derived from a biblical perspective, specifically Protestant Christianity and Judaism. What would the community of this page like to see in this area. My initial addition was reverted, so I am looking for feedback to make improvements. One editor noted that I should obtained a better source for the material.Edwardjones2320 (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have better sources? Academic sociology sources would be good. If it's a very large denomination (I mean on an international scale, nothing US-centric), I'd say their position statement reliably outlines their theological position (no for fact statements beyond their own position). It would be suitable for inclusion due to the obviousness of their relevance to theological viewpoints and their size (in lieu of weight being established by those academic sources which presumably exist). Second Quantization (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would seem the best thing to do would be to research the relation between, say Christianity and astrology and then add material to Christian views on astrology? Second Quantization (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Below is a proposed draft on this topic along with an appropriate source. Let me know your feedback.
 * The clear and independent intellect of John Calvin, the great theologian of the Reformation, was in advance of the superstitions of his age. He warned about astrology which presumes to pronounce judgment upon a man's destiny as written in the stars. This spurious science wandered from Babylon into the church at a time when other superstitions were shaken to the base. Calvin denounced attempts to reveal what God has hidden as an impious presumption. God is sovereign and not bound by any necessity of nature.
 * History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII: Modern Christianity. The Swiss Reformation by Philip Schaff, page 135 Edwardjones2320 (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. We are not going to describe Calvin as having a "clear and independent intellect", and neither are we going to include wording that makes assertions about the sovereignty (or even existence) of God. This is an encyclopaedia, not a religious tract. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since astrology has a religious expression about it, I think some sort of addition to the article would provide an expanded perspective of how the subject is viewed in a broader scope. At this point, it might be easier for the community to summarize what they think the religious view of astrology should be, and I can then search for an appropriate source to back up the information. The short description of how astrology is represented in the Bible is that the Bible references the constellations and other heavenly bodies to mark current events but the Scriptures oppose the worship of these heavenly bodies. Perhaps some short statement along these lines can be composed with the appropriate consensus and added to the article. Edwardjones2320 (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we don't decide what we want the article to say, and then look for sources which support it - we find appropriate sources on the subject, and then summarise, with due balance, the views expressed in such sources. And please don't assume that this encyclopaedia is written from a Christian perspective. It isn't. Our readers (and contributors) are of all faiths, and none. And accordingly we will not conflate 'religion' with 'Christianity' - or conflate one particular Christian perspective on the subject with that of Christianity in general for that matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead
Hello all. I noticed that the lead section's last paragraph is repeated verbatim in the history section. This seems repetitive. If everyone agrees on that, which repetition should be kept? (Should the paragraph remain in the lead or the history section?) Personally I feel that the lead is quite long, so it should be removed from the lead and kept on the history, but I wanted to see what everyone else thought. If no-one replies in a week, I'll go ahead and remove it from the lead, but feel free to revert if anyone cares afterwards. JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi - to answer your first question, we should keep both paragraphs - no deletions. This is because according to policy, our lead paragraphs on articles are required to summarise the most salient points from the body of the article, giving the reader a succinct and relatively reasonable first impression. They could then decide to read further for themselves, and find greater detail. -Roxy the dog™ ( Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home ) 08:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly. :) But I disagree. Isn't all the historical info about all the individual civilization astrology existed in somewhat excessive? I don't think that we need to know where each nation learned of astrology, and where they thought it came from (For example: "In Rome, astrology was associated with Chaldean wisdom.") in the lead. I agree that it's important to keep an overview of the topic, but I think this is not succinct enough yet. Here's a possible compromise: instead of deleting the entire history paragraph in the lead, perhaps it could be summarized into something along the lines of
 * "Astrology has been dated to at least the 2nd millennium BCE, with roots in calendrical systems used to predict seasonal shifts and to interpret celestial cycles as signs of divine communications. It has existed in civilization as varied China, Rome, Egypt, and Babylon. Astrology was rekindled in Europe during the Renaissance, when Arabic astrological texts, among many other Arabic scientific texts of the time, were translated into Latin."?

Then the history section of the actual article could keep all the info. No information would be lost from the article, and we'd have a more succint lead! Win-win :) PS: I love your username. :) JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Theory of Personality Types
The article primarily addresses the predictive aspects of astrology and (rightfully) dismisses them as pseudoscientific nonsense. But I have always wondered if there was more to the "personality types" aspects of some astrological traditions. Not because I think that the stars have any causal influence on our psychological development, but because their cycles just so happen to coincide with other annual/seasonal aspects of our environment (amount of daylight, weather, diet, time spent indoors vs. outdoors, common social activities, and -- more recently -- whether you're among the oldest or youngest in your school cohort, etc.) and while the theories behind the astrological explanation for personality types may still be pseudoscientific, the observations themselves could potentially have some merit. For an example of the kind of more mainstream scientific look at these ideas that I have in mind, see. Now, clearly I can't add original research to this article -- but what I'm wondering is if there isn't already some more appropriate topic, connected to predictive astrology, but different enough that it warrants its own article where such topics could be covered in better detail (and without adding fuel to the fire for arguments over whether predictive astrology has any scientific merit, which it quite clearly does not.) Malcolm Gladwell and others have brought up similar points about the unexpected influence that birthdates can have on our lives (such as how a disproportionately high number of professional hockey players are born in certain months -- because those birthdates made them the oldest in their age bracket in their youth leagues, which allowed them to become the stars of their team, get extra attention and/or practice, etc.)  --Khgtcv (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like Season of birth is the place I was looking for, and I've made a small addition to the Astrology and science article to make a more explicit connection between the two. --Khgtcv (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Contested Deletion of Best Selling Novel on Astrology in Literature
I would like to contest the deletion of the sentences I added about 'Secrets of the Last Nazi'. The book IS a best selling thriller, which makes it notable (objective evidence - a picture from Amazon.co.uk - that it was indeed "best selling" was included). The book is about literature on astrology, and raises some interesting suggestions, which were duly referenced.Cantelo (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC) I've now undone the deletion. I have a copy of the book here, which verifies the page numbers in the references.Cantelo (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC) By the way, the description of the book as "best selling" could be considered promotion. If that is that is the case, then those two words should be removed (or relegated to a reference or endnote); I put them in to demonstrate notability. Cantelo (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, your 'objective evidence' fails WP:RS by a mile - we don't cite screenshots posted on Tweet as evidence of anything, and neither do we cite advertisements as evidence of 'best selling' status. And secondly, we need third-party sourcing for statements about content. Your assertion that the book 'raises some interesting suggestions' is nothing but your own personal opinion - of a work of fiction. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that anyone but yourself considers this book of any significance to a discussion of astrology. I am going to remove this improper book promotion once again, and if you restore it without consensus, I may consider raising the matter elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

On your point 1, do you disagree with the statement that the book is best-selling, or accept it is but want more evidence? Both can be answered (for the first, just go to Amazon and search for it - it really is best selling); if you accept this but want more evidence, what sort of evidence would satisfy you? And just how best-selling or notable in the public mind does the book have to be to satisfy inclusion on the page?

On your point 2, the 'interesting issues' - there are lots of references available for this. How many do you need, and should they really all be included as references? Cantelo (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Further, on your point 2 - further references - here is a blog from a literary critic which says "King introduces facts and dates to substantiate his thesis making this a mesmerizing novel with the distinct possibility that it introduces new truths in a world of science previously debunked as fakery. Great thinkers out of the past are introduced as discovering and using these ideas.

Not only a better than average conspiracy book, but one also backed up by research that brings new ideas into the possibility of reality." Cantelo (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We do not cite websites selling books as evidence that books are best sellers. Amazon sells books. As for sources, what matters is quality not quantity. If you can find credible mainstream sources that discuss the book in depth and state that Secrets of the Last Nazi is of significance when discussing astrology in literature, we can consider inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, well the book description on Amazon does cite a Reporter on SKY TV (Sam Kiley) saying 'This is a remarkable and chilling book - a clever blend of addictive fiction and astonishing revelation.' and there's a former BBC journalist, Terry Stiasney, saying 'a modern-day treasure hunt with an intriguing historical premise'  And someone who writes for the Guardian, David Boyle, who says ‘Iain King has come up with a thrilling plot and an ingenious idea that has the possibility to turn everyone's ideas upside down and back to front.’   How many mainstream sources are needed - are these three enough? Cantelo (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And this book, "The Esoteric Codex: Nazism and the Occult" By Hans Tridle refers to 'Secrets of the Last Nazi' on page 7. Cantelo (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Also - still salient, from this book reviewing website, "It was obvious that King had done some significant research into planetary effects on human behavior and offers copious references at the end of the book." Cantelo (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * please stop wasting my time with irrelevances. Nothing you have quoted amounts to anything approximating to a statement that this book is of any relevance to a discussion of astrology in literature. And for the third time, we do not cite Amazon. Not for statements about whether books are best sellers. Not for cherry-picked quotes from elsewhere. Not for anything. And neither do we cite blogs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about you or your time, Andy, it's about improving Wikipedia. I'm going to have to take this to dispute resolution.Cantelo (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read up on WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR first - you will be wasting people's time otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on a need to maintain a balance of material within the Astrology article, the paragraph on the book Secrets of the Last Nazi, does not, in my opinion, deserve to be included, and, indeed, I don't think the book even needs to be mentioned. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sadly, Cantelo has chosen to ignore my advice about reading up on Wikipedia policy, and has taken this to WP:DRN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the original paragraph, I'm not convinced that the intent was to promote the book. I think the contributions seem more like a good-faith effort to add in a reference to theories on astrology that Cantelo found interesting from reading the book. That said, I don't think they belong in this article. I would suggest that while the book itself does seem notable in virtue of its apparent popularity (and thus warrants a page on the project) it is not notable with respect to astrology. It would probably be better to have a section in the article for the book that goes into detail on the astrological theories in the book, rather than the other way around. Thank you Cantelo for trying to help out the project; your contributions are appreciated and I'm sorry that you have had a bit of a rough interaction here. --Khgtcv (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Khgtcv - yes, I wasn't trying to promote the book (although I did enjoy it). You'll see I've added a reference to The Luminaries, a different book with a prominence which surely cannot be doubted, and whose astrological heritage has also already been firmly established on Wikipedia. If that means I get blocked from the site, as demanded by AndyTheGrump, then it's not really a place I want to be. There are already many, many lines on the Astrology page from obscure psychologists speculating about why people were interested in this stuff in the 1950s and 1960s; if I get blocked for pointing out that people are still reading it, then it does through neutrality into question, doesn't it. And yes, a separate page on 'Secrets of the Last Nazi' might be a good idea. But for now I'm feelin very bruised - by intimidation, by a dispute resolution which solved nothing, and by the apparent lack of support from other editors.Cantelo (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I added a clarifying point to your edit, to make it clearer why that book was notable. I appreciate your ongoing efforts to contribute to the project.  Please don't take your recent interactions with other editors too personally; There are a lot of people who try to use Wikipedia as a means of promoting their websites, books, albums, etc.  So many such people, in fact, that it's quite easy to become a bit jaded and jump to conclusions on just about any situation that looks even remotely like it's a case of self-promotion.  --Khgtcv (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Khgtcv - much appreciated.Cantelo (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Iain King article does not currently have any mention of the book, and that seems like a more appropriate place for most (well-sourced) content on the book to go than this article.Dialectric (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the point is to make it clear that Astrology isn't just a topic of past literature, but continues to factor into contemporary popular literature as well. So the one mentioned is just an illustrative example of a contemporary book that features Astrology prominently.  Is there maybe a better way to make this point? I don't think anybody is hung up on any particular one book... --Khgtcv (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sumerians not mentioned...
There is nothing about the first astrologers, the Sumerians. Some expert should add corresponding notes. 75.223.123.182 (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Externet


 * Late answer, but they are mentioned: "A scroll documenting an early use of electional astrology is doubtfully ascribed to the reign of the Sumerian ruler Gudea of Lagash (c. 2144 – 2124 BCE). This describes how the gods revealed to him in a dream the constellations that would be most favourable for the planned construction of a temple.[20] However, there is controversy about whether these were genuinely recorded at the time or merely ascribed to ancient rulers by posterity. The oldest undisputed evidence of the use of astrology as an integrated system of knowledge is therefore attributed to the records of the first dynasty of Mesopotamia (1950–1651 BCE)." --Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference to the oldest undisputed evidence of the use of astrology as it is quiet interesting for me. Terry Macro (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That sentence do need a reference, it´s uncited. Or do "Rochberg-Halton, F. (1988). "Elements of the Babylonian Contribution to Hellenistic Astrology". Journal of the American Oriental Society 108 (1): 51–62. JSTOR 603245." support that as well? --Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Dropping the 'pseudoscience' - Scientism bias.
Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning - to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

Taken from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism.

The word pseudoscience suggests a negative bias towards astrology. This is against the terms and policies of wikipedia who 'values a diversity of opinions'.

I would propose removal of this as it sets out a bias agaisnt astrology. Scorpius1975 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Scorpius1975, I'm not sure, but I think you would agree that astrology is not "scientism"? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thats my point. Have you read the definition above of scientism.
 * Yes, I have. I think we agree that astrology is not science, and not "scientism". And, of course, the article doesn't call it either science or "scientism". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

And FYI. Theres no such thing a psuedoscientism. Scorpius1975 (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I would propose an alternate definition as Astrology being an 'Art'. Scorpius1975 (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Isambard, you are putting on display your rigidity in your comment. Scientism is like all 'isms' not a good thing.. Scorpius1975 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Mediæval should be updated to Medieval
Mediæval is archaic and confusing. The words' use had been defended by langvar but the spelling isn't widely used in the UK. Png4lyfe (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the UK uses both spellings - or "mediaeval", at least, with separate letters. From searching British news sites "medieval" seems more common by a factor of ten or so. --McGeddon (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep.

Upon introspection, I have found that I take no real joy from the use of medieval over mediæval. In my heart of hearts, I know I am right. However, a great indifference now fills my loins.

I have decided to press the issue no longer. Png4lyfe (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm agreeing with you, but okay. --McGeddon (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I know, but sometimes you've just gotta listen to your loins, and all their loiney sounds Png4lyfe (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, this is the astrology page. People who are into astrology are gonna want their æs and ♅s Png4lyfe (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Arabic Renaissance
I have never heard this theory about the Renaissance, and yet here it is in the lead section of this article. Two editors have now reverted my removal of it, so perhaps I and the writers I have read on the subject, and the Wikipedia article, are wrong. Comments? zzz (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The second and third paragraphs need to be outright nuked and rewritten. The third is the exact same as the one a few below it. Anyway, for me it was more about the unconstructive changes to the first (removal of pseudoscience as it is currently interpreted), and this spelling fiasco that occurred (see a few talk sections up.)-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  00:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realise that is a shit reason to restore content you think "should be nuked"? zzz (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Many ancient Greek texts were famously only preserved in Arabic translations; as for the specifics of their translation back to European languages I do not know. François Robere (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Chaldean wisdom
How common was this specific phrase among the Romans? It's in the lead, in italics. Should it be in quotation marks? Should the Latin be used? It looks a bit strange to me. I don't think italics is right. zzz (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You should check the sources in Astrology. François Robere (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See below zzz (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in first sentence as definition
This seems wholly inappropriate. Astrology is not known for its scientific claims. I have no objection to the mention of pseudoscience per se, but it seems ridiculously pointy to put it in the first sentence of the article. zzz (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please go back through the talk archives, this is well discussed.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  00:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please summarise the discussion for me, for why it has to be in the first sentence. Consensus can change etc. zzz (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be lazy. There's a search box on the right. François Robere (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be condescending. Judging from this, there obviously is no consensus. The fact people have clearly discussed it endlessly in the past is therefore irrelevant. zzz (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not condescending, I just don't fancy doing others' work. François Robere (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "whitewash": imbecilic one-word response. Pathetic. This is precisely why people regard Wikipedia as a joke. zzz (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Relevance? François Robere (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:McSly 's one-word edit summary when reverting this compromise:Astrology consists of various systems of divination, which have been described as pseudoscientific,..." zzz (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Astrology is not known for its scientific claims." Yes it is. Second Quantization (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I would have like to have read at least one reference that supports any supporting view on the Astrology. It seems like rather than a free Encyclopedia, Wiki has become a self professed way shower of absolute "truth" in its discernment of what's actual science and what pseudoscience rather than how historically encyclopedias have referenced subject matters without taking a political, moral or skeptical judgment and this may be why..http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/wikipedia-blocks-hundreds-of-linked-accounts-for-suspect-editing/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have to agree, esp. with regard to this article. Thanks for your input. I too am waiting for some form of reasonable argument or reference, as opposed to blank tag-team reversions and edit warring. zzz (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT. François Robere (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:TPG. Still waiting. zzz (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Isambard Kingdom please explain why you think it is preferable for the first sentence of the article to contradict the body of the article. ("Hashed over many times" is completely irrelevant). zzz (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Signedzzz, Do you have something to add to the content of previous discussion on this topic found here: ? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No I don't wish to add to any of those archived pages. What a peculiar question. Do you wish to justify insisting on an opening sentence that contradicts the article and rejecting any compromise? Well done for finding the talk page, by the way. Do try and address the problem of your contested edit. Thank you. zzz (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In what way is it condradicting the article? And, note, that I am only working with previously established consensus. You are the one wanting to change things. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "section "demarcation": 2 out of 4 examples given do not call it pseudoscience." That was my edit summary, before you reverted my edit, so you're already aware of that. I'll have to tag the article, since it contradicts all but one pov. zzz (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not all the sources use a particular word is not especially relevant. But, again, where is the contradiction? Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This, for example, is one "especially relevant" section of the article that I have now told you about twice.I suggests you read the article for more, but clearly your not going to read anything put in front of you anyway, or engage in serious discussion (because of "previous discussion"):

Kuhn thought that, though astrologers had, historically, made predictions that categorically failed, this in itself does not make it unscientific, nor do attempts by astrologers to explain away failures by claiming that creating a horoscope is very difficult. Rather, in Kuhn's eyes, astrology is not science because it was always more akin to mediæval medicine; they followed a sequence of rules and guidelines for a seemingly necessary field with known shortcomings, but they did no research because the fields are not amenable to research,[114]:8 and so "they had no puzzles to solve and therefore no science to practise."[113]:401[114]:8 While an astronomer could correct for failure, an astrologer could not. An astrologer could only explain away failure but could not revise the astrological hypothesis in a meaningful way. As such, to Kuhn, even if the stars could influence the path of humans through life astrology is not scientific.[114]:8

The absurd requirement for the lead's first sentence to be accurate is for astrologers, throughout the ages and up to the present day, to have claimed that astrology is scientific. No evidence for this, either in the article or elsewhere. Because as most readers are well aware, it's not the case. This article is a joke (see IP's comment in this section). zzz (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC) zzz (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources 3-5, 106-108, 111-112 and 115-116, in the very least, suggest the term "pseudoscience" is appropriate. François Robere (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kuhn notes that astrology is not scientific. That is, also, consistent with the first sentence in the article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't (not all things that are unscientific are also pseudoscientific), but it doesn't matter, as the rest of the sources support that phrasing. François Robere (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, not all things that are unscientific are also pseudoscientific, but all things pseudoscientific are not scientific. And, of course, the first sentence says that astrology is pseudoscientific. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And, upon reflection, François, on the definition from the pseudoscience article: a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status, I agree with you. So, just being "unscientific" is not sufficient for astrology to be "pseudoscience", though that is necessary. The unfounded identification of cause and effect, the procedures of calculation that are performed, etc., those all give the impression that astrology is something "scientific". And, thus, astrology is pseudoscience. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "And the Lords said: Abide by the first sentence, lest though reaches the last sentence and thou knowest not what the essay wast about" François Robere (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Very nice! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And, it seems that Kuhn is arguing that even if astrology were physically valid (and we know that is isn't), practicing astrologers of olde did not respond to observed evidence that astrology didn't work. That is not how science is supposed to be done, though we all know that everyone is human (including both scientists and astrologers). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Isambard Kingdom @François Robere How many "astrologers of olde" actually claimed it was a science or scientific per se, and how many do nowadays? If the answer is "very few or none", as I suspect it is - and the article doesn't indicate otherwise - then it is patently absurd to define it exclusively as a form of science (or, in terms of science) in the first sentence. Hence my (instantly reverted) compromise edit, "Astrology consists of various systems of divination, which have been described as pseudoscientific". If this is accepted, then we can all go on our merry way. Please explain what your objection is to this, if you have any. zzz (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This question is irrelevant for two reasons:
 * a) We've got the sources, and that's enough as far as Wiki. is concerned (remember WP:FORUM).
 * b) Whether astrologers used this specific term is irrelevant; the question, rather, is whether they characterised the system as such that complies with the modern definition of "science", eg. logical, systematic and having predictive power. And they did. François Robere (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not "irrelevant" - I could equally say that sources describing it as pseudoscience are irrelevant - in fact, I certainly would say that, as far as the first sentence is concerned. It is very obvious that you think that a compromise is irrelevant, but that's not how Wikipedia works. That astrology is, at best, not a commonly held belief. Several sources describe it as psuedoscience, no one is denying that, so this can be given WP:due weight in the article, which does not remotely justify the absurd first-sentence definition . Neither of your two points address the question: what objection do you have to the compromise? zzz (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're tying the definition of something with the linguistic breadth of its creators? That is, if one developed chemistry in a land where the word "science" has not been invented, it would not be considered science by an outside observer? I submit that that is nonsense. As for the rest: First - you've misquoted me - reread; Second - the onus is on you, and you've yet to show that we should take issue with the current phrasing. François Robere (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone developed chemistry, it would be chemistry, which is a science. Here, we are talking about astrology, which is not a science. We should, and do, take issue with the current wording for the reasons given which you have chosen to ignore, again. zzz (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you agree that an object's definition does not depend on the object's definition of itself, but rather by its characteristics (as much as they can be observed). Excellent. Well, as astrology claims to have the characteristics of a science (if not adopting the term as such), yet it is not one by any modern standard, it is most certainly pseudo-scientific. Issue resolved, or must we again resort to counting our sources (which, as I've shown, largely support that conclusion)? François Robere (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, astrology is and always was science? Blatant WP:OR, obviously a terrible argument (and no, I don't "agree" - very few would). Such an extreme POV shouldn't be allowed to influence the content of the article, particularly not the definition in the first sentence, it just makes the article (and, by extension, Wikipedia) look ridiculous. You'll need a better justification than OR to keep the one-sided lead the way it is. And still no objection at all raised to my compromise proposal, despite multiple requests. zzz (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again you misquote me; that's a bad habit. If I may suggest: read twice before you comment - it seems you have a tendency of missing some things that are said, and misunderstanding others. Also: I've come to suspect you may actually not know what pseudoscience is. I submit that less angst and more attention would be very beneficial for your work on Wiki articles. In the meanwhile - I'm retiring from this discussion. Best regards. François Robere (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Your argument is/was founded on the (spurious) principle that astrology has always claimed to be a science in all but name: "". You have merely confirmed, again, that you have no reasonable basis for your opposition to changing the lead. Which is also of course confirmed by the fact you (or anyone else) have still offered no objection to the compromise wording, other than "irrelevant", in other words "WP:IDHT". I won't add my proposed wording back, as some open-minded expert with wide-ranging Wiki pursuits and interests will undoubtedly delete it within minutes with some edifying one-word edit summary. Instead, I will add the article tag back, until such time as the issue is resolved. zzz (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I wrote that section, so I can say with some confidence that this is a nonsensical interpretation. The philosophers are pointing out different ways astrology is not science. For example, if you read Kuhn in context, he is talking about astrology precisely because Popper has it as an example of typical pseudoscience. He's using it to discuss his own demarcation of science from non-science (which is different from Popper's) and Astrology is the quintessential pseudo-science for that purpose. In fact, he takes astrology as the pseudoscience to look at, because he doesn't want things to be distracted by the "contemporary controversies" around psychoanalysis. Popper's and Kuhn's conclusions about demarcation are the same, but the point is that their reasoning process for arriving at that conclusion is different. That is, the philosophers are not in any way contradicting the lead; the discussion is about why its pseudoscience not that it is. That astrology is pseudoscience is taken as an uncontroversial fact.
 * "then it is patently absurd to define it exclusively as a form of science (or, in terms of science) in the first sentence" Astrology has always made claims within the scientific domain. Thus it is a pseudoscience. ".. which have been described as pseudoscientific" This adds uncertainty where there is none in the sources. In reliable sources it is unequivocally called pseudoscience.
 * "Your argument is/was founded on the (spurious) principle that astrology has always claimed to be a science" Astrology can't make claims (since its a concept), but you are talking about astrologers themselves. It is irrelevant whether astrologers do make the claim or not; some astrologers do, some do not. It's incoherent to call astrology pseudo-science because astrologers claim it's science and then call the exact same practice not pseudo-science because different astrologers don't claim its science. Astrology can't be pseudo-science and not pseudo-science at the same time. Rather it's pseudoscience because of the practices and nature of the discipline, as the sources used to support the statement all point out. This is why the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy devotes time to discussing broader definition of pseudo-science than you have set out  (they also note common usage in practice is more in keeping with this broader definition).
 * TLDR: We unequivocally call it pseudoscience because the most reliable sources (including astronomy textbooks) say it is matter-of-factly and without controversy. Second Quantization (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * TTLDR: Nothing changed consensus-wise, and we only had to revert two dozen edits along the way. Now everyone can get back to their rarebit. François Robere (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not TLDR, thanks for posting this. The relevant part, the second paragraph, is very short in fact. You quote me: "then it is patently absurd to define it exclusively as a form of science (or, in terms of science) in the first sentence", which you counter with: "Astrology has always made claims within the scientific domain. Thus it is a pseudoscience." This is more-or-less the crux of the matter, yet your totally unsatisfactory answer is merely you repeating your personal opinion. Then, you quote my compromise proposal: ".. which have been described as pseudoscientific" which you counter with: "This adds uncertainty where there is none in the sources. In reliable sources it is unequivocally called pseudoscience." Your opinion about "add[ing] uncertainty" is clearly wrong - it merely states the fact, plainly ("unequivocally" if you will), that it has been described, "In reliable sources" - otherwise it wouldn't be worth mentioning at all - as pseudoscience. You sum up by by mentioning astronomy textbooks. I am at a loss as to why you believe that these should be regarded as sacrosanct RSs in a non-scientific article. However, with my compromise, I allow such sources to be mentioned in the first sentence. No rational objection has been raised, but thanks for at least trying. zzz (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "it merely states the fact, plainly". It clearly doesn't. Only contested or biased claims should be attributed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Attributing a fact makes it look like an opinion. Let's take an example: "The earth has been described as not flat." That clearly implied it's just an opinion rather than it being a fact that the world is not flat. It's pretty bloody obvious. "yet your totally unsatisfactory answer is merely you repeating your personal opinion." If you just read that paragraph in isolation that would be the case, except in the next paragraph I repeat the definition and explicitly link to the SEP which gives the same definition. So no. " in a non-scientific article" Scientific sources are perfectly appropriate for categorising what is pseudo-science. Second Quantization (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * And, as for incoherence which you raise as a supposed objection - in fact, it is incoherent, as I have been pointing out all along, to define the article in terms of science when it has never, traditionally, through its extremely long history, been "unequivocally", or even commonly, regarded as such. Have you read the article? Does it look like a science article to you? Do you think that Chaucer and Shakespeare used it in their work as a source of scientific facts? - the current "definition" is clearly at odds with the content of the article. zzz (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Have you read the article?" Are you slow? I just told you I wrote parts of it. Astrology has always been considered in its relation to what we now consider science since at least the time of Ptolemy. Further, lets apply your same logic to astronomy. Astronomy has not traditionally been considered in its relation to science because science is a modern concept. Guess what, we still call it science in the lead of its article. "Do you think that Chaucer and Shakespeare used it in their work as a source of scientific facts?" This is a stupid point. Chaucher also makes use of astronomy, do you think that makes astronomy not a topic related to science? The astrology article spends time discussing the relation of astrology to science. Clearly it's scientific credentials or lack thereof is relevant and it being clear pseudoscience and lacking legitimacy is part of the most basic understanding of the topic. Second Quantization (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * At the top of the talk page is a template from the Arbitration Committee:


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


 * Edits to the article regarding this matter should take that into consideration.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  02:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And WP:FRINGE uses also Astrology as a prime example of pseudoscience. Ok, that's "just" a guideline.  But Arbcom using Astrology as the archetypal example of pseudoscience is a pretty solid sign for site-wide consensus, if not de facto policy.  Astrology makes scientifically testable claims ("people born under X sign tend have Y qualities") which when tested only turn out no better than random chance.  If astrologers did not mean for their claims to be statistically significant, then those claims are meaningless (i.e. saying "men born in Pisces tend to be short blondes" is utterly pointless if you also mean "but they could just as easily be tall brunettes, muscular baldies, fat redheads, or whatever anyone else could be").  These claims are rooted in beliefs (if varied) about natural law, beliefs that run contrary to science.  "Making scientifically invalid claims based on a flawed or imaginary understanding of natural law" is perhaps the most basic form of pseudoscience, and anyone who claims astrology doesn't fit that bill would have to be ignorant of science, astrology, or perhaps both.  It doesn't matter if a few astrologers try to admit that it's not clinical, their claims trespass into the domain of science.  Even ignoring all that, there are multiple sources already in the article that describe it as pseudoscientific.
 * I say this not with the expectation of changing anyone's beliefs, but to give fair warning as to what sort of posts would lead an uninvolved admin using the Arbcom-approved discretionary sanctions (which can include topic bans). Oh, for the record, while I may have created the Monomoiria article and added the "Descriptions of the decans" section to the Decans article (both of which were completely silent on the issue of science and described the ideas only as beliefs), this is (to my knowledge) my first post on this talk page and I have never edited this article.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;, thanks for posting the Arbcom decision here - I couldn't find it.
 * @Ian.thomson This article is about astrology, not the purported claims of Mystic Meg. This post you made immediately after your statement here proves beyond doubt that you have no idea what this discussion is about: "" Removing the word "pseudoscience" is not even being discussed. Using your newly-gained admin status to wade into debates with disruptive, uninformed threats doesn't bode well for the future of the project. In future, I encourage you to take the trouble to find out what is being debated before offering your opinion. Editors should disregard the above post, and please note that the proposed change is entirely compliant with the Arbcom decision. zzz (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This thread was started on the grounds that defining astrology as pseudoscience in the first sentence was inappropriate, saying that you thought it was "pointy to put it in the first sentence of the article" and that the sources did "not remotely justify the absurd first-sentence definition Astrology consists of several pseudoscientific systems". Following that, you tried to argue astrology doesn't claim to be scientific (How many "astrologers of olde" actually claimed it was a science or scientific per se, and how many do nowadays?) -- an argument that is only relevant if you're trying to claim that astrology isn't pseudoscience.  If you are not arguing for its removal from the first sentence, and you are not arguing that it is not pseudoscience, you have completely failed to get anything else across.  It is only after being completely dismissed on both counts that you continued to try to waste everyone's time by pretending that you were arguing for something else that you've never once properly explained.
 * If anyone has no idea what's going on here, it's you. If the Arbcom decision clearly labels Astrology as the archetypal example of pseudoscience, how is it compliant to remove due weight from the first sentence regarding its pseudoscientific aspect?  It's like going to the talk page for Muhammad, arguing that the images are inappropriate, going on about how Muslims don't draw pictures of Muhammad, and saying that the desired "compromise" (that is never actually defined) is somehow in line with Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images.  Or going to Talk:Climate change, saying that it's inappropriate to mention human activities in the lede, pointing out that there are scientists who doubt global warming, and again saying that the vague and hopeful "compromise" is somehow in line with Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change.
 * And I indicated what action any uninvolved admin would take (not just me), and I stand confident enough in that that we can ask another admin to handle the matter if you really want to argue that I'm involved in an article I've never edited and am only now making my second talk page post for. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ian.thomson, "" - please show me, with diffs, where - at any point in time - I have made any comment whatsoever on your involvement or otherwise. I couldn't care less how "involved" you think you are. Your aggressive behaviour here has been incomprehensible, to say the least. zzz (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your Muhammed example, about a compromise "that is never actually defined", is baffling. The compromise is stated in plain English, above, more than once. And I am still waiting for it to be discussed. zzz (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate, there can be absolutely no doubt that it would be perfectly in line with the Arbcom ruling. zzz (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I note that astrology in effect predates the widespread use of the scientific method, so calling it a pseudoscience is a bit of an anachronism. On that basis, I also question the use of it in the very first sentence. I also note that the existing lead runs to three paragraphs, one less than permitted. The current usage also, to my eyes, is questionable because it is, in effect, judging the system before even describing it, which seems to me less than useful, and may well be perceived by the readers as such.
 * I might myself a separate shorter lead paragraph identifying the premises of the system, their widespread acceptance up until the middle ages, and then an indication that the philosophical and scientific beliefs which form their basis, including the geocentric model, have been rejected since the widespread use of the scientific method.
 * Today I do not have direct access to the various reference books I have general access to, but I can see how they structure their ledes if theirs conforms to ours and see how they structure their ledes elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I note that astrology in effect predates the widespread use of the scientific method" So does astronomy. Is astronomy a science? Both astronomy and astrology are ancient practices which are still practiced. One is science, the other is pseudoscience. Second Quantization (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that comment supposed to be useful? I certainly can't see how. And, if possible, you might want to address the substance of the comments made, rather than picking out one comment to object to, which in general is not considered particularly useful or acceptable talk page conduct. John Carter (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the substance of the comment. You claimed it is an anachronism. By that same reasoning, since astronomy is just as ancient, it should be an anachronism to call astronomy science. But most people have no issue calling astronomy science in the lead and nor does any encyclopaedia I know of, despite it being an anachronism when applied to older practice. That is because astrology and astronomy are both still practised today. If astrology had died out completely then it being an anachronism would make sense, but it hasn't. Astrology is very much still practiced. Second Quantization (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It very clearly is not, and had you actually read it you would know that. But, as you apparently are able to miss the obvious, the substance of the comment is about rearranging the lede to be four paragraphs long, and start with a shortish paragraph describing the field. Also, I think you will find that there is a very unclear distinction between astrology and astronomy prior to at least the Renaissance, and that, in fact, most of what we today call astronomy was at that time more or less more regularly and significantly considered to be aspects of astrology. But I can see how some people who are perhaps strongly tied to certain concepts might be incapable of seeing their own biases. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "It very clearly is not" It clearly is. It is the basis of your reason for re-arranging the lead. You explicitly said your suggestion was "On that basis", yet when I point out a flaw you declare it to be totally irrelevant. I've pointed out that other leads do exactly the same thing. "there is a very unclear distinction between astrology and astronomy prior" And what (I've even written on the historical link here btw)? How does that relate in any way at all to what I said. It doesn't. You claimed it's an anachronism to call astrology pseudoscience in the lead. By the exact same reasoning it should be an anachronism to call astronomy science; yet we do and so does every encyclopedia. Yet you refuse to actually address the point. Astrology being pseudoscience does describe what astrology is just as much as astronomy being science describes astronomy. Second Quantization (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to put fuel in the fire, but I don't think the word pseudoscientific should be there. It is literally in the first sentence, and the word has a negative connotation. I understand astrology is pseudoscience, but that word right in the begging makes astrology look bad because of the negative idea people have of pseudoscience. I don't know how to explain myself, but to sum it all up: pseudoscience is a negative word.

Look: "'Astrology consists of several systems of divination based on the premise that there is a relationship [...]'"

The sentence sounds perfect without the word pseudoscientific. It sounds more elegant and less aggressive. Also, the word "divination" already implies it is not actually science. This is just my opinion though, and perhaps it has been refuted by the discussion above (which I didn't have the patience to read entirely). Outedexits (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is a difference between giving psudeoscientific views equal weight, and giving an description of a concept as a concept priority over making a declaration about the current scientific views on it. Again, although this point seems to have been missed by some, I think most readers would find it most useful and probably "fairer" if the first description of the topic was about the topic in and of itself. Then, saying how it is wrong, by, for instance, implicitly accepting the heliocentric or in some cases earth-centric theory will be easier for the average reader to follow and possibly understand, and thus likely even have a greater impact on the reader than starting the phrasing with a judgmental term. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "the topic in and of itself" Being a pseudoscience is part of the topic in and of itself. Second Quantization (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "... and the word has a negative connotation" And calling something science has positive connotations, i.e as in for astronomy. Calling astronomy science is a positive judgement. Should we not call things science in the lead because of the positive connotations, or should we only remove the negative from leads? Second Quantization (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference is that you can't call astronomy anything else but science. Now in astrology, it is not necessary to say it is pseudoscience. You don't need that word right in the first sentence. The sentence will be better without it. Outedexits (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

pseudoscientific divination
As a complement to my message right above, I wonder if the word pseudoscientific is really necessary. Saying pseudoscientific divination is like saying a male man or a female woman. Outedexits (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

let's just let this debate end. I'm not going to fuel the fire. I've checked the userpage of a few of you guys and you're all fervent skeptics, so apparently adding the word "pseudiscientific" is of extreme importance to you and your bias. Cheers. Outedexits (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally think the question I raised above, about whether the sanction against "equal weight" as per guidelines to pseudoscientific ideas necessarily extends to insisting that the word or similar takes first place in the first sentence, and I think maybe arbcom or the people on the relevant policy and guideline pages might be willing to help clarify that point, if there were people interested in asking it of them. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously I agree with Isambard Kingdom, Second Quantization and Ian.thomson. zzz have been repeating themselves for a while, despite having their arguments countered on several occasions both reasonably and on account of Wikipedia's guidelines. As for Outedexits's point regarding the redundancy of mentioning that a system of divination is pseudoscientific I've no clear opinion, though it's clearly stylistically preferable to abide by his suggestion. That being said, the discussion above is not about style, but about matter, and as far as matter is concerned designating Astrology as pseudoscientific is clearly correct, and as consensus of the matter has been achieved oh-so-long ago there's no reason to go through the whole process again without any new arguments to the contrary (and we may have been wrong to have been dragged into it, but that is a different matter). As for the stylistic issue - I support discussing it in a different thread if the factual issue can be relegated to the archives for the time being. François Robere (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree with all of the reasons given above. But I've made a bold edit even though I don't think it's really necessary so as to placate any fears about the lead. I don't think it matters that much whether it's scientific appraisal is brought up in the first sentence or whatever of the lead, so I propose my change . Second Quantization (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems better. Just let me ask you, why did you drop "consists of"? It sounded much better in my opinion Outedexits (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It seemed to imply a stronger link between all of the various astrological traditions than actually exists. Second Quantization (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm it's ok. What do you think of the word "comprises"? It might sound better. Anyway, I understand why you disagree with the reasons given for the removal of the word pseudoscience in the first sentence. You are a skeptic, so to you it may sound normal to refer to astrology as pseudoscience, but it might be kind of a shock for a reader who takes astrology seriously. As an analogy, I'm an atheist. I could go to the lead section of the God article, say in the first sentence that God doesn't exist or is very likely to not exist and cite a ton of books by atheists. That wouldn't be a nice thing to do, would it? Think about it. Cheers. Outedexits (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , while I appreciate your point, the comparison with God might not be straightforward. Religion is not very often depicted as "scientific" and so I don't think it qualifies as "pseudoscience". That some people (you and me, for example) don't happen to believe in God is not, itself, a description of God, while "pseudoscience" is an authoritative description of the essence of astrology (as per sources). I suggest that a more parallel comparison is with creationism, but, as per my comment below, I'm not thrilled with how the lead of that article is developed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You appear to be arguing along relativist lines. We know as much as we know about the world because of science and science has shown astrology to be false. It is the purpose of an encyclopaedia to educate readers, whether that be a shock to them or not. Second Quantization (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be having some productive exchange going on, here, which I think is a good thing. For comparison, however, it is worth looking at the creationism article. There we see that creationism is "labeled pseudoscience", but this qualified description ("labeled") comes rather late in the lead (third paragraph). In my opinion, this is a concern, and while I know that the creationism article is not this article on astrology, it might be worth reflecting on the effect of moving "pseudoscience" down to a lower level within the lead ... the important message is not, possibly, as effectively communicated as it should be. Similarly, with "pseudoscience" now appearing in the lead of astrology rather far down, also third paragraph, this important point is not very effectively emphasized. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally I was also looking at the lead of that article and thought it was not particularly clear. I think the astrology article makes the progress in time clearer and doesn't have the false balance that the creationism lead has, Second Quantization (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Mentioning that it is pseudoscience is not urgent. In my opinion, we should focus on simple definitions. For example, the first sentence of the creationism article: Creationism is the religious belief that the Universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation.". This is just perfect. Same applies with the first sentence of astrology: Astrology comprises several systems of divination which are based on the premise that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world. Again, sounds perfect – a simple and straightforward definition. You should also consider that the words "belief" and "divination" (which are used in the first sentences of both articles, respectively) already imply it is not actually science. Saying "pseudoscientific belief", for example, is even pleonasm. The word pseudoscientific really should be more to the bottom of the lead. Don't worry, people are not going to believe creationism is science. Outedexits (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello? Some people do believe that creationism is science. Creationism makes claims that are presented as "scientific". This is more than a religious belief. Similarly, the article on divination does not make it clear that it is a subject of superstition (not until the third paragraph of that linked article). I suggest, again, to my colleague with whom I would probably mostly agree on other subjects, that the pseudoscientific aspect of astrology is now not appropriately emphasized. A description of astrology as "divination" to you might seem sufficient, but you have your own preconceived idea about what divination is. Others have different ideas. Are we not able to define, in the first sentence, astrology according to authoritative sources, as "pseudoscience"? Again, useful discussion. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this discussion is interesting. Well, it seems to me now that there is no way to prove which side is correct. We've got to a point in which whether adding the word pseudoscientific in the first sentence or not is just a matter of opinion. Anyway, look: The thing is that thinking too much in a scientific/skeptic way may not always be appropriate. In articles such as creationism, which is a belief, you need to think with a belief emphasis and explain what the belief is. You don't have to (or should) go around yelling "pseudoscience" everywhere, like you seem to be anxious to do. Perhaps you guys should not be editing articles about beliefs in the first place. Again, those green sentences above are perfectly fine. Outedexits (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "You don't have to (or should) go around yelling "pseudoscience" everywhere" No one has done so. So stop with the strawmen. " Perhaps you guys should not be editing articles about beliefs in the first place" Perhaps you shouldn't since you seem to put science on an equal footing with superstition. It's one thing to try and describe a superstition, it's another thing to advocate factual relativism as you are doing. Second Quantization (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier, it is stylistically-preferable to remove the seeming redundancy between "divination" and "pseudo-scientific"; though "divination", on its own, does not imply "pseudo-scientific", it does imply "non-scientific", and that seems good enough (personally, though, I tend to correlate divination with simple rituals and intuition, rather than with calculations and structure like those you see in Astrology, so this association is not obvious as far I'm concerned). Also, "pseudo-scientific" is, shall we say, "second-order characterisation", while "divination" is of "first order"; that is, it depends on external knowledge rather than being "self-contained" within the concept. Take for example the term "fork": The simplest description would be this: "A utensil comprised of a handle with several tines set in line on one of its ends." Anything other than that - eg. what this utensil is used for specifically, or what materials it's usually made of - depends on external knowledge of custom, habits, technologies etc., and is an extraneous to the "core" definition of the object. It is the same with "pseudoscience" in this case, relegating this term to any sentence but the first. François Robere (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the third paragraph
The third paragraph is giving undue weight to science in an article that is not about science. For example, in the sentence Astrology is now regarded as pseudoscience, since it has been shown to have no validity or explanatory power for describing the universe. I edited it and added "in a scientific way" in the end. That seems correct, since there are many other ways to explain the universe (religion, mythology, etc), but reverted me. May I ask why? What do you mean by slippery slope? Thanks. Outedexits (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph is really bad and extremely biased. Not everything is science, and you can't use excessive amount of scientific points of view in an article that is not about science. Anyway, I'm hesitant to start a new discussion. We are most likely to not get anything done here Outedexits (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The "According to science ..." and "... in a scientific way" qualifiers are simply trying to hedge plain facts. "since there are many other ways to explain the universe (religion, mythology, etc), " All ways of describing the universe are not equal. This article is part of an encyclopaedia with an educational mission. Part of that is taking science seriously and not trying to phrase science as "just another opinion". We don't say "According to science the earth isn't flat". We just say, the earth isn't flat. The reason we think it's not flat is because of all that evidence we have. The reason we think astrology is false, is because of the actual evidence against it. We don't say "According to science, atoms exist", we just say atoms exist. A holocaust denier is denying a fact about history. Etc etc. Wikipedia isn't a relativist project. Second Quantization (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * there are many other ways to explain the universe but very few (as few as only one) actually follow a logical path in showing their explanations to be correct. Remember: Science does not explain the universe of itself, but rather of what can be discovered. That is: science that not prescribe a description, but seeks to develop one from the ground up based on the evidence that can be obtained through observation. I doubt one can claim there is a better way to explain something than by observing it, forming explanations and then testing those explanations to see if they work, and changing them otherwise. That's science, and as long as no one can suggest a better way to understand anything, be it the universe or a jug of milk, there's no reason to claim some system has better descriptive power at a universal scale despite not having any way of reliably explaining the simplest phenomena.
 * As for "not everything is science" - the moment Astrology claims to have either predictive power (in the futurist sense) or a diagnostic power (describing character traits etc.) then it is subject to testing like anything else. Also, you should keep the chronological order of events. The scientific studies came last and are a last definition. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The only issue I see with the third paragraph is that it's the third paragraph after two that are too long for the intro section. There's a lot of minutia about the history that would be better placed in the history section. I'd advocate something simpler and shorter, such as:


 * Astrology comprises several systems of divination which are based on the premise that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world. Astrology has been dated to at least the 2nd millennium BCE, with roots in calendrical systems used to predict seasonal shifts and to interpret celestial cycles as signs of divine communications.[1] Throughout most of its history, astrology was considered a scholarly tradition. It was accepted in political and academic contexts, and was connected with other studies, such as astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.[3]


 * At the end of the 17th century, new scientific concepts in astronomy and physics (such as heliocentrism and Newtonian mechanics) called astrology into question. Astrology thus lost its academic and theoretical standing, and common belief in astrology has largely declined.[4] Astrology is now regarded as pseudoscience[5][6][7][8][9]:1350 since it has been shown to have no validity or explanatory power for describing the universe. Among other issues, 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.[10]:249[11] Scientific testing of astrology has found no evidence to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions.[12][13]

Excised material can be integrated into other sections below the fold. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the pseudoscience label appears in the first sentence or waits until the second paragraph. But I do find my eyes glazing over when reading the current intro and I'm sure many readers will have the same experience, and not getting the important point that Astrology has no basis in science. (BTW, I agree with the points made by Second Quantization and François Robere.)Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the intro is too long and I've committed myself to improving it some time ago, but haven't had the chance to get into it yet (or some other appropriate excuse). François Robere (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't you guys realize the paragraph is too hostile and arid? In an article about a belief you simply have to explain what the belif is. You should not briefly explain what this long-existing and worldwide tradition is and then shit all over it with your "science". Second Quantization said that the purpose is to educate the readers, and I agree, but a simple mention of it being pseudoscience is already fair enough; you don't have to go overboard. As I said before: "I'm an atheist. I could go to the lead section of the God article, say in the first sentence that God doesn't exist or is very likely to not exist and cite a ton of books by atheists. That wouldn't be a nice thing to do, would it?". And I still agree with this. Both the god article and this one should simply explain the belief. That's it. But ok, I'm done debating with you. You're all way to stubborn. I just suggest you keep the word "pseudoscience" out of the first sentence to avoid further controversies and debates in future. This discussion happened way too many times. Also, you should keep the chronological order of events. The scientific studies came last and are a last definition. Cheers. Outedexits (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Way too stubborn. Right enough, I could've been a cat. Cheers! François Robere (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. You could change the lead in God to this: In monotheism and henotheism, God is a fictional being conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. Subtle enough, doesn't it? François Robere (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Outsider opinion: Intro is fine. Explains what it is, where/who practiced, why it doesn't work today. Overall good quick summary. Third paragraph reads fine, and it's not cutting or sarcastic. It brings science only because astrology was a pre-science way of explaining the world. Go look up the page for alchemy. Same deal. Since astrology has all the practical relevance of fortune cookies, that is good to know in the intro. 68.229.212.186 (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead
I think that "has been shown to have no validity or explanatory power for describing the universe or predicting human events" was slightly better than "has been shown to have no predictive power". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but then some of this phrasing is mine. The breakdown allows for rejecting both the theory (description) and its practical use (prediction); the short elaboration in the second part is important, as "predictive power" has two meanings in this case: scientific or experimental (which is human-agnostic) and human (which is the reason astrology exists). It's not a perfect sentence, but then - Wiki. in general was designed by committee. François Robere (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edit here badly damages the lead of this article and should be reverted. Where is the evidence that it has been discussed and agreed upon? In answer to your question about what is wrong with your version, I think that it is poorly written among other things ("Astrology is the general name for several systems of divination that are based on the premise of a close relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world" is bad writing). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As recently as last month (you can see on this page), as well as multiple times in the last year.
 * My edit "does" the following:
 * Reorders the information into distinct paragraphs with distinct subjects
 * Removes redundant information, including names, dates and historical details that are not essential to the subjects represented in the lead
 * Redefines the subject correctly ("astrology" being not a single system but an overall term)
 * De-emphasized Hellenistic, or Western, astrology - the lead was clearly written from a Eurocentric perspective, which is unjustified in the case of a global anthropological phenomenon like astrology
 * Or, in short: Organization, accuracy and conciseness. What are your objections? François Robere (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you made a change without discussing it or reaching agreement, and you also restored it immediately after being reverted, which is inappropriate. If the lead had to be discussed multiple times, then clearly that indicates that agreement was not reached, contrary to your claims. Your edits are extremely harmful and need to be reverted. There was nothing wrong with the structure of the previous lead or the way astrology was defined. The previous lead defined astrology as follows: "Astrology comprises several systems of divination based on the premise that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world". In other words, it was already clear that "astrology" is not a single system. Your wording ("Astrology is the general name for several systems of divination that are based on the premise of a close relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world") is extremely poor, as already noted. I flatly disagree that the information you removed was not necessary to the lead. I will be reverting your destructive changes. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I submit that it is much more "inappropriate" to revert an obviously meticulous edit just because you don't like it, with no explanation whatsoever as to why it is disadvantageous.
 * Multiple discussions in which concerns about the length and the quality of the lead were raised.
 * Changes don't have to be discussed before being made (See WP:BOLD).
 * Can you explain the structure of the previous lead?
 * See "Comprises" is used to denote parts of a whole, and as different astrological systems evolved independently and remain unrelated to one another in anything but the most general themes (eg. Mayan and Western astrology) one cannot say they constitute a whole. This, then, is a basic semantic error.
 * Can you explain the relevance of "chaldean wisdom", the Zhou dynasty and Alexander's conquests to the subject matter? The question a good editor must answer with regards to the lead is "what is the least I can have here that will answer the essential questions regarding the subject?". I submit that "who conquered what and when" is not essential to this subject, and that one can suffice with mentioning that Western astrology originated in Babylon and spread from there to the rest of the Middle East and Europe. François Robere (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see you cannot respond to the points I raised. Your version of the lead is badly written. Wikipedia should avoid bad writing. Your version begins, "Astrology is the general name for several systems of divination that are based on the premise of a close relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world", which is awful. Announce that something is the "general name" for several other things and you are, in effect, denying that it is a real, identifiable phenomenon and the article is reduced to being about an otherwise disconnected series of subjects that have nothing in common but the word "astrology". Please let us avoid such nonsense. I find your point about "comprises" to be unimportant, but I realize that other users may disagree. You should seek agremeent from other users before trying to change "comprises", but if a better word can be found and agreed upon, then by all means make the change. Of course you are wrong to try to completely rewrite the lead if it is really only one word you don't like. You object to the mention of "Chaldean wisdom", but as "Chaldean wisdom" is mentioned several times in the main body of the article, why should it not also be mentioned in the lead? If you were really serious about objecting to "Chaldean wisdom", then you would remove it from the rest of the article too, but you have done no such thing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * François has done a good job in revising the text of the lead. I've made some modifications to emphasize that astrology is recognized to be pseudoscience. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, he has not. Neither have you done a good job in responding to me, as you have simply ignored every point I have made. François Robere removed a large amount of useful information from the lead without any real justification. I will not necessarily be reverting all of his changes, but I will be restoring much of that information, absent any convincing explanation of why I should not. You and he should also review WP:NOTDICTIONARY. As I noted here, "Astrology is the general name for..." effectively implies that the article is about the word astrology rather than the subject, which is unacceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur. Why should obviously relevant material be removed from the lead? I see no justification for this at all. As far as Chaldean wisdom goes, see the top of this page, where I objected to the apparent incongruity, and François Robere defended the strange usage ("You should check the sources in Astrology#Greece and Rome.") zzz (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I responded point-to-point to everything you said, and just to make it clearer I even used similar wording (eg. "inappropriate", "discussions", "structure"). In case I wasn't clear enough, we'll use talkquotes from now on.


 * The same applies for witchcraft ("Witchcraft (also called witchery or spellcraft) broadly means the practice of, and belief in..."), behavior ("Behavior or behaviour (see spelling differences) is the range of actions and mannerisms made by individuals...") and medicine ("Medicine encompasses a variety of health care practices evolved to maintain and restore health by the prevention and treatment of illness.") and many other subjects. They are all general terms that denote a variety of phenomena that share a certain number of traits but are otherwise unrelated. You may define it differently (eg. "An astrological system is...") but you certainly cannot suggest in that all astrological systems are part of a whole, and it has nothing to do with whether astrology is a "real" phenomena.


 * No, it does not. And this is not just a "word", it is a concept and a term, and plenty can be said without claiming a relationship between the otherwise disconnected systems that it applies to.


 * You find semantic errors unimportant? Now that is nonsense (again as per your phrasing).


 * I've no problem with that, but as I said - and contrary to your claim earlier - there was no need for that prior to the change.


 * That's a pure straw man, and putting that up after I've already elaborated on my changes is just silly. Copy & paste time:


 * As I said - the lead is to be as succinct as possible. "Chaldean wisdom" is a time-dependent term which is no longer used, is relevant to just one astrological system (Hellenistic astrology), that contributes nothing to the understanding of "what astrology is", and raises more questions than it answers ("'Chaldean'? Huh?"). Hence its place is not in the lead. In other words - is it very far from the essentials of the subject, and is just one of numerous other facts the article is dotted with that are not, and should not be, part of the lead section.


 * I've already noted what the role of the lead is: You seem to disregards that the lead does have a role other than a verbatim summary of the article.
 * As for unanswered points:
 * François Robere (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * François Robere, "The question a good editor must answer with regards to the lead...": see Manual of Style/Lead section for the generally accepted approach. zzz (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And..? Does it in any way contradict what I said? Also: Should I assume you agree with all of my above remarks considering that thus far you raised no specific objections of your own? (by "specific" I mean other than an abstruse "not an improvement") François Robere (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly doesn't agree with what you said...zzz (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because..? (Again you're putting up a claim with no argumentation whatsoever) François Robere (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I already linked the article. Read it, and you will see: it contradicts your stated aim of "what is the least I can have here that will answer the essential questions regarding the subject?". (No argumentation required). zzz (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now this is the point where I say "I already read it and it supports my position perfectly", and you reply by "no it's not, can't you see?", to which I answer "see what? I'm obviously right" etc. etc. Is this the kind of discussion you're trying to lead, or are you actually going to discuss? François Robere (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * François Robere, this is not a debating website. Minutely analyzing my every comment is not going to help you. It is going to frustrate other users and discourage them from discussing anything here. To respond, briefly, to just a few points, however. You wrote that, "the lead is to be as succinct as possible." According to whom? According to you? Where does any guideline actually say that? The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and if the article discusses "Chaldean wisdom", then by all means it should be mentioned in the lead. That you would complain that it is "a time-dependent term which is no longer used" shows that you really have no idea how to edit the lead of this article, and helps explain why you have made such destructive edits. Obviously the term is relevant to the subject's history, and the lead should try to explain that history. If readers want more information about it, then they can read the rest of the article. Its presence in the lead poses no problems at all, and I shall be restoring it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * François Robere, this is not a debating website. Minutely analyzing my every comment is not going to help you. It is going to frustrate other users and discourage them from discussing anything here. To respond, briefly, to just a few points, however. You wrote that, "the lead is to be as succinct as possible." According to whom? According to you? Where does any guideline actually say that? The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and if the article discusses "Chaldean wisdom", then by all means it should be mentioned in the lead. That you would complain that it is "a time-dependent term which is no longer used" shows that you really have no idea how to edit the lead of this article, and helps explain why you have made such destructive edits. Obviously the term is relevant to the subject's history, and the lead should try to explain that history. If readers want more information about it, then they can read the rest of the article. Its presence in the lead poses no problems at all, and I shall be restoring it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, it was you who complained that his comments aren't being rebuked (when the clearly were), so how can you complain when they're being treated with the utmost detail? As for the subject matter:
 * I'd rather if you responded to all points, rather than going round and round the subject.
 * That that the lead should be as succinct as possible is pretty much common knowledge, but just for the sake of the argument:
 * Norton Field Guide to Writing (2nd ed., 2009):
 * "Abstracts are summaries written to give readers the gist of a report or presentation... Abstracts are brief, typically 100–200 words, sometimes even shorter."


 * WP:LEAD:
 * "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs"


 * And a table follows which defines 1-2 paragraphs in lead for every 3000 words, give or take. In other words - succinct.
 * The article does not discuss "Chaldean wisdom", it merely mentions it, and if we are to include in the summary every single fact mentioned in the article, then it wouldn't be a summary. A scale must be introduced, and that scale is importance to the core of the matter (as I previously stated several times). See also WP:LEAD:
 * "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject"


 * Actually my mentioning of it as time-dependent is very much in concert with various style guides, including Wikipedia's: "A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows."


 * Which contrasts with your advocacy of teasing the reader with unfamiliar words:
 * In summary - in your words:
 * A little humility and staying on-topic would've made this discussion much more pleasant. François Robere (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * zzz FreeKnowledgeCreator If you've no further objections, I would assume consensus has been reached. François Robere (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * François, I like the lead section that you've developed. It is succinct and accurate. As for recent squabbles about the first defining sentence, I think the thing to do is draw upon reliable sources. After getting several together that define astrology, develop a lead defining sentence that represents those sources, use that in as the first sentence, AND cite those sources. That should, I hope, satisfy the resistance you've received. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Isambard, thanks for your comment. You can see in the section below that OED, Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com more or less agree with my definition. You're right that I should cite them in the article itself - I'll do that. Thanks again. François Robere (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Isambard What do you think about the current definition? I tried not to quote either source verbatim, but both have very concise definitions and it's hard to avoid in parts. François Robere (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * François, I had a look at the cited sources (two dictionaries), and I would say that you have developed a good defining sentence for this article on astrology. One question: Is the Oxford Dictionary that is linked as [1] the *same* as the Oxford English Dictionary? Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. You're of course correct. I wondered about it myself, and for whatever reasons thought it's an abbreviated version of the classic, but it's actually a dictionary of contemporary use. I've corrected the citation. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. You're of course correct. I wondered about it myself, and for whatever reasons thought it's an abbreviated version of the classic, but it's actually a dictionary of contemporary use. I've corrected the citation. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It is presumptuous to tell me how I should or should not respond to your comments "(I'd rather if you responded to all points, rather than going round and round the subject"). I will respond to anything you say that I consider worthy of a response. "Chaldean wisdom" is one of the significant things mentioned in the article, and owing to its significance it should also be mentioned in the lead. It was wrong of you to remove that and other facts. You tried to argue that it should be removed because the term is not currently used ("time-dependent term which is no longer used") then irrelevantly quoted several style guides as though they supported you on this, which clearly they do not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Aren't they? I think they does. By the way - Alexander's conquest is as relevant, and so is the Arabian conquest of Egypt, and so is Tycho Brahe. I'm almost insulted that you won't fight for them. François Robere (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Definition
I've changed the definition at the beginning of the article to something more specific, while removing the use of plurals in the definition of 'astrology'. Here there is a problem: as the term refers to multiple systems rather than a single definite one I would've preferred "an astrological system is...", but that would be problematic diverge from the title and common usage; another option is be "an astrology is...", but "astrology" is an uncountable noun and that would be problematic stylistically. I chose, then, to define it in the singular ("astrology is...") despite subsequent usage that implies multiple "astrologies". It's slightly odd, but for the time being it would do. François Robere (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems there's some resistance to this "new" definition, so I'll explain the thought behind it (in addition to the above):
 * "Based on the premise" - my own definition - while correct, requires deduction from "divination" and "premise" to understand that astrology tries to predict events etc. through observation of astronomical phenomena. Using "glean" is clearer.
 * The word "events" was used in a broad sense, as astrology also attempts to elucidate states (eg. personality types) and not only events. In a previous version of the "science" paragraph of the lead I mentioned both intents. However, for the definition I suspect it wasn't clear enough, so I changed it to "information about...".
 * "Astronomical phenomena" was inaccurate - a relic from an older definition. As far as I know they don't actually observe any (or many) astronomical phenomena other than positions and relative positions, so that suffices.
 * cf. OED, Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com François Robere (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a waste of time to discuss this. You made several bad suggestions, then showed that you actually realize that they are bad suggestions. Why not simply leave the wording that was there before your most recent round of reverted edits? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it was bad. Now, do you have any concrete objections or not? François Robere (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I object to your total pattern of behavior at this article, which it would be excessively polite to call high-handed. You have been disruptive in the extreme. For example, you have just recently changed the definition of "astrology" again, clearly without any proper discussion or consensus first. The lead should be reverted to way it was before your edits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you will look just several lines above, you will see that I changed it at the advice of another editor and subject to references to both OED and Merriam-Webster - the same ones to which you replied with "it would be a waste of time to discuss this". François Robere (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The dictionaries are in one sense correct - astrology used once to make predictions about terrestrial events - but in the past few centuries this branch, "Mundane astrology", has hardly ever been practised, and indeed there are hardly any reliable sources on its practice (the article on the topic was indeed deleted and redirected here). So to introduce the subject with a bold statement that gives equal weight to terrestrial/mundane events is at best unfortunate, and gives an object lesson in the weakness of relying on dictionary definitions rather than more scholarly sources. In addition, mundane is just one of several minor branches that could be mentioned, such as judicial astrology. Rather than introducing dictionary sources in the lead, with definitions that are somewhere between misleading and frankly wrong, it would be preferable to have an introductory sentence based on the article itself, as indeed we did before. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Terrestrial events" can certainly be removed, but I do have my reservations: First - Astrologers still make predictions about "grand" human affairs, eg. war, geopolitical situations and the results of drought; many readers would classify those as "terrestrial events" rather than strictly "human affairs", so mentioning those two levels of prediction is beneficial. Second - as the majority of the article - and indeed, of astrology - is historical in context, having a historically-correct definition is valuable, especially as it does not diverge so much from its contemporary use in the strictest sense. Third - apparently they still make such prediction - see these:
 * Just for reference, here are a few past definitions:
 * (17.11.15) Astrology comprises several systems of divination which are based on the premise that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world.
 * (7.12.15) Astrology is a method of divination that attempts to glean information about the human world from the relative positions of celestial objects. (My definition [one word removed], that I was generally content with, but you can see above that it had its objectors)
 * (current) Astrology is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial objects as a means for divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events. François Robere (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, well done finding some kind of evidence that mundane astrology is, after all, not quite dead. We ought perhaps to create an small article on it. Chiswick Chap (talk)
 * Thank you. For the time being I'm satisfied with it being a part of a larger article, not unlike what Elvis sightings should be. François Robere (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to follow Wikipedia's ARB regarding to pseudoscience. It was reverted by the user User:Signedzzz and then by User:FreeKnowledgeCreator. I should have checked the Talk page before, I know that now. That being said, it is wrong to say "Astrology is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial objects as a means for divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events." without at least mentioning there that is a pseudoscience. I've read most of this mess of a Talk page and besides User:Signedzzz's beligerance, I haven't been able to find out why the right thing is to leave that phrase as it is. If I were to know about astrology for the first time in my life, and I read that line, I'd believe that Astrology can really divine information "information about human affairs and terrestrial events.". And I'm sorry if you don't like it User:Signedzzz, but any claim about the physical world is a scientific claim. Astrology is a pseudosience, it's just what it is, let us name it that way correctly. Nmaxcom (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey there, the definition is not in question, and as you can see the lead mentions it in the third paragraph. The question, then, is whether it should be mentioned earlier - in the first sentence, as you suggest. You have two arguments against and one for: the first is that it is a "second order" or "second tier" fact (ie. "astrology is..." would be first tier, and "that that astrology is is..." would be second tier), and hence no relevant enough for the opening sentence; the second is that "pseudoscientific" is contained in "divination" an is thus redundant and stylistically-undesirable. "For" would be that regardless of any other reason it is an important enough fact about the subject to be mentioned in the very first sentence, and that it is not immediately obvious from the use of the term "divination" (at least to a lay reader). Myself I've no preference either way, as long as the discussion does not repeat itself. François Robere (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My preference against the current version is that it describes astrology with "study of" without qualification. That's a phrase usually used to describe fields of academia and especially science, so it can add undue connotations of legitimacy. I'd want to use something that's more clearly value-neutral, like "use" or "practice," or one of the previous definitions. Sunrise (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting point of view. While I agree that it's often seen as related to academia, it is by itself neutral and reflects the nature of astrology correctly; it is also accurate as per the cited sources. As for "use..." and "practice..." - that'll require elaborating on the "what", which in this case is "the study of...". François Robere (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Number of people mentioned
The article names about two dozen individuals of historical significance in the first half alone. Can we agree that not all of them are relevant to the lead? It seems to me that naming four artists in whose work the subject is mentioned is more than enough. François Robere (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * François Robere, the comment you just made in an edit summary here, ("You've been out of this discussion for a while, so how is it "multiple editors"?") is grossly disingenuous. I do not have to respond to your every comment on the talk page in order for you to know that I disagree with you. As I said, it is inappropriate to continue trying to press through your preferred version of the lead when multiple editors have reverted you - which is indisputable evidence that they disagree with you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but you should be able to comment on-topic on the main points, which I have elaborated on most clearly. You have for the most part ignored my explanations, then claimed I did not consider your objections, eventually resorting to personal remarks which more than backfired on you. If you could keep to the subject matter it would be much more productive. François Robere (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I join here with deep reluctance, but it seems that I need to mention that I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator on this point. It may be worth saying that I wrote much of the historical part of the article and brought it to GA status, though I am not one to stand on ceremony. I noticed this week that an IP editor had some months ago added two Spanish playwrights to the lead without explanation or citation in the text. One of them was removed quickly, the other not. Both of them in fact wrote works based on astrology, as described in reliable secondary sources, so I have added a brief account of these facts in the literature section, and restored the IP's correct (but at that time unjustified) addition to the lead. The IP may well have been motivated to add some international balance to the lead, a goal I can warmly share given the tendency here on English Wikipedia to find English sources more readily. I therefore believe that mentioning the names of both Spanish authors is more than justified. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reserve your reluctance. The article is excellent and there's no doubt those names, and plenty of others, should be mentioned in their respective sections. The question here is not about that, but about what should be mentioned in the lead. You can see in the discussion above that FreeKnowledgeCreator refused any change to the lead, including the removal of less significant facts or repetitive name-dropping. That's the context of this sub-section of the discussion, and if you agree that having one representative of each country / time period / artistic style mentioned in that context in the lead is more than enough, then we are in concert.
 * Oh, and one more note Re: English Wikipedia: Look up "Eurocentric" on this talk page - you'll see it mentioned in my reasoning for redoing the lead. François Robere (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to limit ourselves to one person per country, period, or style; it's purely a function of the relative prominence of people and countries in a given subject area. If there were more decently-documented people to mention outside Europe, we'd cheerfully include them. Until then, cutting a name or two is not an improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not significant enough to argue about. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already removed Marlow from the lead and no one noticed... I hate how we're playing favorites with de la Barca. François Robere (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Astrology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://archive.is/Sfvw to http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/astrology.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Scientific analysis and criticism
In this section (Scientific analysis and criticism), there is a statement: "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."

This is the core argument in that section, and yet it is easily debunked: Electromagnetic force is the key mechanism by which celestial bodies influence matter on Earth. Biological cycles, such as human menstruation, are obviously influenced by the moon. The question then becomes what other celestial influences are there impacting life on Earth? This question must be seriously addressed before anyone can criticize astrology. I will remove the statement quoted above from the article sometime in the near future if nobody has an explanation. Rtdrury (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Your proposed course of action would be unwise. The arguments you propose are what Wikipedia calls "original research"; that is, your own deductions rather than statements from an authoritative source. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you proposing a mechanism as per the section? Well then - go and write a book or an article about it, get it published in a reputable journal, and then it could be included here. Otherwise Boris's assertion holds. François Robere (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I was ready to jump on this and bring up OR too, but I think the original post does point out that there is an issue with the wording, not the sentiment, of the statement. Even given that it's buried deeply in the context of astrology, the sentence taken by itself is overly broad. Of course there are natural, non-mystical forces (gravity, etc) exerted by at least some celestial bodies (moon) that can demonstrably impact people. I think we're fine as is, because it is deep in the context such that we get the meaning, but it could probably benefit from a clarification that we're referring to the positions and motions, as understood by astrology, not in a general sense. It is not original research to point out that the way in which the sentiment is currently written states more than it was intended to. The intent was to state that the mystical, etc, forces attributed to the movements/positions of the bodies by astrology has no scientific basis, not that no impact by celestial bodies is possible.12.11.127.253 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've edited the sentence for accuracy. I think further elaboration would over-complicate the sentence, and is not needed in context. As for the OP's intent, it seems he wanted to open a whole new discussion about mechanisms, which would indeed constitute "original research". François Robere (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Arabian Astrology Table
Yesterday, an IP added a table on Arabian Astrology without giving any sources and apparently based on OR. Unless someone objects, I will remove this within a few days. AstroLynx (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you comment now. I have already removed it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And, now, an IP has restored the table. I will avoid a war on this. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The newly added section on Arabian Astrology appears to be largely original research and mentions no reliable sources. Needless to say, there is very little connection with traditional Islamic astrology for which there are numerous reliable sources. AstroLynx (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it actually links to asteroids (Ceres, Vesta, etc.), which were only relatively recently discovered (1801, 1807, etc.), long after the actual emergence of astrology. The table obviously took a lot of work to make. It is amazing what some people will do, but it needs to be removed. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Pseudoscientific divination"
Is this really needed? No system of divination was ever scientific.

True, but we don't want to misinform people and have them think this is real.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As a late note to this question: "Divination" and "pseudoscience" aren't synonymous - a system can be one without the other; astrology is both. François Robere (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"With the onset of the scientific revolution astrology was called into question"
This statement is misleading. It implies that the calling into question of astrology coincides with the onset of the scientific revolution (which our article suggests begins around 1543). Not only is this false: the article itself has a section titled "Medieval objections". I suspect that the intention is to state that only with the scientific revolution in astronomy were scientific as opposed to theological or philosophical objections raised against astrology. (Even that may not be strictly true: Augustine's primitve twin study seems scientific!) My main concern is that it gives the wrong impression about the relative popularity of astrology. In fact, astrology, at least of the prognostic or fatalistic variety, was highly suspect in intellectual circles in the Middle Ages. It rose in popularity simultaneously with the scientific revolution, only to fall out of fashion (as a pseuoscience) during the Enlightenment. Srnec (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you qualify the statement rather than remove it altogether. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding "more widely" should be sufficient adjustment. Even though some of the smartest medieval (and even classical) minds doubted astrology, some form of it was still widely accepted. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But is that ("more widely") true? My understanding is that astrology increased in popularity and acceptance among intellectuals in tandem with the scientific revolution, at least at first. The Renaissance and the "rediscovery" of classical texts assured this. It declined later, in the seventeenth century. John Calvin wrote against astrology, as did Pico della Mirandola. I am not aware that Copernicus ever did. Kepler, Brahe and Galileo were practitioners of it. Srnec (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, right, it did become more popular during the Renaissance, but it fell out of favor during the Age of Enlightenment. "Scientific revolution" tends to cover a period from the mid-Renaissance to the Age of Enlightenment.  Perhaps specify the Age of Enlightenment instead, or say "during the scientific revolution" instead of "with the onset"...?  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But that still implies that the calling into question is a modern development. I am not sure if the purpose of the clause in question is mainly to time the decline of astrology or to time the beginning of the scientific testing of astrology. In either case, I think the present wording misleads. What about reducing the clause to "Since the scientific revolution, astrology [has been challenged...]"? The link can remain, and the connection with the scientific revolution, while more vague, is also more accurate. Srnec (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What was coming to my mind when I first started reading your post was "Astrology was more widely called into question during the Age of Enlightenment" but your suggestion also works. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This wording was originally mine. I've edited as per your critique to clarify. Ping me if it needs further work. François Robere (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I am still of the opinion that the clause is useless and can be removed. Beginning the paragraph "Astrology has been challenged..." is fine. Srnec (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea was to give the lead the overall structure of a short history (I say "overall", as the first paragraph contains other material as well), and as the definitive strikes to Astrology's credibility came from modern science it seemed to fit rather well. I'll see tomorrow if we can cleanly drop it (without the paragraph looking out of place), or restructure or something. François Robere (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astrology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103152835/http://www.myhora.com/%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%82%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A8%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%A3%E0%B9%8C/%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%87%E0%B9%82%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A8%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%A3%E0%B9%8C-004.aspx to http://www.myhora.com/%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%82%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A8%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%A3%E0%B9%8C/%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%87%E0%B9%82%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A8%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%A3%E0%B9%8C-004.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

repetition in astrology article
This article starts with an introduction, however in the etymology and history of astrology it simply repeats the same information, word for word. An edit is required to fix this problem, one that I do not have the knowledge to undertake.60.225.198.62 (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Amanda Pope
 * You can just alter the wording. The repetition is not considered superfluous. The lead of the article ought to summarize the contents. If it is the case that contents from the body have been repeated verbatim, it’s reasonable to reword the text in the lead section, making it more brief and succinct if possible. Edaham (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Astrology is not what this article talks about.
Astrology is the study of the way that cycles in nature work. It uses the planets as one of the main indicators of cycles in nature. Astrological forecasting is very similar to weather forecasting. You base your prediction by studying how similar conditions affected the future in the past. This article was written by someone who really did not know what he/she was talking about.
 * Your personal view is not suitable for inclusion. If it’s the view of a notable person or persons and there’s a source you have in mind you can suggest an edit. Don’t make personal attacks on the authors of the article. It’s offensive. Edaham (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

With the onset of the scientific revolution astrology was called into question
In fact it was the Catholic Church that banned astrology and only later did the scientific institutions ban it. In fact Johannes Kepler by 1620 had already proven most of the basis for the science of astrology, but everyone went with the Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.24.18 (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ this doesn’t appear to be an actionable edit request. Try providing a source. Edaham (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

New Section
I have no doubt that the meanings of the zodiac and other signs to people who subscribe to astrology are explained somewhere else, but shouldn't they at least get a brief summary here? I am putting this in the talk page because it's a big change and I'm new, so I make a lot of mistakes. Wyrm127 (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If something about that were to be added, we'd need an WP:RS compliant source to use for the information. You wouldn't be able to use a random in-universe book on the subject, it would need to be a proper scholarly work with broad acceptance. I'm not sure whether such a source exists or not - do you have any suggestions?Girth Summit (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is already covered over at Western astrology.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  07:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's covered there it might be worth a summarizing sentence here with a wikilink. Suffice to say that only the fact that meanings are ascribed to different astrological signs need be noted. What the specifics are varies widely depending on which proponent you are talking to and is of no encyclopedic interest unless sourced academically. Edaham (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for external link - Renaissance Astrology
Can I add the following to the External Links section?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007nmym

It links to a 2007 podcast discussion from the BBC Radio 4 program In Our Time. The program's host moderates a discussion between three British academics on the role of astrology in the worldview of the European Renaissance. The discussion is academically credible, draws on evidence of the time, and adopts an objective point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iacobus (talk • contribs) 03:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Zodiac lucky numbers
How many times should one try this numbers? Teboho da voice (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One less than zero. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Source 13 is a dead link.
Source number 13 looks to be a dead link to a pdf that doesn't exist any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.41.61 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I found one pdf link but which may be a copyright violation, so I removed the link and added the doi reference which should lead to it via a university. Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Factual accuracy
Akrasia25, in regard to this edit, it seems I have to point out again that the wording it introduces ("Astrology' is a pseudoscience, the goal of which is to find a means of divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects") is not factually accurate. No, astrology does not have as its "goal" finding "a means of divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects" because astrologers already believe they possess such a means. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, the particular wording is not at issue, so the claim is somewhat besides the point. You could easily reword it to "goal of which is to divine". --Brett (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because that is not the goal. As FKC says, Astrologists think that they have already found this method: they call it "Astrology". Britmax (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The goal of physics is to understand the physical world. The fact that we understand some of it already or that we have a method for doing so does not alter that. Astrologers don't think they have already divined everything that will ever happen in the future. The statement is true as given.
 * Also, as I observed above, the goalposts keep shifting. In your revert, you said it's not about the meaning, just that you can't have everything in the first sentence. Now it's about the meaning. If that's really the case, then be cooperative and suggest some wordings that you might accept rather than forcing me to play guessing games trying to figure out what excuse you're going to make up next.--Brett (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you are concatenating two arguments here, which is why you think the goalposts are moving. "Astrologers are not looking for this, because in Astrology they think they have found it" is a different argument from "Astrology should/should not be called a pseudoscience in the first sentence". Britmax (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Threat of vandalism as a reason to not put PS near the top of the lede
Trying to separate the various arguments. It seems like we will not get there unless we separate the arguments.

An editor stated that we should not mention PS in the top of the lede because this would lead to more vandalism. I suggest that vandalism is always possible.

A controversial topic is always prone to vandalism. That's why pages are protected... Now, the argument "we need to start by explaining its specific features, not a feature it shares in common with many other things" is totally absurd... The fact that Astrology is PS is too important to be be buried down. On smartphones, only the first paragraph appears before the index, so the PS info should be there. (unsigned comment)


 * A page on my watch list is Harp seal. For some reason, this odd topic is vandalized and it gets reverted the same minute.--Akrasia25 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The threat of vandalism argument is interesting, but without data to support it, and given that the page is already protected, I don't think it holds any weight.--Brett (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "A controversial topic is always prone to vandalism." Ridiculous. I regularly remove/revert vandalism from articles on films, novels, folklore topics, and archaeology-related topics, which are not remotely controversial. They still attract their share of vandals. Why should that matter on how we cover topics? Since when do we cater to the views of vandals and trolls? Dimadick (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. What is next on this topic? How do we get to resolution? --Akrasia25 (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Leave it alone. There is no need to pander to the short attention spans of some people who think that it's not important if it isn't crammed into the first ten words of an article, with no room for narrative flow or any idea of why the subject became notable in the first place. Britmax (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Effectiveness
I doubt there is much literature or even consensus, so perhaps bringing this point up is perhaps a fool's errand, but at least one Scientist explains astrology's effectiveness as due to placebo. See: Dr. Christopher S. Baird, West Texas A&M University "How does astrology work?"> I don't know this physicist personally, but his reasoning has merit. Volpane (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Dr. Baird is wrong IMHO. Any perceived accuracy in astrology is due to the well understood Barnum effect which Baird failed to mention, yet is critical to understanding why horoscopes seem accurate. Unfortunately, scientists are not generally trained in, or skilled at, being skeptics. If you are interested in learning more about this topic, see this book. RobP (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So, how is placebo not a valid argument when dealing with psychological counseling? I don't understand your argument; a skeptic viewpoint doesn't replace scientific training. You do understand what a placebo is...?Volpane (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A placebo is an inert substance or treatment which is not designed to have a therapeutic value. Astrology is not an inert substance.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  06:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Astrology is not an inert substance, but you have only covered part of your definition. As a group of cultural ideas and a method for psychological counseling it can and is prescribed as a treatment. Can it or is it not?Volpane (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Astrology also isn't a method of psychological counselling or treatment. It is a system for predicting events. If people believe it is effective, the phenomena at play are likely the Barnum effect and Confirmation bias.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  22:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The definition on Barnum effect suggests it is only a partial explanation for astrology, et al. So perhaps this is not such an open-and-shut question. In my understanding of the subject, new research translating writings from the Hellenistic astrology traditions from the 2nd century BCE suggest methods were developed to be very specific in interpreting astrological information. Now, I realize this does not cover modern sun sign astrology, which I concede is very generalized, nor even other branches like mundane astrology, which deals with nations, are not intended to cover individuals. So my argument is Forer effect applies to applications of astrology that are general but becomes problematic as an argument for natal astrology, which is the part that is actually tailored to an individual, so it would be very rare that two data sets and their interpretations will be exactly identical. In other words, Forer effect can apply, but the chance of it applying seems slim if the interpretation is well developed. Accuracy of interpretation, of course is subjective, which I see is really what your objections are by applying Forer effect because interpretation is always subjective, even for medical doctors who are expected to have enough training to stay out of litigation when they prescribe treatment. But this point leads to my conclusion that placebo within a counseling experience, whether psychological or culturally based, does in my mind account for interest in astrology and its continued popularity, despite scientific consensus that astrology has no, as of yet, discovered material mechanism. The definition of Placebo as a treatment with no mechanism does allow it to be applied to the effectiveness of astrology, despite not being accepted as having therapeutic value.Volpane (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we're all wandering into general discussion here. Could we all please remember that this is not a forum.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  22:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing link to the Japanese article on the side bar
I don't know how to it myself but I'd like to learn how to link up two pages. Meanwhile, here's the link the the missing Japanese page that links back to this one. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%A0%E6%98%9F%E8%A1%93 Thanks! FileComplaintHere (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)