Talk:Astrology/Archive 34

Astrology versus astronomy
A proposal above is:

astrology', the field of study claiming to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by observing the movements and relative positions of celestial objects, is a paradigmatic example of pseudoscience. However, astrology has been practiced since at least the 2nd millennium BCE, having its roots in ...

The problem with this proposal is two-fold:

1) I don't think we can call it a "field of study". It is a practice, belief, and even a method to create complicated narratives, but it is not universally accepted as a "field of study" in a proper fashion. Most WP:MAINSTREAM universities lack departments of astrology or astrologers studying the subject and thus wording that even implies that there are people seriously treating astrology as a "field of study" runs afoul of WP:ASTONISH, in my opinion.

2) "claiming to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by observing the movements and relative positions of celestial objects" is part of astrology, but there are practices (even entire fields of study proper) which claim to do the same which are not astrology. A naval observatory predicting the tides by observing the lunar ephemerides is "discerning information about human affairs and terrestrial events by observing the movements and relative positions of celestial objects". Such a person is not doing astrology. Astrology is distinguished today by being a prediction that is explicitly pseudoscientific or, if you prefer, a prediction that is not accepted as being rational, causal, relational, or mechanistically plausible by the natural sciences. Was it always considered such? Absolutely not. But that it is properly considered this way today, I argue, is an important point to get across right away. It is probably best to do this in a way that doesn't wave the pseudoscientific flag as the definitional argument to boot (which is what the current lede does). That's just not very useful as a definition since most people don't have models of pseudoscience that work very well and clicking on pseudoscience is not a particularly enlightening rabbit hole. Instead, we should be clear about what the particular claims of astrology are and how they are not astronomical claims. Doing that will solve a lot of problems. You can then even talk about history of astronomy matters and how the word has changed meaning over the centuries.

jps (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with the bulk of your comment here. I would like to point out that the particular claims of astrology are impossible to delimit. Astrology is not any single discipline, but a whole mess of many different discourses that vary across time and culture. My original proposal for the first half of the lede sentence was Astrology is any of various ceremonial, religious, and divinatory practices. Perhaps a more encompassing lede, integrating some of User:Apaugasma's idea, would read something like: Astrology is any of various ceremonial, religious, divinatory, or pseudoscientific practices which ascribe celestial influences on terrestrial events possibly continuing outside the causality of contemporary astronomy or something to that tune. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 12:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the particular claims of astrology are impossible to delimit today. There doesn't seem to be much controversy over what claims are properly astrological and which ones are astronomical. I think your identification of these claims being part of ceremonial, religious, and divinatory practices is an improvement, but there are still certain astronomical claims that fall into those categories which are not astrological. For example, careful calendar making according to the lunar cycle is a "religious practice" but it is not astrological. This means that the adjective "various" is holding a lot of power in the sentence and is therefore not allowing us to be precise. The idea you have to add "pseudoscientific" to the list tacitly implies that pseudoscience is separate from these other points, but I continue to maintain that it is the pseudoscience-ness of the claims which keep them in the astrology camp today. "Outside the [...] of [...] astronomy." (I omit two words there that are problematic as causality is only one problem with astrology and the idea that it is only "contemporary" astronomy which makes the distinction could imply that astronomers in the eighteenth century, for example, did not make the distinction similarly which is, in my estimation, not correct) may be a way of wrapping in the "astronomy" distinction which I think is a much better way of demarcating, perhaps. jps (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Astrology isn't a precise discipline, is my point. Indian astrology, Mesoamerican astrology, Hellenistic astrology, Babylonian astrology, and contemporary astrology are all very different and only sometimes related. In Mesoamerica, in particular, and it is astrological. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 12:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that "field of study" is a bad description of what astrology is now. I suspect it is also a poor description of what astrology was, historically. The modern connotations of the phrase "field of study" aren't a good fit for the whole range of ancient practices. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Who says that the Mayan calendar is "astrological"? Certainly it can be used for astrological purposes, but its precision is something I teach in my classes as a properly astronomical work. Now, surely, things can be both astronomical and astrological at the same time, but if we're going to claim that Mesoamerican calendar making is astrological, then current calendar making (up to and including the use of leap seconds) is astrological. I hardly think that is the way anyone uses the term. See below, however, for my idea that what we are really talking about when we identify astrological claims is divination and nothing else. jps (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As a side remark, perhaps it's worth remembering that the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1768) states:
 * "ASTROLOGY, a conjectural science, which teaches to judge of the effects and influences of the stars, and to foretel future events by the situation and different aspects of the heavenly bodies. This science has long ago become a just subject of contempt and ridicule."
 * The words "polemical" and "discredited" are used in modern commentaries. Mathsci (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As for the Maya calendar -- "Mayan" calendar is a misnomer, Mayan should only be used when referring to the languages -- it is certainly 'astrological' in the sense that it is divinatory, ceremonial, and religious. Divorcing it from these aspects is to completely mischaracterize Maya timekeeping: it is intimately tied to Maya spiritual practices. There is no Maya astronomy that is not also ritual, spiritual, and deeply embedded in Maya religion -- that is, astrology. Mesoamerican astrology, though it encompasses Maya practices, also encompasses the Aztec (Mexica, or Nahua) system (and others) which, for example, provide horoscopes for every day. Today is 13-Ocelotl (jaguar) in the week of Ehecatl (wind) in the Nahua calendar: the lord Tlazolteotl rules over this day, and it is good for doing battle. It is for these reasons that both of these systems are preserved today alongside the Western Gregorian calendar. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 13:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Divorcing it from these aspects is to completely mischaracterize Maya timekeeping: it is intimately tied to Maya spiritual practices. There is no Maya astronomy that is not also ritual, spiritual, and deeply embedded in Maya religion -- that is, astrology. Incorrect. First of all, no one is "divorcing" anything. But secondly, to contend that there is "no Maya astronomy that is not..." is arguing a very strong claim of nonexistence that I think is probably completely wrong. In fact, let me say that having worked with astronomers who are indigenous from that part of the world, I think they would not be okay with such a sweeping categorical declaration and might contend that the claim you are making is actually false. Further, if I strain magnanimity as far as I can, it seems to me that your argument is one that could, in principle, be made about literally all of astronomy. If I am to take the most generous interpretation of your meaning, as I said above, we would end up calling "leap seconds" astrology. This is completely without precedence, as far as I know, but I don't see any way around this kind of game if we are to adopt your argument. jps (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But secondly, to contend that there is "no Maya astronomy that is not..." is arguing a very strong claim of nonexistence that I think is probably completely wrong For the pre-contact Maya, as much as for Hellenistic magicians, there was no division between astrology and astronomy. A study of Maya astronomy must necessarily include the deep religious, cultural, and indeed divinatory aspects of their calendarical system. That is what I mean by there is no Maya astronomy that is not also ritual, spiritual, and deeply embedded in Maya religion: and a ritual, spiritual, and religious system based on celestial bodies is clearly astrological. The Tzolkʼin has explicit divinatory properties, for example -- it's called the Sacred Count for a reason. I'm sure if you, a non-Indigenous person, were to call it astrology without qualifying what you meant you could get some blowback -- because it could be interpreted that you were denigrating it and applying a pejorative. But I am of Indigenous descent, and by chance, also from that part of the world. I also happen to be an anthropologist -- some of my earliest (published) research was on Indigenous astrologies. I do not use the term pejoratively, and I take astrology seriously as a cultural practice -- and also, simultaneously, a part of my own heritage. The point about leap seconds is a misinterpretation of my argument: every aspect of the Mesoamerican calendar is dripping with spiritual meaning. Even the name of each day is, in essence, a prediction of its numinous properties and subtle influences on terrestrial matters. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 15:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can say with any strong authority what constituted "astrology" or "astronomy" when it comes to pre-contact Maya. These terms, after all, are not terms used by the pre-contact Maya. They are imposed upon them by outside researchers. To the extent that these things have been studied, there are absolutely aspects which are wholly astronomical in their accounting. Maya had a keen understanding of the cycle of the planet Venus, for example, which is rather pedantically and, without comment, present in the alignment of El Caracol. To say that this is necessarily astrological is to assume a kind of meaning on the accounting which is just not present in the data. You may think this alignment is dripping with spirituality and it may inform your praxis, but this is by no means the only interpretation. To go one step further and declare that the only means to describe such accounting is by using the term "astrology", I would argue, is to be guilty of the very same post hoc argumentation you seem to be accusing others of using. I see no solid argument here that it is somehow a misapprehension to study calendars without attaching anything spiritual to the study. We are not equipped to say what is the right or the wrong way to approach such subjects, we can only go by how such studies have proceeded and archaeoastronomy as a discipline seems to exist without requiring that someone say all this is necessarily "astrology". So to approach these ideas as necessarily "spiritual" or "astrological" is to shoehorn them into Western categories that are just as, if not moreso, problematic than shoehorning them into a "disenchanted" (scare quotes mine) scientific practice, for example. jps (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maya had a keen understanding of the cycle of the planet Venus, for example, which is rather pedantically and, without comment, present in the alignment of El Caracol. To say that this is necessarily astrological is to assume a kind of meaning on the accounting which is just not present in the data. You may think this alignment is dripping with spirituality and it may inform your praxis, but this is by no means the only interpretation. It is only "wholly astronomical" if you ignore the reasons the Maya are (not just were) interested in Venus in the first place:
 * "[A]strology was the driving force behind ancient astronomy in the New World. The Maya exhibited a compelling need to link celestial occurrences with every facet of human activity. Like ancient Westerners, they viewed the planets as divinities who interacted with their terrestrial realm to create a cosmic unity. The stars were to be worshiped and attended to, for they alone represented the natural forces that so profoundly affected earthly pursuits. The appearance of the gods foretold the rainy season, the most propitious time to plant, and the size of the harvest that would result."
 * It absolutely is present in the data, by the way. First-hand ethnographic accounts of Maya astrological practices from the conquest and early colonial period, rightfully, do not separate the spiritual and technical aspects. Roman y Zamora, Toribio Motolina, and Sahagun all provide accounts of the Venus calendar inside their proper cultural context -- ritual (in particular sacrifice) and divination. As per Aveni, "[M]aya astronomy and astrology are tightly bound." In fact, they were so tightly bound, S. L. Gibbs and Floyd Lounsbury have shown that the Maya "deliberately fixed" certain parts of the Venus calendar:
 * "What had been passed off as chronological slovenliness by earlier investigators now begins to be viewed as purposeful, if somewhat peculiar, design. [...] Still, the goals of the Maya astronomers seem contradictory to us. How could they be concerned about accurate prediction and still get away with grossly distorting the Venus dates for religious purposes?"
 * So, quite literally, the Maya calendar is dripping with spiritual meaning. It's so dripping with meaning that they fudged the numbers in order to fit celestial cycles with religious, mystical, and divinatory ones. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 21:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No one said you had to look at a subject as being "wholly astronomical", but there is still no work you can point to which argues we cannot interpret the orientation of El Caracol with just reference to its orientation. You failed to address that point substantively. It is clear you like the "astrological" lens. But you cannot claim it is the only lens. I'm not interested in the questions of whether variations in the calendar (which is another matter) have spiritual import. They may or may not. Aveni is also not clear on this matter, but it is also irrelevant to the question of whether there is an astronomical lens through which we can consider these matters. What is clear is that claiming that the only lens through which you can look at these matters is an astrological one is presumptuous and vaguely chauvinist -- it's just as culturally imposing as any other lens you were to force everyone to look through. Astrology and spirituality are not value-free characterizations. They are inexact and clumsy molds forged out of Western ideologies that do little to enlighten us as to what the knowledge or empirical facts are about, say, the orbit of Venus or indigenous knowledge. jps (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No one said you had to look at a subject as being "wholly astronomical", but there is still no work you can point to which argues we cannot interpret the orientation of El Caracol with just reference to its orientation. More precisely, what I was arguing against was divorcing the "astronomical" aspects of the Mesoamerican calendar with the "astrological" aspects: the Mesoamerican calendar is as astrological as it is astronomical. You said, originally, that you teach the (precision of the) Maya calendar as astronomical work, specifically, not astrological work: I argue that this is a mischaracterization of Maya time-keeping practices for the reasons above. Yes, you can interpret el Caracol with just reference to its orientation. But that would be ignoring huge tracts of Indigenous knowledge and major parts of the primary sources. It is especially mischaracterized because it is not "precise" but rather attuned to fit with a particular ritual round and cosmovision, as Gibbs and Lounsbury have shown. If astrology is the divination by the celestial bodies, then the Maya calendar is astrological. If astronomy is the measurement of the celestial bodies, then it is astronomical. Since it is both divinatory and makes use of acute measurements of celestial bodies -- it is both astrological and astronomical, as Aveni says, "tightly bound." To return to the original point: the Mesoamerican calendar is astrological. It is also astronomical, certainly, but if the word 'astrology' has any meaning at all, it is astrological. As for archaeoastronomy: see "Astrology as cultural astronomy" in . MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 22:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That you think my teaching, which is something you have never experienced, is a mischaracterization is perhaps one of the more bold and arrogant attacks I've seen on this website. Which tract of Indigenous knowledge precisely are you accusing me of ignoring? Is there some edict that determines what must be discussed when describing the structure at El Caracol? jps (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm only basing this off of what you've said:
 * Who says that the Mayan calendar is "astrological"? Certainly it can be used for astrological purposes, but its precision is something I teach in my classes as a properly astronomical work.
 * If you do indeed hold that the Maya calendar is not astrological, even if it can be used for astrological purposes, and you teach that it is properly astronomical work as opposed to astrological work -- in the sense that astrology is the divination by the stars -- then yes, you are mischaracterizing Maya timekeeping practices by cleansing of its religious, ritual, ceremonial, and indeed divinatory practices which are at the very heart of the discipline. Once again, the precision of Venus is fixed to coincide with a particular ritual round. This isn't a bug, it's a feature. It was done deliberately. So to talk about Venus in any capacity within the Maya calendar means you must also talk about the divinatory and ritual aspects of the calendar. Pre-contact Maya astrologers-astronomers knew what they were doing. The tract of Indigenous knowledge (thank you for capitalizing this time -- really) you are ignoring, I would say, is the ceremonial and divinatory knowledge, without which, one cannot even begin to understand the practice of star-gazing in Mesoamerica, past or present. The Maya priesthood pre-1492 were not secular. They were the Maya priesthood and one of their key responsibilities was divination, sometimes by the stars, sometimes by casting lots, sometimes by bloodletting. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 22:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Calendars exist regardless of their religious, ritual, ceremonial, or divinatory practice. It is not my job to teach those practices. When I teach different calendars, I teach how they relate to the observations of the sky. This includes calendars from all across the world. Of course the orientation of El Caracol is deliberate. It deliberately aligns with Venus. That's what I teach and that you think this is somehow problematic is perhaps the heart of the issue. You use words like "ceremony" and "divination" which are part-and-parcel to the anthropological zeitgeist, but they are not "Indigenous knowledge". They are anthropological frames. They may even be useful, but they are not the only ways to look at things. Your use of the word "secular" for example is rather indicative of a narrow classification that was popular in clumsy colonialist conceits. Who are we to say that the pre-contact Maya were "secular" or "religious"? These categories are not the ones they used! They are the ones the colonialists imposed. jps (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Calendars exist regardless of their religious, ritual, ceremonial, or divinatory practice. They clearly don't, though: for the Maya calendar in particular, it exists in regard to its religious, ritual, ceremonial, and divinatory practice. The former exists because of the latter, not the latter because of the former. If you seperate them, you are mischaracterizing it. Also, you're confused about the Venus point -- there are "errors" in the Maya records about the cycle of Venus. For a long time archaeologists considered these to be just that -- errors, hiding behind an otherwise "accurate" astronomy -- but as it turns out, those "errors" are deliberate. It is, quite literally, not based on observation -- it is not "precise." It is for this reason that I pointed out that it is literally dripping in "spiritual" meaning -- ignoring this is to mischaracterize it. If you take umbrage to this term, then it is dripping with tonalli, with k'a'ay u sak, with ik' . If you do not like "divination", then it is pajooneem. You can't talk about Maya star-gazing without talking about Maya religion, to do so would be to mischaracterize it. If it is not your job to teach those practices, then you cannot precisely talk about Maya star-gazing without mischaracterizing it. Everything else you've argued here is purely semantic. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 23:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. You seem to either be willfully or ignorantly missing the point that calendars are markers of the passage of time and use references to keep track. That's not really a point that anyone disagrees with. It simply is not necessary to delve into devotional practices of the calendar makers to explain them. That's just not how calendars work. I know that Easter controversies inspired the Gregorian calendar reform, in part, but I don't teach about them. My class is not about the rationale for how the calendar was developed. My class is descriptive of what calendars do. As for the rest of your comments, they are likewise blinkered by a weird ideological conceit. I don't know why you seem to be so enamored with the ideas of the "spirituality" promoters, but they don't have the chops to argue that the base points of how movement in the sky works are somehow so spiritual as to be indescribable in any other fashion. Such an argument is one that I've really only ever seen made by religious fanatics. jps (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Even the name of each day is, in essence, a prediction of its numinous properties and subtle influences on terrestrial matters. I think this rather proves my point quite beautifully. The names of days in all calendars have implied "prediction[s] of [their] numinous properties." I don't see how we can say that they are somehow more entwined with one culture than another culture even as we live in a world that does not admit much in the way of empirical evidence that these properties can be measured independent of the cultural beliefs of those who hold them. Again, such a work to ascribe this kind of meaning is something that can happen in any venue thus making the distinction between something that is "astrological" and something that is "astronomical" impossible to make. This is why this doesn't really work for us. We need to be able to distinguish between that which can be measured and verified about the heavens and their connection to terrestrial events and that which cannot. I see no other context for this other than basic science education. That's also what I see reflected in the sources which consider this matter carefully. (And, fairly, anthropological sources of these topics tend to avoid this question entirely or spend almost no time on it other than to mention that the consideration exists out of a concern over genre.) jps (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The names of days in all calendars have implied "prediction[s] of [their] numinous properties" As it to be expected if the origin of astronomy and calendar-making is inseparable with astrology! Which, of course, it is: the earliest astronomical works are astrological and vice-versa. Days of the week, in practically all European languages, retain ancient references to gods and their properties and this is tied innately to the Greco-Roman practice of astrology: the very same practice of astrology that leads to contemporary Western horoscopic astrology. Again, such a work to ascribe this kind of meaning is something that can happen in any venue thus making the distinction between something that is "astrological" and something that is "astronomical" impossible to make. As has been discussed here at great length, for most of history throughout most cultures, it is impossible to delimit what is astrological and what is astronomical. Hence why we're arguing about the lede: calling astrology a pseudoscience as the fourth word in the article mischaracterizes the discipline which has an ancient history and indeed was inseparable from astronomy until the Renaissance. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 21:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we're in agreement on these matters. This is precisely why we need to rely on a demarcation of empirical fact as provided by scientific education. It allows us to determine what is astrology and what is astronomy according to those sources which distinguish between the two. jps (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, when it comes to calendars, "Mayan calendar" seems to have "Maya calendar" beat both in book results: and on the scholarly side: ,. I understand the preference for talking about the people and culture as Maya and the languages as Mayan, but it seems that the literature about calendars may be an exception to that rule according to actual practice. jps (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reasons to ignore "actual practice" within the academic study of Indigenous cultures -- plenty of people still talk about the Anasazi or Eskimo–Aleut languages. I have made 100+ edits here on Wikipedia changing singular mentions of "Yokut" to "Yokuts" -- the former is certainly more common for a singular, even in academic contexts, but it's also wrong and is a sure sign that someone has not done their due diligence in their research, which is sadly common for Californian Native topics. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 15:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * True, there are plenty of places where the terminology in academic literature hasn't caught up (not just on this topic...). The hazard is that, without at least a few sources explicitly pointing out how and why the terminology is wrong, we as Wikipedia editors don't have grounds to lead the charge against the more common usage. Someone else has to point out that the practitioners in the field haven't been doing their due diligence. It's a thorny issue I've run into more than once, and for having to deal with it in your corner of research, you have my definite sympathies. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I just refer you to right great wrongs. Until we have a strong source that explains the use of "Maya calendar" is preferred over "Mayan calendar", I don't think it is helpful to argue this point any further. I would encourage you to go out and create such a source if you would like to effect that change here in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It simply is not necessary to delve into devotional practices of the calendar makers to explain them If you are comfortable mischaracterizing it to your students by divorcing it from its function -- which is to mark the passage of time, yes, in order to act as a ritual and divinatory calendar -- then sure. I have had plenty of teachers and professors who have done just as bad or worse. As previously noted, the devotional practices of the calendar are absolutely essential to explaining how the calendar works because it is specifically attuned to match in spite of the observed behavior of celestial bodies. So, if you want to explain how it works in a way that's supported by textual and ethnographic evidence -- you had better talk about Maya spirituality and religion, too. If not, well, you're fumbling the ball. Such an argument is one that I've really only ever seen made by religious fanatics This means practically nothing to me. Yes, I am a postmodernist extreme relativist neo-Marxist religious fanatic pseudoscience apologist science-denier, whatever scare-words you want to apply to me for wanting to accurately portray the heritage of the continent I live on am trace my ancestry to. Cleansing the Maya calendar of its divinatory practices is to mischaracterize it. Period. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 00:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep applying motivations where there is none, putting words in my mouth when I explicitly explain otherwise, and generally are acting the fool here. Have you taught a class on calendars? I am being totally honest with you about which direction your rhetoric seems to be coming from. If you don't like that this is what people are seeing, then maybe think about what you could do to fix the situation instead of doubling down in outrage. jps (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What words am I putting in your mouth? I'm explicitly quoting you. You're also ignoring the points here: that the Maya calendar is divinatory and ritual at its core, even effecting the actual astronomical predictions e.g. of the cycles of Venus in spite of its observed behavior. Ignoring the divinatory and ritual aspects -- the astrological aspects, that is -- is mischaracterizing the Maya calendar, and there's literally no way around this. If you ignore these aspects in your teaching, even if it is not your job to teach those practices, you are mischaracterizing the Maya calendar. Once again, I am a postmodernist extreme relativist neo-Marxist New Age religious fanatic pseudoscience apologist science-denier anti-vaxxer babyeater cannibal. If that's what you are seeing, then whatever. I won't deny it -- it doesn't upset me in the slightest, I have been called much worse by the much more adept. Chalk up reverse-racist and colonialist there too. Maybe throw up misandrist for good measure. Got any more? Oh, outraged, that's right. Yes, I am very outraged, you have led perhaps one of the more bold and arrogant attacks I've seen on this website and generally are acting the fool here! MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 02:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, even 18th-century first-edition Encyclopedia Britannica correctly describes astrology as bollocks: "ASTROLOGY, a conjectural science, which teaches to judge of the effects and influences of the stars, and to foretel future events by the situation and different aspects of the heavenly bodies. This science has long ago become a just subject of contempt and ridicule." Ok, a bit of an extreme example, but it shows how this "Astrology as pseudoscience" is not merely some 21st-century invention which can be dismissed with wish-wash verbiage about historical context or whatever other obtuse reason can be found to attempt to water this down. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to right great wrongs; or to engage in revisionism because some things often modern hyper-sensibilities in some contexts. Modern sources, written by modern scholars, for a modern audience (like Wikipedia), don't hide the status of astrology behind such verbiage. As a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, we follow that path. Don't like it? None of my or Wikipedia's effing problem. You refusing to get the point and continuing to argue well past the point of reasonable disagreement (swooping as low as rather thinly veiled personal attacks in your last past) is becoming borderline tendentious and disruptive. Stop attempting to bludgeon the debate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not even what we were discussing. Did you even read the thread? We're talking about whether the Maya calendar is astrological or not and whether considering it as a purely astronomical system is a mischaracterization. Yes, it's only tangentially related -- but did you seriously just see the long thread and decide to jump in without reading it?  Apologies, got you confused with someone else. Regardless, we are working towards a consensus above -- as can be seen at Talk:Astrology. Please read discussions before participating in them. No one is even talking about pseudoscience here. If you would have argued this was unrelated and not the forum for it -- then yeah, can't argue with that. But you made it incredibly obvious you did not read what was being said. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 03:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be easier keeping track of the discussion if you weren't constantly overwhelming it. AFAICS, the Maya stuff (whether the astronomical phenomena it is based upon make it be "astrological") is clearly a proxy for the existing debate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Both jps and I agree on the same revision of the lede sentence. Once again, please read discussions before participating in them -- it seems like a proxy for the other debate because you didn't read it. I was only responding to jps here, and it was separate from the other conversation. To quote from WP:BLUD: To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 04:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you want to keep this discussion open. You have basically said that my description of the way I teach about calendars is "fumbling the ball". It seems to me that this predilection is related to someone who can only see one way to talk about a subject and that is to assume that spirituality and astrology are so integral to one particular calendar that it is impossible to teach about that calendar without making reference to it. But this just seems like a lot of sound and fury at this point. jps (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with RandomCanadian that it would help if MCRIRE would post a little less often to this talk page, so it would be easier for other editors with less time to keep up. Also, both MCRIRE & jps, please remember that this is a text-only medium and that when others' posts come over as an attack, it probably wasn't meant quite as aggressive as it seems. I'm sure that in real life you wouldn't be saying these things to each other. Better to AGF and de-escalate.
 * @RandomCanadian: have you ever read something by Voltaire? In the period that 1768 Encyclopedia Britannica was written, contempt and ridicule for the conjectural philosophies of pre-modern times was at an all-time high. But we don't follow the point of view of Enlightenment writers around here. Modern sources, written by modern scholars, have realized since quite some time now that ridiculing and dismissing something from a presentist perspective is a surefire way to remain wholly ignorant about it. Sure, enlightenment polemics still loom large in modern debates, especially when it comes to such subjects as the status of religion and science, but I can assure you that historians and other scholars in the humanities have long since abandoned this type of attitude. Since in fact a majority of RS on this subject deal with it from this more disinterested perspective (they are trying to understand astrology, not to promote it or to fight it), we should give their due in the way we introduce the subject. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Identifying the problems with ways certain approaches were handled in the past, that does not necessarily imply ridicule. When I grade an assignment with a low grade, that does not imply ridicule. It just implies that certain claims are incorrect. It also does not imply that such critique is a "surefire way to remain wholly ignorant about" the claim. I know that it is fashionable within certain fields to avoid question of empirical claim because of interest in other aspects of a topic. That doesn't mean the evaluation of the empirical claim is necessarily biased or not "disinterested". The citation itself from 1768 is actually disinterested. It is not instructing the reader to heap contempt and ridicule on the subject. It's just reporting that astrology has been the subject of contempt and ridicule. Surely whether this is true or not is not up for debate. jps (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That being dismissive about a historical subject leads to ignorance about it is the common position taken by historians of science. Ironically, they often invoke the need to base our analysis on empirical evidence as an argument for that: 'let's not be distracted by 18th-century polemics, let's look into the actual texts written by historical astrologers, and let's see whether what they say really is ridiculous'. The general conclusion has been that it is not. The conclusion, furthermore, has been that 18th-century authors had their own agendas when claiming it was ridiculous. If some editors here would prefer the dismissive attitude of 18th-century Britannica over what historians today are saying, again quite ironically, it's them who are rejecting the conclusions and accepted methodologies of historical science. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're confusing dismissing the topic with dismissing the worth of its precepts. Like may types of pseudoscience (acupuncture, alchemy, homeopathy, etc. etc.), astrology is a worthy topic for study and encyclopedic coverage. Still nonsense on toast though. Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Astrology used to work? Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * let's see whether what they say really is ridiculous'. The general conclusion has been that it is not I'm going to need to see a source that maintains this. Let's look at Johannes Kepler's 1601 treatise: On the more certain foundations of astrology. It's just plain incorrect in most of its assertions. Try as I may, I have found no "rehabilitation" of Kepler on these points. Which historian is arguing that Kepler was correct in his defense? I have actually had the pleasure to read "On the more certain foundations" and, in it, Kepler went to great lengths to maintain that astrology could predict the weather and portend human personalities even as he acknowledged astrology's critics (many very much in line with critics today, though some critics took issue as part of a more general critique of the occult and socercy as a basis for their condemnation). In perhaps Kepler's most famous astrological portent argument, he argued that the 1604 supernova meant that the inhabitants of the New World would be converted to Christianity, that Islam would collapse, and that Jesus Christ would return within the next few years. Are we to assume that these astrological claims were "not" ridiculous in light of what we understand about mechanisms, etc? If so, which historians exactly are arguing that? jps (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven: no, I (and historians of science generally) are not saying that astrology used to work, we're saying that it used to be widely accepted to work, and that this was not in any way an irrational or ridiculous position to take within the framework of knowledge that existed at the time. They are saying that it was fully coherent with the prevailing cosmological theories of the pre-modern period, and that neither these theories nor the astrological practices based on them are appropriately characterized as 'nonsense' when seen in their historical context. It's only when looking back on it with the benefit of hindsight and a 20th-century science education that it appears to be nonsense, but that's not unlike chiding Newton for not knowing about relativity, or chiding Galen for not knowing about the germ theory of disease. No one would do it if it were not for the fact that astrology is still being defended and practiced today, in which context it patently is nonsense.
 * @jps: just above you were still saying that pointing out that something is incorrect is not the same as ridicule. Of course most assertions historically made in the context of astrology were incorrect. All historians will strongly affirm this. Make no mistake: taking astrology seriously as a historical subject does never involve, not in one instance I've seen among the many papers and books that I've read in the general field of the history of science, taking astrological claims themselves seriously in any way. They were wrong. But they were not ridiculous for being wrong. They were not, in the great majority of cases, making claims that their contemporaries would have found ridiculous. To laugh down at them from our own advanced position of knowledge is easy, but ultimately foolish. Not rarely it's small minds laughing at great minds, merely showcasing their lack of historical imagination. Sure, it's hard to read Kepler et al. (there's worse!) without bursting out in laughter from time to time, but you've got to recognize that this is not rational behavior, just an incapability to completely escape the cultural conditioning of our own time. You can't really understand him, because you can never even remotely be in his position. To think him a fool for believing things which appear strange to us today is intellectually dishonest, and yes, a surefire way to ensure one remains wholly ignorant about him and his times. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 18:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what you define as "ridiculous", I suppose. There is "correct" and then there is "worthy of disdainful scorn". We, at Wikipedia, are not supposed to engage in scorn. But identifying an argument as pseudoscientific is not to disdainfully scorn it. It's to identify its position within the epistemology of empirical claims. Yes, here at Wikipedia we are around a lot of people who disdain pseudoscience. Yes, many people are insulted when they find a particular idea they subscribe to being identified as a pseudoscience. They may even say that such a label is "ridicule". But, at its basic, it is just identifying the kind and matter of claims that are being made. When I say "astrology is pseudoscience" that is not the same thing as saying "only dimwits believe in astrology". You see? jps (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, apart from not being ridiculous for being wrong, which kinda was the subject above re the 1768 Britannica entry, pre-modern astrologers were also not pseudoscientific for being wrong. But you know this. I also think the jump you made here from contempt and ridicule to calling something pseudoscience says a lot about how there's hardly a distinction anymore between them these days. What can be called scientific is normative, even (and self-contradictingly) for the enemies of science. But you probably know this too. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Right. We're not going to solve the acrimony that surrounds a topic being identified as pseudoscience given the context of our world as is. But I don't see any way around it -- just because there is controversy over a subject doesn't mean we have to handle it with kid gloves or accommodate the feelings of those who feel slighted. I do think, however, that this is a primary motivation of the approaches that avoid using "pseudoscience". That's perfectly fine, but it's not Wikipedia's approach. In fact, it is rather antithetical to WP:NPOV/WP:NOTCENSORED as these ideas are practiced here. jps (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not shy away from using the term 'pseudoscience' when it's applicable. We disagree over whether it's applicable to the whole topic of astrology, or only to a part of it, but not over whether we should use it at all. We are, moreover, in closer agreement with each other than with some others, since unlike some other people out there we both believe that pseudoscience is the most appropriate category for understanding contemporary forms of astrology. I just strongly object to applying that modern category to historical topics, and with me most historians, believe me. I find it pitiful that a subject with such an illustrious history is framed entirely from the perspective of what a few modern quacks have made of it. It's deplorable. Cometh the day that there are no more astrologers, so the subject may finally receive the sympathetic treatment that it rightfully deserves. On that too, I suspect we may in fact agree. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * An easy out would be to start source that do this careful demarcation and distinguishing. But more than a few of the popular astrology accounts have been dreadful. One, written by an intelligent design apologist, I will let you look for yourself. The problem is that what historians are interested in is not the "astrological" claims per se (as they are currently summarized) of the astrologers of the past, but rather the context in which these claims were made. I think that Kepler may have parlayed his general erudition and observational prowess in the context of astrological nonsense so that the courts of Europe would pay heed to some of his warnings (the ones fo 1595 in particular which were all predictions one could have made knowing absolutely nothing of astrology). But we're stuck with the Kepler Colleges of the world, so I think this will have to await publication of your brilliant treatise that does proper demarcation. jps (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Lede revision
Since the discussion has been spread over various conversations, and is getting harder to follow for everyone involved, to summarize the current conversation: User:Slatersteven has suggested

Along with User:Slatersteven, User:Apaugasma, User:Mathsci, User:XOR'easter, jps, and myself are in favor of this general schema with varying levels of tweaking. Of the users involved in the discussion, User:Cpotisch, User:Animalparty, User:RandomCanadian, User:AndyTheGrump, User:Nø, and User:Hob Gadling (asked not to be pinged) have not given any input. Some minor revisions that have been floated:


 * Could be tweaked slightly to avoid repetition: e.g. "motions of the heavenly bodies" instead of "celestial cycles" (User:Mathsci)
 * I would revise the second line to read "While the modern practice of astrology is recognized as emblematic of pseudoscience today, it has been practiced since at least the 2nd millennium BCE" or something similar. (myself)
 * In response: That seems to add length without adding a corresponding amount of clarity, at least to me [...] Perhaps the second line could begin, "Recognized as a pseudoscience today, versions have been practiced..." (User:XOR'easter)

User:Apaugasma, User:XOR'easter, and jps have either minor quibbles or simply recognize the capacity for improvement.

--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 04:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose this proposal, not only because I vehemently object to the content, but also because your “summarization” clearly and willfully ignores the viewpoints of users you claim “have not given any input”. That is patently untrue. I have given multiple extensive explanations of why the “pseudoscience” label should not be watered down, as has, and you’re literally lying about the conversation to bend the consensus in your favor. This is absolutely absurd. Cpotisch (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly, I meant not given any input on the particular proposal provided by Slatersteven. I pinged both you, RandomCandian, and several other users -- who I explicitly mentioned were involved in the conversation, but had not commented on it. I was specifically asking you to give your opinion on this because it seems roughly half of those here now support the revision, assuming those I pinged as "not giving input" would be expressly opposed. I never claimed to have consensus, in fact, I went the extra mile to ask for input from everyone. You are welcome to disagree with the proposed revision. That's the whole point of pinging you. Calm yourself. Oh, and further, User:Slatersteven is on your side -- prefering a stronger mention of pseudoscience. As it turns out, the current proposal is a compromise.MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 05:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first idea, not with the second, as said it is a pseudoscience and we can't water that down. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In his chapter on "Astrology" by Darrell Rutkin, has been quoted here out of context. There is a 1728 Cyclopedia entry by Ephraim Chambers. In the chapter, Chambers gives the definition: "the Art of foretelling future Events, from the Aspects, Positions, and Influences of the Heavenly Bodies"; he contrasts that with, "Judiciary, or Judicial ASTROLOGY, which is what we commonly call Astrology, is that which pretends to foretell moral Events; i.e. such as have a Dependence on the Will and Agency of Man; as if they were directed by the Stars ... the chief Province now remaining to the modern Professors, is the making of Calendars or Almanacks." In her chapter "Marginalized Practices" in Vol. 4 of the Cambridge History of Science (ed. Roy Porter), Patricia Fara writes that, "astrology has no fixed definition, but the term broadly refers to systems that focus on interpreting the human or terrestrial significance of the stars." She explains this in the cultural context of eighteenth-century England, demarcating three strands: popular beliefs on the predictions of the stars within "rural laborers urban artisans," rooted in superstition; judicial astrology involving the use of horoscopes and astral lines, promoted by antiquarian practitioners that gained popularity amongst the Victorian middle class; and philosophical astrology, combining astronomy with theology, so that knowledge could be used to avoid impending disasters. Mathsci (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Reading the objections, I think the main issue with the text is that it does adequately provide the framing for why astrology is pseudoscience. Just declaring that it is "recognized as pseudoscience today", while true, doesn't explain what makes it such. I take the criticisms on board. We need to do better than this. jps (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am unsure that is something for the lede to do. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the reason that is is pseudoscience is contained in its definition. See below. jps (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Workshop first sentence
Below is a possible modification that I think makes the first sentence a bit clearer:

Astrology is a form of divination and a pseudoscience that believers claim can discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events through studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects.

jps (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And we already know (whatever I may think of it) that some will disagree with it. 11:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe? But if we can get consensus, we don't need everyone to agree. jps (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * true. maybe we need an RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Jps, it seems that this suggestion ignores my whole rationale for proposing a change to the lead sentence in the first place. The problem with the current version is that it characterizes all astrology as essentially pseudoscience, which is just not accurate given the historical forms (which are very notable from an encyclopedic perspective, and in fact form the main subject of this article) to which this label is extraneous. Your suggestion here does just the same. What is needed is an introduction that clearly marks modern astrology as pseudoscience, without extending the same to astrology tout court.
 * The proposal above at the start of this section, which I still support, does make that crucial distinction between contemporary pseudoscience and historical forms of astrology, which were in fact perfectly legitimate branches of the science of their day. It succeeds at this because it does not use the word 'pseudoscience' in the general description of astrology given in the lead sentence, instead framing this as the subject's modern status in the second sentence.
 * If astrology is divination by observing the stars, it's distinct from astronomical predictions that do not give a providential, god-like role to the stars (as in your example of observing the lunar ephemerides to predict the tides), but still not 'pseudoscientific' in most historical contexts: astrology as divination perfectly fits within the broader cosmological view that was widely accepted from antiquity until the early modern period, a view perhaps best described by Cicero in his De natura deorum and his De divinatione, in which the celestial bodies were regarded as endowed with the responsibility to administer the lower parts of the cosmos. The idea that the stars somehow regulate life on earth was universally abandoned by the scientific community in the 18th century, not before that. It only makes sense to call this type of view pseudoscience when practiced in the modern context, where it willfully and explicitly contravenes accepted science. It is therefore wrong to include the label pseudoscience in a general definition of the subject. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Having slept on the matter, I'm even more solid on the point I raised before: Being pseudoscience today is fully consistent with having been science in the past. That's just the progress of knowledge. It doesn't necessarily hold true in all cases, but it certainly does in some quite prominent ones, and ignoring this does the history of science an injustice. There were scientific objections to heliocentrism in Galileo's time; Newton's alchemy influenced his optics; Pythagorean mathematics was of a piece with their mysticism. So, while I don't wholly dislike the proposal in the green box above, I think jps is right that we need to take criticisms of it on board, and I reject the idea that we need to implement it in order to draw a distinction that, in fact, is already encompassed by the very word pseudoscience. The sentence starts Astrology is, not Astrology was or Astrology originated as. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly, being pseudoscience today is fully consistent with having been science in the past. But it doesn't imply having been science in the past. Most pseudosciences have always been pseudoscience. The word pseudoscience does not in any way encompass having a long history of being accepted science. The injustice to the history of science is wholly in pretending that astrology being pseudoscience is a trans-historical given. According to historians of science, astrology is not pseudoscience, it became pseudoscience by the combination of scientific progress and the emergence of a new class of people who were prepared to reject that progress in order to continue doing astrology. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't need to imply "having been science in the past" in the very first sentence, provided that the rest of the intro makes the historical trajectory clear enough. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguably, astrology is one of the things that has "always been pseudoscience". This is definitely post hoc rationalization and No True Scotsman as a matter of rhetoric, but it is the practical matter of how the subject is distinguished from astronomy today. If the idea being promoted was pseudoscientific then it is "astrology". If not, it is "astronomy". Sure, the words meant something different in the past and there is a mash-mash in the primary sources, but this has been teased out at this point.
 * A counterexample I cannot think of. The closest I can get is the subject of meteorites which were taken to be fantasy through the eighteenth century though they were not. However, the "claims of rocks from space" were never described as "astrology" as far as I'm aware. Literally all the "astrological" identifiers as they are applied today are attached to claims which have been shown to be empirically incorrect. We can mention the fact that in the past other claims were thought part of "astrology", but are now considered not to be astrology, but that doesn't mean that we are helpless in identifying the "always pseudoscientific" nature of what is now termed "astrology".
 * jps (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. The argument against fails basic logic, it's like arguing you can't say somebody is dead because they were once alive. Per WP:PSCI the description of this stuff as pseudoscience must be prominent - in the first few words I'd say. Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We can and should say that astrology has the status pseudoscience now, preferably in the second sentence. It's 'dead' now, but being 'dead' doesn't define it. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In English the word "is" is the present tense so we don't need wordy cruft added. We say "Malone is dead", not "Malone now has the status of being dead". Pseudoscience is definitional for astrology, yes. Alexbrn (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wordy cruft? The proposal above which I support says Recognized as a pseudoscience today, That's not even a whole sentence! It does, however, imply that pseudoscience is not definitional for astrology, which I have argued at length above and below. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * characterizes all astrology as essentially pseudoscience I don't see the problem. Yes, astrology has been recast today as pseudoscientific. Yes, in the past, there were people practicing astrology who did not see it that way (as the idea of pseudoscience did not exist). We aren't arguing that one needs to look into the past with the pseudoscience lens. We are saying that the practice of astrology as it is demarcated today is one that is pseudoscientific. That's practically one of its defining characteristics (see "astronomy versus astrology"). The only problem with this is that that there may be some practitioners who somehow claim their astrological practice is "outside" the realm of science. Maybe they claim they aren't making empirical claims. But I think that this is not what the vast majority of sources describe as astrology. jps (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that those proponents of astrology who claim being 'outside' of science are marginal in our sources. In today's context, it best fits the pseudoscience label, nothing else. But what is not marginal in our sources is the historical position of astrology. The largest part of our article is about that. Starting our article as you suggest is not saying that the practice of astrology as it is demarcated today is one that is pseudoscientific: it says that astrology is pseudoscientific, without distinction, and then immediately goes on to talk about historical forms of astrology, as if it's talking about the same thing. If you agree that we shouldn't promote looking into the past with the pseudoscience lens, then we need to word things differently. As I suggested above, perhaps the entire first paragraph should strictly and explicitly be about the modern, pseudoscientific practice. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That use of the first paragraph would make sense, I think. The current introduction follows a somewhat strange, non-chronological path (present day, ancient Mesopotamia, back to the supermarket tabloids, Dante Alighieri, ...). My guess it was developed piecemeal, without an overall plan in mind, as much wiki-text is. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But the problem here is that there are two astrologies. There is the one that people used in context (and, at times, was difficult to demarcate) and then there is the precise definition which is to say the current one. When historians examine "astrology" as a historical subject, they are often tasked with looking at primary source documents which use the term in a different fashion than we currently do. I can understand that they do not find it as a necessary or even fruitful part of their job to try to make the "astronomy vs. astrology" distinction that science educators do (and that you agree can be made). But the thing is that this is not a historical encyclopedia trying to document with care to the primary sources what historical approaches to astrology/astronomy/etc. looked like. This is an article about "astrology". To the extent that astrology in the past was empirically verified (as, when, for example, certain geometrical tricks perfected in the casting of horoscopes were used to predict eclipses), these aspects have been separated out into astronomy and, I might add, astrologers today, even the self-described ones, do not take it upon themselves to make ephemerides calculations. So we have a way of distinguishing between "astrology" and "astronomy" today which is perhaps presentist, but it is the most common way to discuss the subjects. I was looking through the sources you linked to above and they all basically make this point as well. Yes, "astrology" meant something different in the past. It's confusing. It's now much more clear what astrology is. I don't see anything wrong with making that statement plain for the reader. jps (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. If, as you seem to do above, you take the 'precise' definition of astrology to be that part of historical astronomy which is always pseudoscientific according to today's standards, then for sure it will be useless as a historical category: it will be a sort of waste bucket for anything any astronomer-astrologer ever posited that happens to be incongruous with the prevailing scientific paradigms of today (or for that matter, those of tomorrow). It will have no identity of its own, only serving as the 'other' by which astronomy identifies itself.
 * Philosophers of science also won't have much use for it, since something that has pseudoscience in its very definition is not helpful for trying to define pseudoscience without getting trapped in circles. To be useful to philosophers of science, astrology needs to be a set of definite claims whose (pseudo)scientific status is not yet predefined, but which can be ascertained as an attribute of that set of claims.
 * I guess that, in the end, defining astrology as the ever-pseudoscientific 'other' of astronomy is mainly useful to astronomers. But the thing is, astronomers hardly ever write about astrology, and history and philosophy of science are the two fields in which astrology is most often discussed. It's on sources from these two fields that our article draws. I submit that the approach of these sources is being ignored here in favor of an editorial policy proper to Wikipedia. You know my view on this matter. But as always, I will also respect that editorial policy, if it retains consensus. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 18:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Astronomers write a lot about astrology. They just don't bother to publish it in academic journals. It's in textbooks, mostly. But that's a perfectly reasonable venue and set of source material. I understand your concern about the ultimate uselessness of astrology as a historical category, but I can only shrug and say, "oh well." Pseudoscience as a topic is fraught. We've been over that. However, that really just underscores the point that the proper demarcation happens in venues that are properly science education rather than anthropology, philosophy, history, or sociology. The fact is that even these historical sources use the term in reference to this "pop" understanding. They just dig a bit deeper into context, as I am reading them. jps (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Damn, we were so close to a consensus!
 * Okay, let's start from the beginning here.
 * I don't think literally any of us disagree with this description. I think this is the simplest, and most accurate, way to introduce the subject. If someone had never heard of astrology before, it would make the most sense: it applies to Babylonian astrology as much as it does TikTok horoscopy and sun sign astrology. Speaking of horoscopes: that page doesn't mention pseudoscience until the fourth paragraph. Chinese astrology doesn't mention pseudoscience at all. Western astrology doesn't mention pseudoscience until the very end of the lede. Sun sign astrology, which has the strongest case for pseudoscience, doesn't mention pseudoscience until the second paragraph. Astrology and science doesn't mention pseudoscience until the third paragraph! There doesn't really seem to be a reason to include pseudoscience in the first sentence on the page, since it seems to be the only page on this subject that does so, and moving it lower in the lede will allow a more substantial explanation of the discipline and its historical trajectory. In fact, adapting a sentence of two from these other pages might do us some of the heavy-lifting:
 * MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 17:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think literally any of us disagree with this description. I disagree. Astrology is not "ancient". jps (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I also disagree, it's a poor &amp; evasive opening description. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. We could make up a divination scheme based entirely on celestial bodies unknown in the ancient world (say, Kuiper belt objects). It would not be ancient, but it would be astrology. Heck, in the modern world, we could sell it as an NFT. Who's up for a rug-pull? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that many astrologers are fairly obsessed with Pluto (and REJECT its demotion) is another example of this. jps (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't think that astrology is ancient? I don't know how you could substantiate this. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 18:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because most of what people term astrology today is not ancient in spite of antecedents that may have ancient provenance. It's rather like refusing to define writing as an "ancient system of symbolic communication" even though it was invented in ancient times, as it is still being practiced today it does not help to highlight the ancient practice. jps (talk)
 * Because most of what people term astrology today is referring to the historical (and indeed ancient) practice. The vast majority of reliable sources on astrology are not referring to sun sign astrology or any other contemporary practices. Searching for astrology on JSTOR or Scholar will bring up, invariably, reams of studies of astrology grounded in the historical sciences. With that being said: even modern practices of astrology are ancient or have their roots in ancient practices.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 18:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh, repeating something over and over again doesn't make it so. I looked through a lot of these Google Scholar searches. They all acknowledge the modern, or presentist if you prefer, definition either explicitly or implicitly. jps (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe my results are different because, you know, the algorithm, but the first 10 results for "astrology" on Google Scholar as they appear to me are:
 * Barton, Tamysn. Ancient astrology. Routledge, 2002.
 * Tester, S. Jim. A history of western astrology. Boydell & Brewer, 1987.
 * Holden, James H. A history of horoscopic astrology. American Federation of Astr, 2006.
 * Beck, Roger. A brief history of ancient astrology. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
 * Wuthnow, Robert. "Astrology and marginality." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (1976): 157-168.
 * Pingree, David. "Astronomy and astrology in India and Iran." Isis 54.2 (1963): 229-246.
 * Pingree, David. "Astrology." Encyclopedia of Astronomy & Astrophysics. CRC Press, 2001. 1-3.
 * Thagard, Paul R. "Why astrology is a pseudoscience." PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Vol. 1978. No. 1. Philosophy of Science Association, 1978.
 * Thorndike, Lynn. "The true place of astrology in the history of science." Isis 46.3 (1955): 273-278.
 * Barnes, Robin B. Astrology and reformation. Oxford University Press, 2015.
 * I think this substantiates my claim that [s]earching for astrology on JSTOR or Scholar will bring up, invariably, reams of studies of astrology grounded in the historical sciences. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 19:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact is that all these sources identify the present practice of astrology as existing. So it doesn't really substantiate your argument that the context is always historical or ancient. In fact, more than one of these sources identifies present practice of astrology as having both differences and similarities to the historical practice, so it seems particularly unfair to identify astrology as an ancient practice when it is not just that. jps (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wuthnow's paper is a study of 1,000 residents of the San Francisco Bay Area in 1976, which found widespread openness to the claims of astrology, interest in horoscopes, and knowledge of astrological signs. The location was chosen explicitly because counterculture was expected to be prevalent there. It mentions the musical Hair but not Kepler, Ptolemy, ancient Mesopotamia, etc. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I was giving the first ten results, whatever they are, not only results that give a historical treatment. There is also a paper by Thaggard that similarly concerns the modern practice. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 19:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not say any of those sources would deny the present practice of astrology. I was responding to your first particular claim: Because most of what people term astrology today is not ancient in spite of antecedents that may have ancient provenance. Contemporary astrology is astrology. But most of what people term astrology today is indeed the ancient and historical practice, not simply or exclusively the modern practice -- to reiterate, [s]earching for astrology on JSTOR or Scholar will bring up, invariably, reams of studies of astrology grounded in the historical sciences. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 19:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You suggested the wording "astrology is any of various ancient systems". I pointed out that it is not just ancient systems. You concede that contemporary systems exist and are astrology. Therefore, I think my point is decently made. jps (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Contemporary systems exist, are astrology, and are also ancient. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 19:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ??? "Today is happening, is a moment in time, and is in the past." That's what that reads to me like what you are writing. jps (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Jainism is a contemporary religion. It's also an ancient religion: Jainism, also known as Jain Dharma, is an ancient Indian religion. Saying that Jainism is ancient doesn't imply anything about contemporary Jainism and how it relates to ancient Jainism. Astrology, similarly, is an ancient practice. It's also a contemporary practice. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't apply here: While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, make a much more credible case, and Jainism is a WP:GA.) MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 20:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The practice of astrology today is not that of an organized religion. It is popularized and bursts out of "ancient" molds. Pretending that it is "ancient" is one of the hooks that proponents use to claim substance to their ideas, but, as many of the sources you identify above attest!, these ideas are often of fairly recent provenance. This is actually in stark contrast to something like Jainism which tries desperately to follow edicts and practices from their ancient scriptures and traditions. Astrology is rather more like Wicca which is a modern religion that claims connection to ancient practices. jps (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is actually in stark contrast to something like Jainism which tries desperately to follow edicts and practices from their ancient scriptures and traditions This is a very elementary view of Jainism that ignores how different contemporary Jainism (or Buddhism, or Hinduism) is from its predecessors in ancient India. It is not like Wicca because Wicca is a wholesale fabrication on the part of Gardner: contemporary astrology is based on, but not synonymous with, Hellenistic astrology of the Antique era. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 20:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You think contemporary astrology isn't a wholesale fabrication of Blavatsky et al? As with Wicca, its revival is all out of the same spiritualist movements of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. jps (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * McDonald's offering a special on the McChicken because Mercury is in retrograde is not ancient. Nor are automobile air fresheners themed to the zodiac . Or star-sign-based dating apps . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Both the notion of Mercury being in retrograde, sun signs, and the Zodiac are ancient. Doing things based on them is similarly an ancient practice. Yes, McChickens didn't exist in Late Antique Egypt. And automobile air fresheners didn't exist in the post-Classic Maya city states. And dating apps didn't exist in Bronze Age Mesopotamia. They all had astrology, though. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 20:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Both the notion of Mercury being in retrograde, sun signs, and the Zodiac are ancient. Doing things based on them is similarly an ancient practice. Yes, McChickens didn't exist in Late Antique Egypt. And automobile air fresheners didn't exist in the post-Classic Maya city states. And dating apps didn't exist in Bronze Age Mesopotamia. They all had astrology, though. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 20:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Mercury being in retrograde isn't "ancient". It's just a fact of the relative motion of the planets around the Sun. The argument that you should have a discount on chicken when Mercury is in retrograde is not an ancient argument either, as far as I can tell. It looks extremely recent as a belief system, as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As for your other points about spin-out articles, I agree that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I rather think that this may be a poor reflection on the style of those articles rather than a strong argument that this article should conform to their style. jps (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, FWIW this article is a WP:GA which suggests it's a model of sorts. Alexbrn (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Astrology and science is also a WP:GA. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 18:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Its second sentence is Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe. If that article is a model to follow, it's a case for calling the subject pseudoscience as quickly as possible. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no strong objections to this sentence, actually. Just to note: 'pseudoscience' isn't synonymous with 'false.' An idea being disproved doesn't make it pseudoscience: that's a very particular claim. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 18:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Me neither. Also note that Astrology and science says Astrology has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity, and is thus regarded as pseudoscience. (my bolding) Being pseudoscience is presented as an attribute, the subject's modern status. I wholeheartedly agree with that. It doesn't try to define astrology as inherently pseudoscientific, which is the problem with the lead of our article here. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What precisely do you think are the parts of astrology that are not inherently pseudosicentific? jps (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ptolemy is the one to introduce retrograde and prograde to describe the movement of the planets in relation to the stars, and as previously discussed, Ptolemy was an astrologer. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 20:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because The Almagest survives doesn't mean Ptolemy was the one to "introduce" descriptions of the movement of the planets. You can track them on your own just by looking night after night. Indeed, people all over the world did that and do that. So Ptolemy is not why chicken is on sale. jps (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Another revision based on User:Slatersteven and User:Apaugasma's input, adapted partially from Astrology and science which User:XOR'easter brought up, with "ancient" omitted as per User:ඞඕඩ / jps in the favor of compromise:
 * I will also back any order of these sentences, the one here is roughly chronological. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 21:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this will please anyone, unfortunately. In the given ordering, it pushes "pseudoscience" later, which will dissatisfy many; even shuffling the sentences around, it still treats the ancient and the contemporary as synonymous, unless one accepts that "pseudoscience" can encompass the formerly scientific. It also inherits from the current opening line a tendency to underplay the variety of activities that have gone under this label. One might instead say, for example, Astrology is a range of divinatory practices, now recognized as pseudoscientific, that claim to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the apparent positions of celestial objects. (I think we can get by without saying both movements and positions for the sake of brevity.) Then one could follow up with, e.g., Different cultures have employed forms of astrology since at least the 2nd millennium BCE, these practices having originated in calendrical systems used to predict seasonal shifts and to interpret celestial cycles as signs of divine communications. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I could back
 * With bracketed text preferred imo but I'm okay without it, as well. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 21:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I like XOR'easter's proposal here very much. It's very quick to point to the pseudoscientific nature of the subject, yet succeeds in framing this as a modern attribute rather than as an inherent trait, all while pointing to the diversity in practices from the very beginning. It's just great! The bracketed text proposed by MCRIRE feels like unnecessary bloat to me. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the "now" is unnecessary. Astrology is a range of pseudoscientific divinatory practices that claim to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the apparent positions of celestial objects. Different cultures have employed forms of astrology since at least the 2nd millennium BCE, these practices having originated in calendrical systems used to predict seasonal shifts and to interpret celestial cycles as signs of divine communications. As noted earlier, this has been recognised as pseudoscience (or "become a just subject of contempt and ridicule") for centuries. Qualifying this using "now" or "today" would be misleading, as it would imply criticism of astrology's validity is merely a modern attitude when, in fact, it is not so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now is necessary because it was not always recognized as pseudoscience, or indeed, anything other than science until relatively recently. By the way: the whole "become a just subject of contempt and ridicule" source you keep bringing up is from the Early Modern Period. And once again: pseudoscience is not synonymous with invalid. It's a very particular claim. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 21:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What definition of science are you using? Properly, immediately after the scientific revolution astrology was one of the first things to be dismissed and ridiculed. I don't think was ever considered "science" in the sense that we consider things to be scientific. It was considered to be "knowledge" and perhaps "wise practice", but that's not the definition most people use for "science" any more. jps (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See history of science in early cultures. See Thaggard:
 * "One interesting consequence of the above criterion is that a theory can be scientific at one time but pseudoscientific at another. In the time of Ptolemy or even Kepler, astrology had few alternatives in the explanation of human personality and behavior. Existing alternatives were scarcely more sophisticated or corroborated than astrology. Hence astrology should be judged as not pseudoscientific in classical or Renaissance times, even though it is pseudoscientific today. Astrology was not simply a perverse sideline of Ptolemy and Kepler, but part of their scientific activity, even if a physicist involved with astrology today should be looked at askance. Only when the historical and social aspects of science are neglected does it become plausible that pseudoscience is an unchanging category. Rationality is not a property of ideas eternally: ideas, like actions, can be raional at [one] time but irrational at others. Hence relativizing the science/pseudoscience distinction to historical periods is a desirable result." MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 22:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a very good source because what he is considering "science" is not defined. In fact, the idea that science and pseudoscience are not unchanging categories runs up against a problem of universalism. Did balls not roll down ramps with constant velocity until Galileo? I doubt anyone would say that. But if Aristotle argued that objects fell at rates proportional to their mass, was that a scientific claim up until then? There is a fundamental disconnect with the "science" that Thaagard is talking about and the one that I am trying to describe when I say that certain claims are "scientific". jps (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * is from the Early Modern Period, which further reinforces my point that astrology's lack of validity is not something that is merely true "now". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You stated that it would imply criticism of astrology's validity is merely a modern attitude when, in fact, it is not so. As it happens, it is indeed a modern attitude. The source is from the Early Modern Period. Lucretius and Cicero of course criticized astrology, but not exactly along scientific lines. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 22:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "modern" has multiple meanings; something from 2 centuries ago is not quite the "modern" I had in mind (and the emphasis I put on "now" should have made this clear, no?). I still maintain that stating that astrology is now recognized as pseudoscientific would require a very substantial stretching of the meaning of the time period usually covered by the word "now"; since astrology has not just been "now" recognised as pseudoscientific (well, of course, unless you're speaking on astronomical timescales, but these are obviously not meaningful ways to measure human history) but has been for quite a while... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What about saying for centuries instead of now? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "for centuries" is unnecessarily ambiguous, "since the Scientific Revolution" might be more precise. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 02:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Now" is a concise counterpart of the "2nd millenium BCE" that follows. To be really precise, we should say recognized as pseudoscientific since at least the 18th century, though that would all seem a bit unduly precise to me. Turning it into Astrology is a range of pseudoscientific divinatory practices, however, would again characterize all astrology, including the 2nd millenium BCE variant of which we immediately start talking, as pseudoscientific. But according to David Pingree, ancient Greek astrology in its strictest interpretation was the most comprehensive scientific theory of antiquity. And as Thagard says, relativizing the science/pseudoscience distinction to historical periods is a desirable result. Any reason why you would think that not desirable? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 02:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned below, the literature has not agreed upon the point of whether intellectual activity in antiquity can meaningfully be called "science". The series introduction in the Barton volume (by Roger French of Cambridge) goes as far as saying that there was no such thing as science in the ancient world, and argues that claims otherwise are due to Whiggishness and a drive to legitimize new disciplines by asserting an illustrious past. G. E. R. Lloyd kicked off his Ancient Worlds, Modern Reflections (Oxford UP, 2004) by saying that the very question Is there science in the ancient world? has been the subject of much heated debate; his own answer seems to have been a book-length "it's complicated". One can emphasize commonalities in types of evidence considered (e.g., positions of the naked-eye planets) or one can emphasize differences in goals and methods. So, the most comprehensive scientific theory of antiquity business can't be presented as a firm conclusion. Using "the Scientific Revolution" as a time frame is not very precise; depending on who you ask, it could be confined to the 17th century or stretch from the 14th through the 18th. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, 'it's complicated' is the only right answer (and Lloyd is a great scholar!). But if the hard view is maintained that there was no science in antiquity, there also was no pseudoscience. It will then remain imperative to relativize the science/pseudoscience distinction to historical periods. Only some scholars will go as far as to say that science is a purely modern phenomenon, but almost all scholars will agree that pseudoscience is primarily a modern phenomenon, because it is actually largely driven by anti-modernism. Including ancient astrology under the pseudoscience umbrella is to export an essentially modern polemics into the distant past. Almost all historians these days are strongly opposed to that. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 10:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In the hard view, there was no "astrology" either. jps (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do think it's the best proposal put forward yet, and as I mentioned, I'm okay without the unnecessary bloat, as well -- though I retain the attitude a more comprehensive treatment of astrological history is necessary, at least somewhere in the page. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 22:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In the hard view, there was no "astrology" either. jps (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do think it's the best proposal put forward yet, and as I mentioned, I'm okay without the unnecessary bloat, as well -- though I retain the attitude a more comprehensive treatment of astrological history is necessary, at least somewhere in the page. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 22:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Let me quote y'all from p. 171:

Obviously, Pingree's comprehensive scientific theory of antiquity has little or nothing to do with the astrology of today, which is not in any way rigorous and comprehensive, but rather cherry-picking only those claims which remain useful in the schemes of modern quacks. Nor could it be comprehensive, of course, since real science has evolved. That's what turned astrology into pseudoscience from the 18th century onward.

In the context of what we were discussing above about Enlightenment polemics and 1786's Britannica finding astrology a subject only worthy of contempt and ridicule, let me also quote from :

What Hanegraaff writes summarizes contemporary historians' views on astrology, and how it evolved from a comprehensive scientific theory to a pseudoscience, through a period where it was still perceived as a science but one that reeked of idolatry and spiritualism, and that therefore should properly be the subject of contempt and ridicule. Combined with Thagard's (a non-historian) astrology should be judged as not pseudoscientific in classical or Renaissance times, even though it is pseudoscientific today and relativizing the science/pseudoscience distinction to historical periods is a desirable result as quoted above, it should be entirely clear that we must not ignore these scholars' views by insisting on a definition where astrology is inherently pseudoscientific. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 23:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, this merely elaborates upon a point already discussed above. Being pseudoscience today doesn't exclude having been the best people could do at the time. Today's pseudoscience could have been yesterday's science, or yesterday's "love of wisdom" in a broader sense that does not presume everything that science implies in our time. Interestingly, Tester History of Ancient Astrology cited above argues that Thorndike did too much in one man's working life to get it all right, saw astrologers where there weren't any, and trusted gossips like Simon de Phares. For Tester, astrology per se could not exist before an accurate, or fairly accurate, mathematical system was devised which enabled men to plot [...] the relative position of earth and planets against the background of the fixed stars; vaguely prophesying from stellar omens without such a system is proto-astrology at most. Barton's Ancient Astrology, also cited above, is part of a series that argues that casting the term science back into the past is an anachronism &mdash; the modern world gives it intrinsic baggage that is simply inapplicable, even to those activities that have been called "science in the ancient world". Barton says of a 20th-century newspaper horoscope, This is about as distant from the astrology discussed in the following pages as you could find. It is not only that the prominence of the Sunsign, abstracted from its context, is a modern phenomenon, but that the whole style of the piece would have been quite alien to ancient astrologers. Whether any intellectual work of ancient Greece should be designated a "comprehensive scientific theory" is an unresolved matter, perhaps because classification is intrinsically difficult or because historians just like to argue; resolving that is above my pay grade. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quote, but it makes me more convinced than ever that there isn't anything in astrology that isn't pseudoscientific in the sense of actual empirical content. It's great that astrology invoked a rehabilitation or combination of different ideas, but it still based them on conceits that were not empirically founded. That's fine, but it isn't "science". Well, maybe it's "science" for those who think that science is whatever the smart people do, but I'm not particularly enthused by that approach. The problem is that an argument that science/pseudoscience is relative vis-a-vis the actual claims themselves fails at kind of the Samuel Johnson kick of the stone. Either the planets have the influences or they don't. Either human affairs can be predicted or they cannot. The unholy alliance between heresy chasers and Enlightenment atheists is a wonderful morality play but it also doesn't really deal with the substance of my question. What in astrology in the past was explicitly not pseudoscientific? What particular claim was made which was empirically grounded and subject to testing? That's my real question. jps (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you construct an ahistorical idea of science that is based on modern notions, then of course astrology was pseudoscientific in the past as well as the present.
 * I think you should ask yourself: What in any science in the past was explicitly not pseudoscientific? Astrology was not alone in being "not empirically founded." Or, do you believe that there was simply no science before the Early Modern? And if that is so: how can astrology be pseudoscientific without a proper scientific other? This is one reason Thagard argues against a notion of pseudoscience that is ahistorical or transhistorical. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 02:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I got excited for a second that you might have picked up on something that was bugging me about the pseudoscience epithet when it comes to "ancient astrology", but then you skipped past it. No matter, your actual point is pretty blah and, sadly, kinda misses my point that the antecedents to everything that is scientific now is scientific! Talk about "ahistorical"... yeah, it's universalist. But since you don't provide a definition for science either except to say that it's not an ahistorical one, I'm fairly nonplussed. jps (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @XOR'easter: yes, this is merely to show that RS are saying what I was saying above, so it's necessarily a bit repetitive. Now of course the demarcation problem is a notorious issue in the history of science. To an extent it's unsolvable, given that historians of science by definition are dealing with the coming-into-being of science, meaning that actual demarcations were constantly shifting. It's intrinsically difficult, as you say.
 * But that also means that quibbles over whether ancient Greek astrology should be called 'science' or 'natural philosophy' or something else yet are besides the point. Two things are sure: it was a comprehensive system that was widely accepted and used as a theoretical framework by other natural philosophers/scientists/physicians/etc., and it was therefore not something that claimed to be natural philosophy/science but wasn't: it wasn't pseudo-philosophy/science at least in that sense, not even remotely. Now the point is very much that though RS quite univocally affirm this, readers generally don't know about it, believing either that astrology has always been pseudoscience, or that it never was. If we are going to start our article with Astrology is a pseudoscience that or Astrology is a range of pseudoscientific divinatory practices, we are perpetuating that essentialist take, which the RS explicitly warn us against.
 * @jps: you may belittle David Pingree and other RS because they don't share your views on the proper criteria for calling something science (empirically grounded and subject to testing). Above you say about Paul Thagard that There is a fundamental disconnect with the "science" that Thaagard is talking about and the one that I am trying to describe when I say that certain claims are "scientific". But what you may not do here, as you well know, is to reject the POV of RS and put your own POV above it. What sources have you that state that astrology is and has always been, by definition, pseudoscientific? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 02:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources above that do this explicitly by naming the conceits of astrology which are empirically grounded and subject to testing. That's kinda what the whole point about "science education" is all about. Read the sources. They may run afoul of the concern trolling over whether something was pseudoscience at a time when the term "pseudoscience" iteslf hadn't even been invented, but the warning wouldn't be made if the idea wasn't out there, right? My point is the idea is properly ascendent even as it may be heartbreakingly simplistic for the historian who wants us to consider the context of astrological beliefs or the philosopher who is worried about how the social facts of scientific knowledge change over the years. Our concern is much simpler: "What is astrology and has the practice of astrology ever made a prediction that stands up to the evaluation and critique in the context of the scientific method?"jps (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We're not "perpetuating" an "essentialist take" by making a factual statement about the present truth. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's the present truth, that needs to be made clear. If it's deemed unnecessary to make that clear, that's at least in jps' case wholly due to the fact that they do not regard it as a statement about the present truth only, but rather a universal statement defining astrology's essence.
 * Hanegraaff (historian), Pingree (historian), and Thagard (philosophers) are all arguing against the ahistorical/transhistorical, universalist/essentialist POV. On WP you can't counter that by 'your point is pretty blah' or 'read the sources'. You need to present sources that defend the ahistorical/transhistorical, universalist/essentialist POV. Yes, historians and philosophers want us to consider certain things, and historians and philosophers happen to make up 90% of our sources on this subject. If you're going to say we should not consider it because science education, then you need to point to the science education sources (with page numbers, or preferably quotes) maintaining that we should not consider the historians' and philosophers' POV. And then you need to show that this POV is actually the most WP:DUE one in terms of WP's policy to represent significant POVs proportionately. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 10:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing a historical lens with a practical one. Universalism is something that is part-and-parcel to scientific knowledge. This is across the board. If something is true today it needs to be true yesterday. I'm not talking about human cultural norms: I'm talking about specific claims. The problem with arguing that there was somehow a transition in astrological claims when new formulations were invented for how to understand ideas is that it doesn't deal substantively with the actual claims. But our sources which distinguish between science and pseudoscience do that. They look at the actual claims to decide when something is science or pseudoscience and, crucially, astrology itself. This is rather in line with the eighteenth century critiques of astrology which did much the same, keeping the Kepler they accepted and rejecting the Kepler they rejected. Scholars who talk about astronomy and astrology as different things necessarily play that game as well. We are playing that game by having an article on just astrology. That is why the pseudoscience epithet works. It's not because there is an ahistorical lens. It's because the demarcation of astrology and astronomy took place over the course of some hundred years and what is left is a list of claims that even practitioners accept as "astrological" and another set of claims that are "astronomical". What distinguishes those claims? Their pseudoscientific nature. Those claims were also made in the past and while they may have been made in good faith or in the context of a world that didn't try to make demarcation a thing, the substance of those claims can still be evaluated in the venue of looking at the evidence and deciding what evidence exists. Astrology makes no claims about Newtonian gravity. It makes no claims about Kepler's Laws. It makes no claims about the precession of the equinoxes. It only makes claims about human personalities, world events, winning lottery numbers, etc. The binding thing that makes these things "astrology" and not "astronomy" is their pseudoscientific nature. And while that distinction gets muddied to further away you get from considering the games played during the scientific revolution, even the historians who argue most vociferously in favor of astrology being considered part of "science" in the past are acknowledging a list of ideas that is astrology which are now known to be incorrect as being the defining feature of what makes something "astrology". jps (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

What is astrology?
Lest you think I'm being cheeky here, I'll provide some sources of people who define astrology and explain why this necessarily causes us to distinguish it from astronomy by means of the incorectness of its empirical claims:


 * Thagard argues that astrology is what is done by considering dividing up the Zodiac into Sun Signs and ascribing additional meaning (beyond the coincidence of alignments) to the location of nearby celestial objects. In this formulation, portents of comets or guest stars are not astrology but instead a different brand of fortune telling.
 * Tamysn Barton does much the same as Thagard.
 * David Pingree wrote Brittanica's entry and and I refer you to their YouTube video distinguishing astronomy and astrology much the same way I am doing.
 * Gustav-Adolf Shoener defines it with a surprising acceptance of the conflict thesis:

What is astrology?

If astrology is a tightrope walk between religion and scientific astronomy, then we already have a first definition. First of all: insofar as it views cosmos, humans, and nature as being reigned over and guided by powers and forces from beyond, astrology is religion. All the events in the cosmos and on earth are linked together by an invisible magic bond. Only on the basis of this mysterious magical connection can astrology assume that the stars have something to do with the course of our lives, with our talents and weaknesses.

In this regard, astrology is related to the nature religions. These also assume that nature is inhabited and governed by magical powers, demons, and gods. Like the nature religions, astrology believes in a multitude of gods; it is polytheistic at its core. Each planet and sign of the zodiac is the expression of a particular god or demon. But astrology is also sometimes accepted by religions which know only one creator-god, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Then the many star-gods become angels and demons which are subordinated to the one God and, as such, understood as "instruments" of God.

But in its scientific side, astrology is also very sober. It divides the heavens into geometrically exact sectors, calculates—like every astronomer—the orbits of the planets, and employs complicated calculations to obtain from the manifold movements of the earth and the heavenly bodies the horoscope. The word horoscope goes back to the Greek and means roughly: "looking into the hour." By this it is meant that the astrologer, in accordance with the exact time a person is born, observes the heavens and calculates all the planets, as well as the sign of the zodiac rising over the eastern horizon—which is then identified as "ascendant." He then prepares a chart which indicates the astronomically exact positions of the stars in relation to the place of birth. Astrology is thus also quite simply astronomy, or better: its religious understanding of the cosmos is based on exact scientific calculations.

This double nature has long been known to scholars of religion concerned with the history and meaning of astrology. The classical philologist Franz Boll said it concisely: "Astrology wants to be religion and science at the same time; that marks its essence."

I think the problem here is one of definition. Astrology is the idea that first pops into someone's head when they hear the term. Just about everyone acknowledges that these ideas are ones that are of old provenance, but, crucially, "astrology" as a separate term only dates to the 14th Century or so and it wasn't clearly defined as an "on the other hand" with respect to astronomy until the beginning of those halcyon days of "ridicule" in the 17th Century. We are chasing ghosts and ahistorically(!) forcing categories on ideas if we try to force astrology as a concept onto earlier works than this.

So was "astrology" practiced prior to the thirteenth century? Only if you accept the conceit of what astrology has been defined as. It's not an "old" idea. It's a latecoming term that was invented almost precisely as a means to distinguish it from routinized astronomy.

jps (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that it is rejected by modern science may be regarded as a defining feature of astrology. This is precisely the central thesis of 's book (cf. the title). But that it is rejected, that it has found to be wrong, is not the same as being pseudoscientific, as that term is usually construed: something which claims to adhere to the standards of science but in fact doesn't. We can look back in history and tease out what today's science would reject and call it 'astrology' (a questionable methodology according to many other historians, but let's leave that aside). That will not all of a sudden make historical astrology into something that claimed to adhere to the standards of modern science. Yes, it claimed to be "science" (it used that word for itself), and it was accepted as "science" by its contemporaries, but it also adhered to the standards of what it itself called "science". So either that's not true science, and so it wasn't claiming to be, or it was true science, and it adhered to it. Either way, the label 'pseudoscience', as a claim to be something one isn't, an essentially deceptive and unconscientious strategy, just doesn't fit pre-modern astrology.
 * Yes, astrology is commonly distinguished from astronomy by the incorrectness of its claims. But it seems to be you who is inferring from this that we should not apply it to pre-13th century practices, which flies in the face of most of our sources who do exactly that. I'm still waiting for you to provide page numbers or quotes of sources which explicitly claim that all the historians talking about astrology are unduly forcing an ahistorical category on early ideas, and/or that contrary to what historians insist it is okay to force the modern concept of pseudoscience on these early ideas. At this point, it looks a lot like WP:SYNTH; we need precise statements that verify the existence and indeed preponderance in RS of the exact claims you are making here. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 11:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm rather agnostic about whether it should be applied to pre-13th century practices. What I am saying is that even if you do apply it to pre-13th Century practices that doesn't then erase the way it was invented as a term to contrast with ideas that are accepted by "modern science". Right now, we have a lot of proposals for wording which describe it as divination and pseudoscience, etc., but what I'm saying is that astrology is defined as those ideas that relate to divination and that are rejected by modern science. As far as I'm concerned, with such a definition you can leave the "pseudoscience" for later discussion as it no longer serves as a definitional matter. Which solves the problem that "pseudoscience" really only applies to how astrology has been practiced after it was defined to be those ideas which are rejected by modern science. This also solves one of the trickier matters: "what is divination"? Was it divination when the astrologers(wink) of Ancient Egypt predicted precisely when the Nile would flood using their sky tracking? By certain broad definitions... sure! But we don't call it "astrology" generally because such "divination" is not rejected by modern science. The more I sit with this framing, the more I like it. jps (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I have to admit, I'm pretty close to saying that we should just keep the article as is. The counterarguments are all pretty weak and the counterproposals have some fatal flaws that are not present in the current draft. Y'all can keep talking about this, but I think that we may be at an impasse as it concerns this particular belief. We all agree it is a pseudoscience (at least as it is practiced by the majority of readers of Wikipedia who practice it, let's say). We also all agree that certain astrological claims are of interest to historical inquiry. Beyond that, I'm not sure we have anything else that there is any consensus on. jps (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Since there's neither a consensus to change the status quo nor a clamoring of support for any proposed alternative, I'm about ready to pack it in, too. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The excellent is the enemy of the good. Current version is pretty good. Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been playing along at home, but the result is inevitable. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 09:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Written in the stars, you might say? Alexbrn (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe there's also a consensus here that, for various reasons, the term 'pseudoscience' cannot be properly applied in most cases to pre-modern subjects. Jps agrees with that, but their solution is to simply write off the use of the term astrology in pre-modern historical contexts, insisting that the precise definition of 'astrology' is the current one, based on a popular understanding of the term rather than that of historians, philosophers, anthropologists, or sociologists. That flies in the face of almost all our sources, which either are writing from a purely historiographical perspective, or at least recognize the gap between ancient and modern astrology, but keep the term 'astrology' and write off the term pseudoscience in pre-modern historical contexts. Sources have been provided which explicitly say that we should relativize the science/pseudoscience distinction to historical periods. In the absence of sources arguing against that, jps' editorial POV carries little weight.
 * I also believe that XOR'easter's most recent proposal, building as it does on earlier proposals which received some support, has a good chance to find consensus. Only jps and RandomCanadian have put forward substantive arguments against it, but as I just said, jps is making strong claims against RS which they did not themselves back up with RS. RandomCanadian's objection to the word "now" is not a deal breaker, as I'm fairly sure we can wordsmith our way out of it, if the word itself really is the substance of RC's objection. We should probably at least work on the proposal a little more, and then perhaps RfC it. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 10:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Further/final wordsmithing
The following is a slightly revised version of the last proposal put forward by XOR'easter, taking on board RandomCanadian's remark that in the previous now recognized as pseudoscientific, "now" referred to a too long stretch of time (the recognition dating back several centuries). It's based on several previous proposals that each found some support. I propose that we put up a version closely based on this one for a RfC. The source for "since the 18th century" is. Please comment on further possible tweaks, preferably addressing issues of clarity and style rather than of substance.

☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 10:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Seems good to me, but a formal RfC is probably a good idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a little concerned about the claims that cultures have employed astrology since the 2nd millennium BCE as this is perhaps a bit anachronistic according to the history of thought on what astrology actually is. I think it would be better to just say that "what is now called astrology has been practiced at least since the 2nd millennium BCE...." jps (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I have some ideas. I don't like them all, but I'm trying to capture my evolving understanding of the issues surrounding this page to some extent. Wordsmithing greatly appreciated:

jps (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Though this obviously does change the substance, I quite like it. It convincingly present rejection by modern science as a defining feature of astrology. The major difficulty now is that "a form of divination that is rejected by modern science" reads as a bit redundant. I believe the point is to intuitively distinguish the practice from astronomical predictions by defining astrology as the type of celestial observation-based predictions that are rejected by modern science, but then 'divination' does not really work ('divination' does not exactly make one think of something that might be scientific). Perhaps is a type of forecasting that is rejected by modern science where practitioners claim to discern ...?
 * Some more minor quibbles. In the second sentence, we may need some specific sourcing which says precisely what we are saying, though I do think it's the most accurate representation of the facts. The word "quintessential" is perhaps somewhat unfortunate in this context, given that quintessence refers to the 'fifth essence' or aether, which according to Stoicizing interpretations of Aristotle was the material but invisible, spiritual force pervading all things, both forming and driving them while connecting them into a cosmic whole. Being concentrated in the stars and planets, subtle or light-like matter of this type was sometimes also conceived of as the material force responsible for astrological interactions (e.g., in the Sirr al-khaliqa, or in al-Kindi's De radiis). We might want to avoid an underhand reference to this type of concept here. Perhaps paradigmatic example?
 * Maybe also add "in different cultures": Records of astrological practices have been documented in different cultures as far back as the 2nd millennium BCE, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 14:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fortune telling is another possibility here. While it is true that "divination" typically implies "not scientific", I think your sources convincingly show that certain ideas which historians or anthropologists might categorize fairly under "divination" could have actual scientific rigor behind them. I'm thinking of that flooding Nile again. "Forecasting" suffers rather from the opposite problem: it's used almost exclusively in the context of scientific predictions these days (modulo the professionalism of your local meteorologist)! jps (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree about forecasting suffering from the opposite problem. Fortune telling is no good though, because it wouldn't at all cover significant forms like medical astrology or meteorological astrology, and would only very remotely fit political astrology (predicting the rise and fall of empires, astrological justifications for a certain dynasty's rule, etc.). Perhaps a type of prognostication? I'm okay with keeping divination too if there's nothing better, I'm just trying to keep readers in mind who won't have gone through the same thought processes as we have here. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Although the status quo seems fine, this newer suggestion of jps/SA probably needs some punctuation/minor tweaking at the start:  Mathsci (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I still definitely prefer the current wording, however, if a consensus is reached to change what we have now, I’d be ok with the second option you wrote. But again, my preference is no change. Cpotisch (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand the hesitancy. We won't change without RfC, that's for sure. jps (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 100% behind this lede, good job jps. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * More wordsmithing

How about "prototypical pseudoscience"? Source, e.g.: We also have the five sources already included in our lede that all attest to the pseudoscience categorization. jps (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Records of astrological practices have been documented in different cultures is redundant, Astrological practices have been documented in different cultures has the same denotation. To the extent that astrologers claim to have empirical evidence that astrology works could be whittled down to To the extent that astrologers claim to have predictive capability or thrown out altogether. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, "prototypical example of a pseudoscience" sounds very good, and Lilienfeld, Lynn & Ammirati 2015 looks like a good source for our purposes here. We should actually also make use of the broader paragraph in which the mention is made in the body of our article: Nevertheless, few scientists believe that Popper’s falsifiability criterion, important as it is, succeeds as a necessary or sufficient criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience. For one thing, certain pseudoscientific claims do appear to be capable of refutation. For example, although astrology is a prototypical pseudoscience, many of its claims, such as the proposition that astrological signs are correlated with personality traits, are falsifiable, and have been essentially falsified (Carlson, 1985). I and one other editor argued this on this talk before (Pseudoscientific and disproven?) but it fell on deaf ears. To this day our article both says that according to Poppers's criterion of falsifiability astrology is a pseudoscience (that it "has not responded to falsification through experiment"!), and that "it has made falsifiable predictions" which "have been falsified", with a nice picture of Popper beside it (!) and without ever pointing out that these two approaches to pseudoscience ('what is unfalsifiable' and 'what has been empirically falsified yet keeps presenting itself as scientific') are mutually contradictory. This is argued at length by Sven Ove Hansson in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's "Science and Pseudo-Science" article, where the exemplary nature of astrology as a pseudoscience is mentioned in the exact same context: Astrology, rightly taken by Popper as an unusually clear example of a pseudoscience, has in fact been tested and thoroughly refuted (Culver and Ianna 1988; Carlson 1985).
 * Lilienfeld, Lynn & Ammirati 2015 do blunder, however, in their opening: The prefix “pseudo” means “false.” is a bit misleading, since ψεύδω primarily means 'to lie, to deceive', 'to lie for one's own benefit', 'to cheat by lies'. At least etymologically, pseudoscience in the first place means 'lying science' or 'intentionally deceptive science' rather than 'false science', which in fact accords with their received view that pseudoscience is not really 'false' science so much as 'fake' science, i.e., science that displays "the superficial appearance of science but largely lack its substance".
 * I Agree with MCRIRE that "records" and "documented" is somewhat redundant, though it's no biggie. I strongly disagree that the vague "predictive capability" would be better than the simple and clear "works", or that the mention of "empirical evidence" would be unneeded: the lack of such evidence is what most philosophers of science (contra Popper) regard as the primary reason to categorize astrology as pseudoscience, and though this should be better explained in the article body, it probably is the way to go for the lead. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 09:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Records and documented may seem redundant, but I'm rather more concerned with getting the wording right to not necessarily imply that the practices were thought of as astrology in the cultures that practiced them: that astrology is a category applied by others on these practices. I think this is one of the main sources of the tension we have between the "two astrologies" I outline above. We call a lot of things "astrology" which are proper mash-ups and contextualized careful "science" (if such a thing can be said to exist prior to the scientific revolution) about which certain sources bemoan a casual dismissal by less careful sources.
 * The Popper/falsifiability thing I felt like was more of a "both/and" scenario. To the extent that astrology makes predictable claims it is falsified. To the extent that it rejects claims that have been falsified as having been falsified (and to the extent that the practitioners claim that it is verified) and to the extent that it makes claims which defy falsification (the classic "vague horoscope" being a favorite example), astrology functions as a pseudoscience. It's both falsified and impossible to falsify depending on which astrologer you listen to.
 * I think "works" is better too because it is more than just questionable claims of predictive capability. It's also such things as arguing that there are "subtle influences".
 * jps (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the most natural way to understand astrological practices have been documented in different cultures is that those who do the documenting think of the practices as 'astrology', not the cultures. In fact, it seems to me that 'documented' is already doing the work you want records of to do: recording is merely a synonym of documenting, so anything conveyed by 'recording' is already conveyed by 'documenting'. Perhaps most importantly, scholars don't document records, they document (or record) practices. According to their own frame of reference, of course.
 * Now I really appreciate your efforts here, and I've been thinking about other ways to make your concern about the 'two astrologies' thing clearer. But ultimately I think it depends too much on a particular POV to be due for the lead paragraph. Whether we like it or not, most historians use the term 'astrology' for ancient practices without asking too much questions about whether ancient cultures themselves had a clear and distinct concept of it. If there's criticism of that in RS, we should cover it in the article body, but it just doesn't seem basic and uncontroversial enough for the lead. All that said, the "records of" is a stylistic issue as far as I'm concerned, which is not what interests me here, so if you think it's better that way, by all means keep it.
 * About (2), I think it's a rather grave problem in our article, but since it's off-topic here I'll self-hat it.


 * Yes, astrology is both in part unfalsiable and in part falsified, but the argument these sources are making is that you can't define pseudoscience both as 'that what is unfalsifiable' and as 'that what is falsified but still upheld'. Astrology is merely used as an example for the debate on how to define pseudoscience (and that's also what we're rightfully saying in our lead here: it is often cited as an example of pseudoscience; the reason why we can have such a long section on it in our article is not because it's so difficult for astrology in particular to establish that it is a pseudoscience, but because attempts to explain why it is pseudoscience bring up the really interesting question, 'what exactly is pseudoscience?'). In Popper's view, anything that is falsifiable is scientific, and so according to his critics, Popper's view would falsely entail that astrology is at least in part scientific. The point is that the views of Popper and those of others of what constitutes pseudoscience are in direct contradiction with each other, yet our article presents them both as facts. It's stupefying that no one around here seems to be able to perceive this.


 * ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2022
Change the opening sentence to:

Astrology is a form of divination that while often regarded as a science throughout its history, is widely considered today to be diametrically opposed to the findings and theories of modern Western science. 87.80.59.179 (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * . See discussions above. Alexbrn (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)